18504 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430

[FRL–5924–8]

RIN 2040–AB53

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Category: Pulp and Paper Production;

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards: Pulp,

Paper, and Paperboard Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards under the Clean Water Act

(CWA) for a portion of the pulp, paper,

and paperboard industry, and national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean

Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 for

the pulp and paper production source

category.

EPA is also promulgating best

management practices under the CWA

for a portion of the pulp, paper, and

paperboard industry, and new analytical

methods for 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants and for adsorbable organic

halides (AOX). This action consolidates

into 12 subcategories what had once

been 26 subcategories of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the pulp, paper, and paperboard

industry, and revises the existing

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory and the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The

revised effluent limitations guidelines

and standards require existing and new

facilities within these two subcategories

to limit the discharge of pollutants into

navigable waters of the United States

and to limit the introduction of

pollutants into publicly owned

treatment works. The NESHAP requires

existing and new major sources within

the pulp and paper production source

category to control emissions using the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) to control

hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

EPA is revising the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory primarily to reduce the

discharge of toxic and nonconventional

chemical compounds found in the

effluents from these mills. Discharge of

these pollutants into the freshwater,

estuarine, and marine ecosystems may

alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life,

and adversely impact human health.

Discharges of chlorinated organic

compounds from chlorine bleaching,

particularly dioxins and furans, are

human carcinogens and human system

toxicants and are extremely toxic to

aquatic life. The final effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are

estimated to reduce the discharge of

adsorbable organic halides (AOX) by

28,210 kkg/year; chloroform by 45 kkg/

year; chlorinated phenolics by 47 kkg/

year; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and

2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) by 125 gm/year.

These reductions will permit all 19

dioxin/furan-related fish consumption

advisories downstream of pulp and

paper mills to be lifted.

EPA is revising the subcategorization

scheme for the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards because the

new scheme better defines the processes

typically found in U.S. mills and thus

results in what ultimately will be a

streamlined regulation that can be

implemented more easily by the permit

writer. With the exception of the new

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories, EPA is making no

substantive changes to the limitations

and standards applicable to the newly

reorganized subcategories. Those

portions of the existing pulp, paper, and

paperboard effluent limitations

guidelines and standards that are not

substantively amended by this action

are not subject to judicial review; nor is

their effective date affected by this

reorganization.

The HAPs emitted by facilities

covered by the NESHAP include such

compounds as methanol, chlorinated

compounds, formaldehyde, benzene,

and xylene. The health effects of

exposure to these and other HAPs at

pulp and paper mills can include

cancer, respiratory irritation, and

damage to the nervous system. The final

NESHAP is expected to reduce baseline

emissions of HAP by 65 percent or

139,000 Mg/yr.

The pollutant reductions resulting

from these rules will achieve the

primary goals of both the CAA and

CWA, which are to ‘‘enhance the quality

of the Nation’s air resources so as to

promote the public health and welfare

and productive capacity of its

population’’ and to ‘‘restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the Nation’s

waters,’’ respectively. These rules will

result in continued environmental

improvement at reasonable cost by

providing flexibility in when and how

results are achieved and, for certain

mills, by providing incentives to surpass

baseline requirements.

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

EPA is concurrently proposing NESHAP

to control hazardous air pollutants from

chemical recovery combustion sources

at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone

semi-chemical pulp mills.

In another proposed rule published in

today’s Federal Register, EPA is also

proposing a regulation that would

require mills enrolled in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program being promulgated for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory to submit a plan specifying

research, construction, and other

activities leading to achievement of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

effluent limitations, with accompanying

dates for achieving these milestones.

Second, EPA proposes to authorize

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory mills under certain

circumstances to submit a certification

based on process changes in lieu of

monitoring for chloroform. Third,

although not proposing totally chlorinefree (TCF) technologies for new source

performance standards under the CWA

for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory at this time, EPA is

requesting comments and data regarding

the feasibility of TCF processes for this

subcategory, especially the range of

products made and their specifications.

In that proposal EPA is also requesting

comments and data regarding the

effluent reduction performance of TCF

processes for this subcategory.

DATES: In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the regulations

shall become effective June 15, 1998.

For compliance dates, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

under the heading ‘‘Compliance Dates.’’

ADDRESSES: Air Dockets. The Air

Dockets are available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday except for

Federal holidays, at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–6102), 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall;

telephone: (202) 260–7548.

Water Docket. The complete public

record for the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards rulemaking is

available for review, Monday through

Friday except for federal holidays, at

EPA’s Water Docket, Room M2616, 401
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18505

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

For access to Docket materials, call (202)

260–3027. The Docket staff requests that

interested parties call between 9:00 am

and 3:30 pm for an appointment before

visiting the docket.

For additional information about the

dockets, see section X.A below.

Background and support documents

containing technical, cost, economic,

and health information, as well as EPA’s

response to public comments, are

available for public use. A listing and

how to obtain these background

documents is provided in section XI in

this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions regarding air emissions

standards for chemical wood pulping

mills, contact Ms. Penny Lassiter,

Emissions Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5396; or

Mr. Stephen Shedd, at the same address,

telephone number (919) 541–5397. For

information concerning the final air

standards for mechanical pulping

processes, secondary fiber pulping

processes, and nonwood fiber pulping

processes, contact Ms. Elaine Manning,

at the same Research Triangle Park

address, telephone number (919) 541–

5499. For questions on compliance,

enforcement and applicability

determinations, contact Ms. Maria

Eisemann, Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

telephone number (202) 564–7106.

For questions regarding wastewater

standards, contact Mr. Donald Anderson

at the following address: Engineering

and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

telephone number (202) 260–7189; or

Ms. Wendy D. Smith at the same

address, telephone number (202) 260–

7184.

For additional information on the

economic impact analyses, contact Dr.

William Wheeler, Office of Water,

Engineering and Analysis Division

(4303), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20460, (202) 260–7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

The preamble summarizes the legal

authority for these rules, background

information, the technical and economic

methodologies used by the Agency to

develop these rules, the impacts of the

rules, regulatory implementation, and

the availability of supporting

documents.

Regulated Entities

Entities regulated by today’s action

are those operations that chemically

pulp and nonchemically pulp wood and

nonwood fibers for pulp and paper

production. EPA projects that

approximately 490 mills are subject to

the air regulations promulgated today.

Of these mills, 155 will be affected by

MACT standards for mills that

chemically pulp wood. Within that

group, 96 are subject to the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

promulgated today. Regulated categories

and entities include:

Category Rule Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...................... NESHAP ............................. Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills that manufacture pulp and paper/paperboard) that:

chemically pulp wood fiber (using kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical methods); pulp

secondary fiber; pulp nonwood fiber; and mechanically pulp wood fiber.

Effluent Guidelines ............. Subset of mills subject to the NESHAP that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft, sulfite,

or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard.

The foregoing table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by the NESHAP

and effluent limitations guidelines and

standards promulgated today. This table

lists the types of entities that EPA is

now aware could potentially be

regulated by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be regulated. To determine whether

your facility or company is regulated by

this NESHAP, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

§ 63.440 of the air rule and the

applicability criteria in part 63, Subpart

A of Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards,

you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 430.20 and

§ 430.50 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations.

If you have questions regarding the

applicability of the NESHAP or the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards, see the section entitled FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR § 23.2, the

water portion of today’s rule shall be

considered promulgated for the

purposes of judicial review at 1 pm

Eastern time on April 29, 1998. Under

section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA), judicial review of today’s

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards is available in the United

States Court of Appeals by filing a

petition for review within 120 days from

the date of promulgation of those

guidelines and standards. Under section

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of

the NESHAP is available only by

petition for review in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit within 60 days of today’s

publication of this NESHAP. Under

section 509(b)(2) of the CWA and

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the

requirements in this regulation may not

be challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must

comply with limitations based on the

best available technology economically

achievable (BAT) as soon as such

requirements are imposed in their

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

The water regulation also establishes

specific deadlines for compliance with

best management practices (BMPs),

which apply to all sources. The new

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements promulgated today are not

effective until the Office of Management

and Budget approves Information

Collection Requests for those

requirements.

Except as provided in today’s BMP

regulation, existing indirect dischargers

subject to today’s water regulations

must comply with the pretreatment

standards for existing sources being

promulgated today by April 16, 2001. In

addition, these dischargers must

continue to comply with the

pretreatment standards for existing

sources for pentachlorophenol and

trichlorophenol.
18506 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Except as provided in today’s BMP

regulation, new direct and indirect

discharging sources must comply with

applicable treatment standards on the

date the new source begins operation.

For purposes of new source

performance standards (NSPS), a source

is a new source if it meets the definition

of ‘‘new source’’ in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and

if it commences construction after June

15, 1998. For purposes of pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), a

source is a new source if it meets the

definition of ‘‘new source’’ in 40 CFR

430.01(j) and if it commenced

construction after December 17, 1993.

The following compliance dates apply

to the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program being codified today

as part of the water regulations for

Subpart B. Each existing direct

discharging mill that enrolls in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must comply

immediately with limitations based on

the mill’s existing effluent quality or its

current technology-based permit limits

for the baseline BAT parameters,

whichever are more stringent.

Participating mills must also comply

with mill-specific interim milestones by

the dates specified in their NPDES

permits. They must also achieve the

baseline BAT effluent limitations for

dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 specified

chlorinated organic pollutants and, for

mills enrolled at the Tier II or Tier III

level, AOX no later than April 15, 2004.

Finally, participating mills must achieve

BAT limitations corresponding to the

most stringent phase of the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program by the dates specified below:

Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier I

must be achieved by April 15, 2004.

Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier II

must be achieved by April 15, 2009.

Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier III

must be achieved by April 15, 2014.

For new direct discharging mills in

Subpart B, EPA is promulgating

Voluntary NSPS at the Tier II and Tier

III levels. Participating new sources

must achieve NSPS at the selected level

upon commencing operation.

Compliance dates for the NESHAP are

as follows: Existing sources must

comply with the NESHAP no later than

April 16, 2001 except for the following

cases. Equipment in the high volume

low concentration (HVLC) system at

existing sources at kraft mills (e.g., pulp

washer systems, oxygen delignification

systems) must comply no later than

April 17, 2006. Bleach plants at existing

source kraft and soda mills participating

in the effluent limitations guidelines

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must comply with

the first stage of the NESHAP no later

June 15, 1998 and with the second stage

no later than April 15, 2004.

Once today’s rules take effect on June

15, 1998, new sources must comply

with applicable MACT requirements

upon start-up. For a discussion of the

circumstances under which a source

becomes a new source for compliance

with new source air emissions

standards, see Sections II.B.2.b. and

VI.A.1.

Technology Transfer Network

The Technology Transfer Network

(TTN) is one of EPA’s electronic bulletin

boards. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control. New air

regulations are now being posted on the

TTN through the world wide web at

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ttn.’’ For more

information on the TTN, call the HELP

line at (919) 591–5384.

Information on the water regulations

may be accessed through the world

wide web at http://www.epa.gov/OST/

Rules/#final.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority

II. Scope of This Rulemaking

A. EPA’s Long-Term Environmental Goals

B. National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

III. Background

A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of

Data Availability, and Public

Participation

B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority

C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority

D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the

Pulp and Paper Industry

IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal

V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities

Since Proposal

A. Data Gathering for the Development of

Air Emissions Standards

B. Data Gathering for the Development of

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since

Proposal and Rationale for the Selection

of the Final Regulations

A. Air Emission Standards

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

VII. Environmental Impacts

A. Summary of Sources and Level of

Control

B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent

Reductions

C. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts of Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES,

and BMPs)

D. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts of New Source Performance

Standards and Pretreatment Standards

for New Source (NSPS and PSNS)

VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts,

and Benefits

A. Summary of Costs and Economic

Impacts

B. Overview of Economic Analysis

C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air

Emissions Standards

D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated

Rule

F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/

PSES Options for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

G. Benefits

H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Subcategory—Option B and TCF

J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case

Studies

IX. Incentives for Further Environmental

Improvements

A. The Voluntary Advances Technology

Incentives Program

B. Incentives Available After Achievement

of Advanced Technology BAT

Limitations and NSPS

X. Administrative Requirements and Related

Government Acts or Initiatives

A. Dockets

B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB

Review

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Pollution Prevention Act

G. Common Sense Initiative

H. Executive Order 12875

I. Executive Order 12898

J. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

K. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

XI. Background Documents

I. Legal Authority

These regulations are being

promulgated under the authority of

sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402,

and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,

1318, 1342, and 1361, and sections 112,

114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. sections 7412, 7414, and 7601.

II. Scope of This Rulemaking

Today’s Cluster Rules consist of

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the control of wastewater

pollutants and national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants.

The final rules issued today are based

on extensive information gathered by

the Agency and on comments received

from interested parties during the

development of these regulations.

Section VI of this notice discusses the

major changes since proposal and the

rationale for the regulatory decisions
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18507

underlying the rules promulgated today.

This summary section highlights the

technology bases and other key aspects

of the final rules. More detailed

descriptions are included in the

supporting documents listed in section

XI.

In addition, the Agency is today

codifying the subcategorization scheme

that was proposed for 40 CFR parts 430

and 431, see 58 FR 66078, 66098–100

(Dec. 17, 1993) and is redesignating the

section and subpart numbers in 40 CFR

part 430 accordingly.

A. EPA’s Long-Term Environmental

Goals

EPA has integrated the development

of the regulations discussed today to

provide greater protection of human

health and the environment, reduce the

cost of complying with the wastewater

regulations and air emissions controls,

promote and facilitate coordinated

compliance planning by industry,

promote and facilitate pollution

prevention, and emphasize the

multimedia nature of pollution control.

The Agency envisions a long-term

approach to environmental

improvement that is consistent with

sound capital expenditures. This

approach, which is presented in today’s

notice, stems from extensive discussions

with a range of stakeholders. The

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards and air emissions standards

are only one component of the

framework to achieve long-term

environmental goals. The overall

regulatory framework also includes

incentives to reward and encourage

mills that implement pollution

prevention beyond regulatory

requirements. The Agency will continue

to encourage mill-specific solutions to

remaining environmental problems

through water quality-based

requirements in permits and

enforcement of those requirements. In

addition, continuing research on

minimum impact technologies, such as

closed-loop and totally chlorine-free

bleaching processes, will help to

identify economical ways of furthering

environmental improvement in this

industry.

EPA’s long-term goals include

improved air quality, improved water

quality, the elimination of fish

consumption advisories downstream of

mills, and the elimination of

ecologically significant

bioaccumulation. An integral part of

these goals is an industry committed to

continuous environmental

improvement—an industry that

aggressively pursues research and pilot

projects to identify technologies that

will reduce, and ultimately eliminate,

pollutant discharges from existing and

new sources. A holistic approach to

implementing these pollution

prevention technologies would

contribute to the long-term goal of

minimizing impacts of mills in all

environmental media by moving mills

toward closed-loop process operations.

Effective implementation of these

technologies is capable of increasing

reuse of recoverable materials and

energy while concurrently reducing

consumption of raw materials (e.g.,

process water, unrecoverable chemicals,

etc.), and reducing air emissions and

generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. EPA expects that this

combination of regulation, research,

pilot projects, and incentives will foster

continuous environmental improvement

with each mill investment cycle. For

this reason, EPA is including an

incentives program as part of the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards being promulgated today for

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills that accept enforceable permit

limits requiring effluent reductions well

beyond the rule’s regulatory baseline

(see Section IX). To ensure that today’s

air emission standards do not present

barriers or disincentives to mills in

choosing technologies beyond baseline

BAT, EPA is providing additional time

to comply with MACT beyond the threeyear compliance time for certain process

units. See Sections VI.A.3.b and VI.A.7

for details on MACT compliance times.

B. National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

1. Purpose of the NESHAP

The main purposes of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) are to protect and enhance

the quality of our Nation’s air resources,

and to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of

the population. See CAA, section

101(b)(1). To this end, section 112(d) of

the CAA directs EPA to set standards for

stationary sources emitting greater than

ten tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of

total HAPs annually (one ton is equal to

0.908 megagrams). EPA is promulgating

this NESHAP because pulp and paper

mills are major sources of HAP

emissions. Individual mills are capable

of emitting as much as several hundred

tons per year (tpy) of HAPs. The HAPs

emitted may adversely affect air quality

and public health. The HAPs controlled

by this rule are associated with a variety

of adverse health effects including

cancer; a number of other toxic health

effects such as headaches, nausea, and

respiratory distress; and possible

reproductive effects.

a. Hazardous Air Pollutants. Table II–

1 lists the 14 HAPs emitted in the

largest quantities from pulp and paper

mills. A few HAPs emitted from pulp

and paper mills have been classified as

possible, probable, or known human

carcinogens. These include

acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon

tetrachloride, chloroform,

formaldehyde, and methylene chloride.

The total reduction in national HAP

emissions by compliance with the

NESHAP is estimated to be 139,000

megagrams per year (Mg/yr).

TABLE II–1.—HIGHEST EMITTED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM

PULP AND PAPER MILLS

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Acrolein ..................... Methanol.

Acetaldehyde ............. Methylene chloride.

o-Cresol ..................... Methyl ethyl ketone.

Carbon tetrachloride .. Phenol.

Chloroform ................. Propionaldehyde.

Cumene ..................... 1,2,4-

Trichlorobenzene.

Formaldehyde ........... o-Xylene.

b. Volatile Organic Compounds.

Emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) have been associated

with a variety of health and welfare

impacts. Volatile organic compound

emissions, together with nitrogen oxides

(NOX), are precursors to the formation of

tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ozone

is responsible for a series of health

impacts, such as alterations in lung

capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation;

malaise and nausea; and aggravation of

existing respiratory disease. Among the

welfare impacts from exposure to ozone

include damage to selected commercial

timber species and economic losses for

commercially valuable crops, such as

soybeans and cotton. The total

reduction in national VOC emissions by

compliance with the NESHAP is

estimated to be 409,000 Mg/yr.

c. Total Reduced Sulfur Compounds.

Total reduced sulfur (TRS) compound

emissions are responsible for the

malodors often associated with pulp

and paper production. The total

reduction in TRS compound emissions

estimated as a result of compliance with

this NESHAP is 79,000 Mg/yr. Surveys

of odor pollution caused by pulp mills

have supported a link between odor and

health symptoms such as headaches,

watery eyes, nasal problems, and

breathing difficulties.

2. Summary of the NESHAP

The MACT standards apply to pulp

and paper mills that have the potential

to emit ten tons per year of any one HAP
18508 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

or 25 tons per year of all HAPs (one ton

is equal to 0.908 megagrams). Potential

to emit is based on the total of all HAP

emissions from all activities at the mill.

The NESHAP specifies emission

standards for pulping processes and

bleaching processes. The emission

standards for pulping and bleaching

processes provide several options for

compliance, including an alternative

pollution prevention option (the ‘‘clean

condensate alternative’’) for the kraft

pulping process. The standards specify

compliance dates for new and existing

sources, require control devices to be

properly operated and maintained at all

times, and clarify the applicability of

the NESHAP General Provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) to sources

subject to this rule.

The rule subcategorizes the industry

to specify different emission standards

based on the type of pulping process

(kraft, sulfite, semi-chemical, soda,

mechanical wood pulping, secondary

fiber pulping, or non-wood pulping) and

bleaching process (papergrade or

dissolving grade). Mills that chemically

pulp wood using kraft, semi-chemical,

sulfite, or soda processes are referred to

in later sections as MACT I mills. Mills

that mechanically pulp wood, or that

pulp secondary fiber or non-wood

fibers, or that produce paper or

paperboard from purchased pulp are

referred to in later sections as MACT III

mills.

The emission control requirements for

new and existing sources within each

subcategory are the same, except that

more emission points are covered for

sources subject to the new source

provisions. Where two or more

subcategories are located at the same

mill site and share a piece of equipment,

that piece of equipment would be

considered a part of the subcategory

with the more stringent MACT

requirements for that piece of

equipment. For example, the foul

condensates from an evaporation set

processing both kraft weak black liquor

and spent liquor from a semi-chemical

process would have to comply with the

kraft subcategory requirements for foul

condensate. This more stringent

requirement is appropriate because

there is no way to isolate the emissions

for each pulping source to determine

compliance separately.

These standards do not address

emissions from recovery area

combustion sources (referred to in later

sections as MACT II). These sources are

being regulated under a separate

NESHAP, which is proposed elsewhere

in today’s Federal Register. A summary

of the specific provisions that apply to

each of the subcategories is given in the

later parts of this section.

a. Definition of Affected Source. At

chemical wood pulping mills, the

affected source is all emission points in

the pulping and bleaching systems. At

mills that mechanically pulp wood,

secondary fibers, or non-wood

materials, the affected source is all

emission points in the bleaching system.

For kraft mills complying with the clean

condensate alternative, the affected

source is the pulping system, bleaching

system, causticizing system, and

papermaking system.

b. New Source MACT. New source

MACT applies to: (1) An affected source

that commenced construction or

reconstruction after initial proposal; (2)

pulping or bleaching systems that are

reconstructed after initial proposal; and

(3) new pulping systems, pulping lines,

bleaching systems, and bleaching lines

that are added to existing sources after

initial proposal. The initial proposal

date for mills that chemically pulp

wood is December 17, 1993. The initial

proposal date for mills that

mechanically pulp wood, pulp

secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood

materials is March 8, 1996.

Descriptions of equipment in each

subcategory subject to new source

MACT requirements are presented in

later sections of this preamble.

c. Compliance Times. The rule

requires existing sources to comply with

the NESHAP no later than April 16,

2001, except for the following cases.

Existing kraft sources are required to

control all the equipment in the HVLC

collection system no later than April 17,

2006. Dissolving-grade mills are

required to comply with bleaching

system standards no later than three

years after publication of the wastewater

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards under 40 CFR part 430,

subparts A and D.

In addition, the NESHAP sets out a

two-phased standard for existing source

papergrade kraft and soda bleach mills

that elect, under the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program, to control wastewater

discharges to levels surpassing today’s

BAT baseline. The first phase for

existing source MACT requires no

increase in the existing HAP emission

levels from the papergrade bleaching

system—i.e., no backsliding—during the

initial period when the mill is working

toward meeting its Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT requirements. EPA has

determined that immediate compliance

with this requirement is practicable

because the requirement reflects, for

each mill, the performance level it is

presently achieving. Therefore, the

effective date of the first phase

requirements is June 15, 1998. The

second phase of existing source MACT

requires the mill either to comply with

BAT for all pollutant parameters at the

baseline level for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,

or to certify that chlorine and

hypochlorite are not used in the bleach

plant, in order to achieve the MACT

standard for chloroform emission

reduction; it also requires the mill to

apply controls for other chlorinated

HAPs. All such mills that enroll in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must comply with

the second phase of existing source

MACT no later than April 15, 2004.

Once today’s rules take effect on June

15, 1998, new sources must comply

with applicable MACT requirements

upon start-up.

d. Kraft Pulping Standards. For

existing sources, the kraft pulping

standards promulgated today apply to

the following equipment systems: The

low volume high concentration (LVHC)

system, the pulp washing system, the

oxygen delignification system, decker

systems that do not use fresh water or

whitewater from papermaking systems

or that use process water with HAP

concentrations greater than or equal to

400 parts per million by weight (ppmw),

and knotter systems and screening

systems that have total system

emissions greater than or equal to 0.05

and 0.10 kilograms of HAP per

megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP)

produced, respectively (or have total

[i.e., knotter and screening] system

emissions greater than or equal to 0.15

kilograms of HAP per megagram of ODP

produced combined). For new sources,

the kraft pulping standards apply to the

equipment systems listed above for

existing sources, plus weak liquor

storage tanks, all knotter systems, all

screening systems, and all decker

systems.

Sources subject to the kraft pulping

standards must enclose open process

equipment and route all emissions

through a closed-vent system to a

control device. The closed-vent system

must be designed and operated with no

detectable leaks. The rule provides three

control device options, as follows: (1)

Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent

by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to

a level of 20 parts per million volume

[ppmv] of total HAP, corrected to 10

percent oxygen on a dry basis); (2)

reduce HAPs by using a properly

operated design thermal oxidizer

(operated at a minimum temperature of

1,600 °F and a minimum residence time

of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by

using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18509

furnace that introduces all emission

streams to be controlled with the

primary fuel or into the flame zone.

The kraft condensate standards apply

to condensate streams generated in the

following kraft pulping processes:

Digester system, evaporator system,

turpentine recovery system, LVHC

collection system, and the high volumelow concentration (HVLC) collection

system. The HAP mass loading in the

condensates from these systems must be

reduced by 92 percent, based upon

performance of steam stripping. The

NESHAP also includes the following

four alternative ways to meet the kraft

condensate standard: (1) Recycle

applicable condensate streams to

process equipment that is controlled in

accordance with the kraft pulping

standards; (2) reduce the concentration

of HAP (measured as methanol) in the

condensate to 330 ppmw for kraft mills

with bleaching systems, or 210 ppmw

for kraft mills without bleaching

systems; (3) remove at least 5.1

kilograms of HAP (measured as

methanol) per megagram of ODP

produced for kraft mills with bleaching

systems, or remove at least 3.3 kilogram

of HAP per megagram of ODP produced

for kraft mills without bleaching

systems; or (4) discharge pulping

process condensates to a biological

treatment system achieving at least 92

percent destruction of total HAP.

The pulping process condensates

must be conveyed to the treatment

system in a closed collection system

that is designed and operated to meet

the individual drain system

requirements specified in §§ 63.960,

63.961, 63.962, and 63.964 of subpart

RR. These essentially require that the

means of conveyance be leak-free. Air

emissions of HAP from vents on any

condensate treatment systems (except

biological treatment systems) that are

used to comply with the standards must

be routed to a control device meeting

the kraft pulping standards.

All the pulping process condensates

from the LVHC and HVLC collection

systems must be treated. However, the

facility has the option of minimizing the

condensate volume sent to treatment

from the digester system, turpentine

recovery system, and weak liquor feed

stages in the evaporator system (i.e.,

condensate segregation). If sufficient

segregation is not achieved, then the

entire volume of condensate from the

digester system, turpentine recovery

system, and weak liquor feed stages in

the evaporator system and the LVHC

and HVLC collection systems must be

treated.

Two options are provided in the rule

for determining if sufficient segregation

has been achieved. The first option is to

isolate at least 65 percent of the total

HAP mass in the total of all condensates

from the digester system, turpentine

recovery system, and weak liquor feed

stages in the evaporator system.

The second option requires that a

minimum total HAP mass from the high

HAP-concentrated condensates from the

digester system, turpentine recovery

system, and weak liquor feed stages in

the evaporator system and the LVHC

and HVLC collection system

condensates be sent to treatment.

e. Clean Condensate Alternative

Standards for Kraft Pulping. The final

rule provides an alternative compliance

option to the kraft pulping standards for

subject equipment in the HVLC systems.

This alternative compliance option is

referred to as the clean condensate

alternative (CCA). The CCA focuses on

reducing the HAP concentration in

process water (such as from the

digestion and liquor evaporation areas)

that is introduced into process

equipment throughout the mill. By

reducing the amount of HAP in the

process water, reductions in HAP

emissions will also be achieved since

less HAP will be available to volatilize

off the process to the atmosphere. To

demonstrate compliance, the mass

emission reduction of HAPs achieved by

the alternative technology must equal or

exceed that which would have been

achieved by implementing the kraft

pulping vent controls.

Eligibility for this compliance

alternative is determined on a case-bycase basis during the permitting process.

For purposes of developing a

compliance strategy, sources may use

either emission test data or engineering

assessment to determine the baseline

HAP emission reductions that would be

achieved by complying with the kraft

pulping vent standard. To demonstrate

that the alternative technology complies

with the emission reduction

requirements of the standards, emission

test data must be used. Two conditions

must be met for a CCA compliance

demonstration: (1) Owners and

operators that choose this alternative

must first comply with pulping process

condensate standards before

implementing the alternative

technology; and (2) the HAP emission

reductions cannot include reductions

associated with any control equipment

required by local, state, or Federal

agencies’ regulations or statutes or with

emission reductions attributed to

equipment installed prior to December

17, 1993 (i.e., the date of publication of

the proposed rule).

For purposes of the CCA, the rule

provides an alternative definition of the

affected source. The alternative

definition allows for the CCA to apply

to process systems outside of the kraft

pulping system. The expanded source

includes the causticizing system and the

papermaking system. The mill must

specify the process equipment within

the expanded source with which to

generate the required HAP emissions

reductions using the CCA. The mass

emission reduction of HAPs must equal

or exceed the reduction that would have

been achieved through application of

the kraft pulping vent standards. The

final determination of equivalency shall

be made by the permitting authority

based on an evaluation of the HAP

emission reductions.

f. Sulfite Pulping Standards. For

existing sources, the sulfite pulping

standards apply to the digester system

vents, evaporator system vents, and the

pulp washing system. The sulfite

pulping standards also apply to air

emissions from the effluent from any

equipment used to reduce HAP

emissions to comply with the standards

(e.g., acid plant scrubber and nuisance

scrubber). For new sources, the sulfite

pulping standards apply to the

equipment systems listed for existing

sources, plus weak liquor tanks, strong

liquor storage tanks, and acid

condensate storage tanks.

Sources subject to the sulfite pulping

standards for equipment systems must

enclose open process equipment and

route all HAP emissions through a

closed-vent system to a control device.

The closed-vent system must be

designed and operated with no

detectable leaks. The total HAP

emissions from the equipment systems

and from the effluent from any control

device used to reduce HAP emissions

must meet a mass emission limit or a

percent reduction requirement.

Calcium- and sodium-based sulfite

pulping mills must meet an emission

limit of 0.44 kilograms of methanol per

megagram of ODP or achieve a 92

percent methanol reduction.

Ammonium- and magnesium-based

sulfite pulping mills must meet an

emission limit of 1.1 kilograms of

methanol per megagram of ODP limit or

achieve an 87 percent methanol

removal.

g. Semi-Chemical Pulping Standards.

For existing sources, the semi-chemical

pulping standards apply to the LVHC

vent system. For new sources, semichemical pulping standards apply to the

LVHC system and the pulp washing

system.

Sources subject to the semi-chemical

pulping standards must enclose open

process equipment and route all

emissions through a closed-vent system
18510 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

to a control device. Positive-pressure

portions of the closed-vent system must

be designed and operated with no

detectable leaks. The rule provides three

control device options, as follows: (1)

Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent

by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to

a level of 20 ppmv of total HAP,

corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry

basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a

properly operated thermal oxidizer

(operated at a minimum temperature of

1,600 °F and a minimum residence time

of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by

using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery

furnace that introduces all emission

streams to be controlled with the

primary fuel or into the flame zone.

h. Soda Pulping Standards. For

existing sources, the soda pulping

standards apply to the LVHC vent

system. For new sources, the soda

pulping standards apply to the LVHC

system and the pulp washing system.

Sources subject to the soda pulping

standards must enclose open process

equipment and route all emissions

through a closed-vent system to a

control device. Positive pressure

portions of the closed-vent system must

be designed and operated with no

detectable leaks. The rule provides three

control device options, as follows: (1)

Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent

by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to

a level of 20 ppmv of total HAP,

corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry

basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a

properly operated thermal oxidizer

(operated at a minimum temperature of

1,600 °F and a minimum residence time

of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by

using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery

furnace that introduces all emission

streams to be controlled with the

primary fuel or into the flame zone.

i. Bleaching System Standards. The

bleaching provisions apply to bleaching

systems that use elemental chlorine to

bleach pulp. At kraft, sulfite, and soda

pulping processes, the bleaching system

provisions also apply to bleaching

systems that use chlorinated

compounds to bleach pulp. At

mechanical pulping, non-wood fiber

pulping, and secondary fiber pulping

mills, only bleaching systems that use

elemental chlorine or chlorine dioxide

to bleach pulp are subject to the

NESHAP. Bleaching systems that do not

use chlorine or chlorinated compounds

are considered to be in compliance with

the bleaching system requirements. For

the applicable systems (i.e., bleaching or

brightening in the different

subcategories), the chlorinated HAP

emissions from bleaching systems that

use elemental chlorine or chlorinated

compounds must be controlled. Existing

source and new source requirements are

the same.

Sources subject to the bleaching

system standards must enclose process

equipment in the bleaching stages and

route all emissions through a closedvent system to a control device that

achieves either a 99 percent reduction of

chlorinated HAP’s (other than

chloroform), an outlet concentration at

or below 10 ppmv total chlorinated HAP

(other than chloroform), or a mass

emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of

total chlorinated HAP (other than

chloroform) per Mg ODP produced.

Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for

measuring total chlorinated HAP. The

closed-vent system must be designed

and operated with no detectable leaks.

With respect to chloroform emissions

from bleaching systems, EPA is closely

correlating the air and water standards.

This is because EPA is relying on the

same process change technology basis to

control both chloroform emissions to air

and pollutant discharges to water. Thus,

MACT to control chloroform for

bleaching systems requires a mill either

to meet the applicable baseline effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

all pollutants being promulgated today

under the Clean Water Act or to certify

that chlorine and hypochlorite are not

used in the bleaching system.

However, EPA at present lacks

sufficient information to establish new

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for dissolving grade mills, and

also lacks information to reliably

ascertain what a MACT standard for

chloroform air emissions would be for

this unit operation. (It is not appropriate

to set MACT standards for chloroform

based on the control technology in use

today to comply with current effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

dissolving grade mills because these

technologies are at the wastewater

treatment system, rather than in the

bleaching process where the

chloroform-emitting vents are located.)

EPA intends to set new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

dissolving grade mills after analyses

currently underway by EPA are

complete, and is deferring establishing

MACT standards for chloroform until

these effluent limitations guidelines and

standards are established. Therefore,

dissolving grade mills will be required

to control chloroform air emissions

three years after the new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards are

promulgated.

In a related action, EPA is also

deferring establishing MACT for

chlorinated HAPs other than chloroform

from dissolving grade bleaching

operations until three years after

promulgation of new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

mills performing those operations. The

Agency is doing so in order to avoid

imposition of CAA requirements which

would be inconsistent with, or

superseded by, forthcoming CWA

regulations.

EPA is not aware of any control

presently in place or any available

control technology for reducing

chloroform air emissions at mechanical,

secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping

mills. Therefore, MACT for chloroform

at these mills is no control. Today’s

water rule does not set new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

control of chloroform at mechanical,

secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping

mills, but EPA will evaluate whether it

is appropriate to do so at a later time.

At that time, EPA will also determine

whether it is appropriate to revise

MACT (pursuant to CAA section

112(d)(6)) in order to control chloroform

emissions at those mills.

In addition, EPA is establishing

MACT in two phases for bleach plant

emissions from existing source

papergrade kraft and soda bleaching

plants which elect, under the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program, to control wastewater

discharges to levels surpassing the

baseline BAT limitations being

promulgated today under the CWA.

Phase one represents the present MACT

floor for existing sources, i.e., no

backsliding from existing controls

during the initial period when a mill is

working toward meeting its Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT

requirements; phase two requires the

mill either to meet baseline BAT

requirements for all pollutants for

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills or to certify that chlorine and

hypochlorite are not used in the

bleaching system. EPA is establishing

MACT in two phases in order to avoid

discouraging plants from electing

environmentally superior levels of

wastewater treatment represented by the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. These points are

discussed in detail in section VI.A.7.

j. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary

Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood Pulping

Mill, and Papermaking System

Standards. Mechanical pulping

(groundwood, thermomechanical,

pressurized) mills, secondary fiber

pulping mills, and non-wood pulping

mills must comply with the bleaching

system standards described in section

II.B.2.i. There are no control

requirements for pulping systems or

process condensates at these mills. For
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18511

papermaking systems, there are no

control requirements.

k. Test Methods. The standards

specify test methods and procedures for

demonstrating that process equipment

and condensate streams are in

compliance with the MACT standards

or are exempt from the rule. The rule

also includes provisions to test for no

detectable leaks from closed-vent

systems. Because the majority of all

non-chlorinated HAP emissions from

process equipment and in pulping

process condensates is methanol, in

most cases the owner or operator has the

option of measuring methanol as a

surrogate for total HAP. For

demonstrating compliance using

biological treatment or the CCA, the

owner or operator must measure total

HAP. To demonstrate compliance with

the concentration limit requirements,

mass emission limit requirements, and

percent reduction requirements for

bleaching systems, chlorine may be

measured as a surrogate for total

chlorinated HAP emissions (other than

chloroform).

l. Monitoring Provisions. Sources

subject to the NESHAP are required to

continuously monitor specific process

or operating parameters for control

devices and collection systems.

Continuous emissions monitoring is not

required, except as an alternative to

certain control requirements. Parameter

values are to be established during an

initial performance test. Alternative

monitoring parameters must be

demonstrated to the Administrator’s

satisfaction to comply with the

standards. As at proposal, excursions

outside the selected parameter values

are violations except for biological

treatment systems. If a biological

treatment system monitoring parameter

is outside the established range, a

performance test must be performed.

The parameters that must be monitored

for vent and condensate compliance are

explained below.

Mills using a thermal oxidizer must

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

a temperature monitoring device and

continuous recorder to measure the

temperature in the firebox or in the

ductwork immediately downstream of

the firebox before any substantial heat

exchange occurs. Mills using gas

scrubbers at bleaching systems or sulfite

processes must install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a device to

monitor and continuously record (1) pH

or the oxidation/reduction potential of

scrubber effluent, (2) vent gas inlet flow

rate, and (3) scrubber liquid influent

flow rate. As an alternative to

monitoring these parameters, mills

complying with the bleaching system

outlet concentration option must install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a device

to monitor and continuously record the

chlorine outlet concentration. Mills

complying with the bleaching system

outlet mass emission limit option must

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

a device to monitor and continuously

record the chlorine outlet concentration

and the scrubber outlet vent gas flow.

Bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills enrolling in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program in the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards portion of

today’s rule must monitor the

application rates of chlorine and

hypochlorite to demonstrate that no

increase in chlorine or hypochlorite use

occurs between June 15, 1998 and April

15, 2004.

Mills using steam strippers must

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

a device to monitor and continuously

record process water feed rate, steam

feed rate, and process water feed

temperature. As an alternative to

monitoring those parameters, mills

complying with the steam stripper

outlet concentration option may install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a device

to monitor the methanol outlet

concentration. In addition to monitoring

around the stream stripper, mills that

choose to treat a smaller, more

concentrated volume of condensate

rather than the whole volume of subject

condensates must also continuously

monitor the condensates to demonstrate

that the minimum mass or percent of

total mass is being treated. This practice

is often referred to as condensate

segregation. Mills complying with the

condensate segregation requirements

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate monitors for appropriate

parameters as determined during the

initial performance test.

Mills using a biological treatment

system to treat pulping process

condensates must monitor on a daily

basis samples of outlet soluble BOD5

concentration (maximum daily and

monthly averages), inlet liquid flow,

mixed liquor volatile suspended solids

(MLVSS), liquid temperature, and the

horsepower of aerator units.

Additionally, inlet and outlet grab

samples from each biological treatment

system unit must be collected and

stored for 5 days. These samples must

be collected and stored since some of

the monitoring parameters (e.g., soluble

BOD5) cannot be determined within a

short period of time. These samples are

to be used in conjunction with the

WATER8 emissions model to

demonstrate compliance if the soluble

BOD5, MLVSS, or the aerator

horsepower monitoring parameters fall

outside the range established during the

initial performance test.

Monitoring requirements for the

pulping process condensate collection

systems include initial and monthly

visual inspections of individual drain

system components and vent control

devices (if used), and repair of defects.

Additionally, inspection and monitoring

requirements from § 63.964 of subpart

RR (National Emission Standards for

Individual Drain Systems) are

incorporated in the final rule.

Monitoring requirements for vent

collection systems are (1) a visual

inspection of the closed-vent system

and enclosure opening seals initially

and every 30 days, (2) demonstration of

no detectable leaks initially and

annually for positive pressure systems

or portions of systems, and (3) repair of

defects and leaks as soon as practical.

For the CCA, EPA is not specifying

the parameters to be monitored in the

final rule since the types of equipment

that would be used in the CCA are not

known at this time. Consequently, the

final rule specifies that owners or

operators choosing to use the CCA must

conduct an initial performance test to

determine the appropriate parameters

and corresponding parameter values to

be monitored continuously. Rationale

for the parameter selection must also be

provided for the Administrator’s

approval.

m. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Provisions. Sources subject to the

NESHAP are required to comply with

recordkeeping and reporting provisions

in the part 63 General Provisions, and

other specified requirements in the

NESHAP.

Sources subject to the rule are

required to keep readily accessible

records of monitored parameters. The

monitoring records must be maintained

for five years (two years on-site, three

years off-site). For each enclosure

opening, closed-vent system, and

pulping process condensate storage

tank, the owner or operator must record

the equipment type and identification;

results of negative pressure tests and

leak detection tests; and specific

information on the nature of the defect

and repairs. The position of bypass line

valves, the condition of valve seals, and

the duration of the use of bypass valves

on computer controlled valves must also

be recorded.

Sources subject to the NESHAP are

required to submit the following types

of reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2)

Notification of Performance Tests, (3)

Exceedance Reports, and (4) Semiannual Summary Reports. Exceedance

and summary reports are not required
18512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

for emission points that are exempt from

the rule. Kraft mills must also submit,

initially and bi-annually, a non-binding

compliance strategy report for pulping

sources electing to comply with the

eight-year compliance extension

(including the CCA) and for bleaching

sources at bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mills electing to comply with

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT requirements. The compliance

strategy report must contain, among

other information, a description of the

emission controls or process

modifications selected for compliance

and a compliance schedule indicating

when each step toward compliance will

be reached. For mills complying with

the CCA, the report must contain a

description of alternative control

technology used, identify each piece of

equipment affected by the alternative

technology, and estimate total HAP

emissions and emission reductions.

C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

1. Subcategorization and Schedule

EPA is replacing the subcategorization

scheme under the former effluent

limitations guidelines for this industry

(in 40 CFR parts 430 and 431) with a

revised subcategorization scheme. EPA

is redesignating the Builders’ Paper and

Roofing Felt category, formerly

regulated in 40 CFR part 431, to a

subcategory in part 430. This eliminates

CFR part 431. The Agency is also

redesignating the previous subpart

numbers and section numbers, which

are shown in Table II–2.

EPA is making no substantive changes

to the limitations and standards for any

newly redesignated subcategory except

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory (new subpart B) and

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (new

subpart E). The rationale for changing

the existing subcategorization scheme is

discussed in the proposal (58 FR at

66098–66100), the Development

Document for Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard

Point Source Category, also referred to

as the proposal Technical Development

Document (EPA 821–R93–019), and

EPA’s response to comments on this

issue (DCN 14497, Vol. 1).

Although the Agency is codifying the

revised subcategorization scheme for the

whole industry today, EPA will

promulgate revised effluent limitations

guidelines and standards, as

appropriate, for this industrial category

in stages consisting of several

subcategories at a time. The Agency has

labeled these groupings of subcategories

as ‘‘Phase I,’’ ‘‘Phase II,’’ and ‘‘Phase

III.’’ The schedule for these phases is

explained below and in the following

table.

TABLE II–2.—FINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR

PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)

Final codified

subpart Final subcategorization scheme Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with previous 40 CFR part 430 subparts noted)

Promulgation

schedule

(phase)*

A ......................... Dissolving Kraft ................................ Dissolving Kraft (F) ...................................................................................... III

B ......................... Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda.

Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached Kraft (H), Fine Bleached Kraft

(I), Soda (P).

I**

C ......................... Unbleached Kraft .............................. Unbleached Kraft (A) ................................................................................... II

Linerboard

Bag and Other Products

Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V)

D ......................... Dissolving Sulfite .............................. Dissolving Sulfite (K) ................................................................................... III

Nitration

Viscose

Cellophane

Acetate

E ......................... Papergrade Sulfite ............................ Papergrade Sulfite (J, U) ............................................................................. I**

Calcium-, Magnesium-, and Sodium-based pulps.Blow Pit Wash

Drum Wash

Ammonium-based pulps.

Specialty grade pulps.

F ......................... Semi-Chemical ................................. Semi-Chemical (B) ....................................................................................... II

Ammonia

Sodium

G ........................ Mechanical Pulp ............................... Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), Groundwood-Coarse, Molded,

News (N), Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-Chemi-Mechanical (L).

II

H ......................... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp ................ Miscellaneous mills not covered by a specific subpart ............................... II

I .......................... Secondary Fiber Deink ..................... Deink Secondary Fiber (Q) .......................................................................... II

Fine Papers

Tissue Papers

Newsprint

J ......................... Secondary Fiber Non-Deink ............. Tissue from Wastepaper (T), Paperboard from Wastepaper (E) ................ II

Corrugating Medium

Non-Corrugating Medium

Wastepaper-Molded Products (W)

Builders’ Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR Part 431, Subpart A)

K ......................... Fine and Lightweight Papers from

Purchased Pulp.

Non integrated Fine Papers (R) ..................................................................

Wood Fiber Furnish

Cotton Fiber Furnish

Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X)

Lightweight Papers

Lightweight Electrical Papers

II
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18513

TABLE II–2.—FINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR

PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)—Continued

Final codified

subpart Final subcategorization scheme Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with previous 40 CFR part 430 subparts noted)

Promulgation

schedule

(phase)*

L ......................... Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.Non integrated .............................................................................................

Tissue Papers (S)

Filter and Non-Woven (Y)

Paperboard (Z)

II

*Phase I: Promulgation today; Phases II and III: Promulgation dates to be determined.

** Certain parameter limits to be promulgated as part of Phase II.

a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Subcategory and Papergrade

Sulfite Subcategory (subparts B and E).

Under the consent decree entered in the

case Environmental Defense Fund and

National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas,

Civ. No. 85–0973 (D.D.C.), and

subsequently amended, EPA was

required to use its best efforts to

promulgate regulations addressing

discharges of dioxins and furans from

104 bleaching pulp mills by June 17,

1995. Despite making its best efforts,

EPA was not able to promulgate final

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards applicable to those mills by

that date. However, in today’s rule, EPA

is promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory (subpart B) and the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart

E), thereby addressing discharges from

96 of the mills covered by the consent

decree. Regulating the discharge of

dioxins and furans from the mills in the

dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite

subcategories remains a very high

priority; as discussed in more detail

below, EPA will promulgate effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

discharges of dioxins and furans from

those mills as soon as possible.

b. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and

Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory (subparts

A and D). EPA is evaluating comments

and preliminary new data received

since proposal affecting the Dissolving

Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite

subcategories. The Agency anticipates

that the final effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for these

subcategories will be based on different

technologies than those that served as

the basis for the proposed limitations

and standards. For example, EPA has

received data suggesting that oxygen

delignification is not a feasible process

for making some dissolving pulp

products, particularly high grade

products. In addition, some use of

hypochlorite appears to be necessary to

maintain product quality for some

products. Affected companies have

undertaken laboratory studies and mill

trials to develop alternative bleaching

processes and to document the effects

on wastewater and air emissions. The

Agency expects to receive data on these

studies and trials as the companies’

efforts progress.

Because EPA’s record presently is

incomplete, EPA is not promulgating

final effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for these subcategories now.

Even in the absence of these limitations

and standards, however, EPA

anticipates that alternative bleaching

processes developed as a result of these

studies and trials should contribute to

substantial reductions in the generation

and release of pollutants, when

compared to current operating practices.

Among the pollutants EPA expects to be

reduced are dioxin, furan, and

chlorinated phenolic pollutants at levels

comparable to those achieved by

subpart B mills. The Agency also

expects to see significant reductions in

AOX and chloroform. EPA encourages

mills in these subcategories to

expeditiously complete developmental

work that will facilitate installation of

alternative process technologies that

achieve these pollution prevention

goals.

As defined today, the Dissolving

Sulfite subcategory (subpart D) applies

to discharges from dissolving sulfite

mills, including mills that manufacture

dissolving grade sulfite pulps and

papergrade sulfite pulps at the same

site. See 40 CFR 430.40. This definition

is based on EPA’s analysis of data

collected in the ‘‘1990 National Census

of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

Manufacturing Facilities.’’ Data from the

survey indicate that most sulfite mills

that produce dissolving grade pulp do

so at a very high percentage (typically

greater than 85 percent) of their total

pulp output. It has come to EPA’s

attention, however, that some specialty

grade papergrade sulfite mills now have

the capability to produce low

percentages of dissolving grade pulp.

EPA does not intend for these mills to

be regulated under subpart D; rather,

they are specialty grade sulfite mills

within the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory (subpart E).

c. Schedule for the Remaining

Subcategories. EPA is assessing

comments and data received since

proposal for the remaining eight

subcategories. These eight subcategories

are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2) SemiChemical; (3) Mechanical Pulp; (4) NonWood Chemical Pulp; (5) Secondary

Fiber Deink; (6) Secondary Fiber NonDeink; (7) Fine and Lightweight Papers

from Purchased Pulp; and (8) Tissue,

Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard

from Purchased Pulp. For example, EPA

has received additional information

from an industry-sponsored survey of

secondary fiber non-deink mills. The

Agency also has received additional

data from mills in other subcategories,

including semi-chemical, unbleached

kraft, and secondary fiber deink. EPA

plans to promulgate effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for these

subcategories in the near future. It

should be noted that air emission

standards are being promulgated today

for these subcategories.

2. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT) and Best

Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT) for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

Although the Agency has the statutory

authority to revise BPT effluent

limitations guidelines, the Agency is

exercising its discretion not to revise

BPT for Subparts B and E at this time.

In addition, none of the technologies

that EPA evaluated for the purpose of

setting more stringent effluent

limitations for the conventional

pollutants biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS)

passed the BCT cost test for either

subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not

revising BCT effluent limitations

guidelines for Subparts B and E in this

rulemaking.
18514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

3. Final Regulations for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

(Subpart B)

a. Pollutants Regulated. In this rule,

EPA is promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8–

TCDD (‘‘dioxin’’), 2,3,7,8–TCDF

(‘‘furan’’), 12 specific chlorinated

phenolic pollutants, the volatile organic

pollutant, chloroform, and adsorbable

organic halides (AOX). EPA is also

promulgating new source performance

standards for BOD5 and TSS. As

explained in section VI.B.3 below, the

Agency is not promulgating effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

chemical oxygen demand (COD) at this

time. EPA is also not promulgating

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for methylene chloride,

methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, or

color. See Section VI.B.3.

b. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT). After

re-evaluating technologies for mills in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory, EPA has determined that

the model technology for effluent

limitations based on best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT) should be complete (100 percent)

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

chlorine as the key process technology,

along with other in-process technologies

and existing end-of-pipe biological

treatment technologies. See Section

VI.B.5.a.

c. New Source Performance

Standards. The Agency has determined

that the technology basis defining new

source performance standards (NSPS)

for toxics and non-conventional

pollutants is the BAT model technology

with the addition of oxygen

delignification and/or extended

cooking. See Section VI.B.5.b. EPA is

also promulgating NSPS for the

conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS.

As discussed elsewhere in today’s

Federal Register, EPA also is soliciting

comment and intends to gather

additional data with respect to totally

chlorine-free processes that may be

available for the full range of market

products. EPA will determine whether

to propose revisions to NSPS based

upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow

reduction technologies.

In this rule, NSPS are effective June

15, 1998. A source is a new source if it

meets the definition of new source in 40

CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences

construction after that date.

d. Pretreatment Standards. The

Agency is promulgating pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES)

based on the BAT model technology,

excluding biological treatment. EPA is

promulgating pretreatment standards for

new sources (PSNS) based on the model

technology for NSPS, excluding

secondary biological treatment. A

source is a new source for purposes of

PSNS if it meets the definition of new

source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it

commences construction after the date

of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993.

However, a new indirect discharger is

not required to meet PSNS for subpart

B until those standards become

effective, i.e., June 15, 1998.

e. Voluntary Incentives Program

Based on Advanced Technology. As

noted earlier in this notice, EPA’s vision

of long-term environmental goals for the

pulp and paper industry includes

continuing research and progress

toward environmental improvement.

EPA recognizes that technologies exist,

or are currently under development at

some mills, that have the ability to

surpass the environmental protection

that would be provided by compliance

with the baseline BAT effluent

limitations guidelines and NSPS

promulgated today. The Agency

believes that individual mills could be

encouraged to explore and install these

advanced technologies. Accordingly,

EPA is establishing a Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program for direct discharging mills in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. This program is discussed

in Section IX.

4. Final Regulations for the Papergrade

Sulfite Subcategory (Subpart E)

a. Segmentation of Subpart E and Best

Available Technology Economically

Achievable (BAT). After assessing

comments and data received after the

proposal, EPA is segmenting the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory to

account for production of specialty

grade pulps and the applicability of

technologies to ammonium-based

pulping processes.

The Agency is segmenting this

subcategory and establishing BAT

technology bases set forth below. (EPA

has established the same segments for

new source performance standards and

pretreatment standards for subpart E.)

(1) For production of pulp and paper

at papergrade sulfite mills using an

acidic cooking liquor of calcium,

magnesium, or sodium sulfite (unless

the mill is a specialty grade sulfite mill),

the BAT technology basis is totally

chlorine-free bleaching. EPA is

promulgating limitations for AOX for

this segment. See Section VI.B.6.b.

(2) For production of pulp and paper

at papergrade sulfite mills using an

acidic cooking liquor of ammonium

sulfite (unless the mill is a specialty

grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology

bases for this segment are elemental

chlorine-free (ECF) technologies

(complete substitution of chlorine

dioxide for elemental chlorine, peroxide

enhanced extraction, and elimination of

hypochlorite) and biological wastewater

treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent

limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this

segment, but is reserving promulgation

of chloroform, AOX, and COD

limitations until sufficient performance

data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b.

(3) For production of pulp and paper

at specialty grade sulfite mills, the BAT

technology bases for this segment are

ECF technologies (complete substitution

of chlorine dioxide for elemental

chlorine, oxygen and peroxide

enhanced extraction, and elimination of

hypochlorite) and biological wastewater

treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent

limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this

segment, but is reserving promulgation

of chloroform, AOX, and COD

limitations for this segment until

sufficient performance data are

available. See Section VI.B.6.b.

b. New Source Performance

Standards. For each segment identified

above, EPA is establishing NSPS based

on the model BAT technologies selected

for the particular segment. The

pollutants are the same as those

regulated by BAT for the applicable

segment. EPA is also exercising its

discretion not to revise NSPS for BOD5,

TSS, and pH. See Section VI.B.6.c.

c. Pretreatment Standards. The

Agency is promulgating pretreatment

standards for the segments identified

above. The pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES) control the same

pollutants controlled by BAT for the

particular segment. EPA is promulgating

pretreatment standards for new sources

(PSNS) for the same toxic and

nonconventional pollutants controlled

by NSPS for the particular segment. A

source is a new source for purposes of

PSNS if it meets the definition of new

source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it

commences construction after the date

of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993.

However, a new indirect discharger is

not required to meet PSNS for subpart

E until those standards become

effective, i.e., June 15, 1998. The

technology bases for PSES and PSNS for

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are

the same as those chosen for the

particular segments at the BAT and

NSPS levels, respectively, excluding

secondary biological treatment. For the

ammonium-based and specialty grade

segments, EPA is deferring making a

pass-through determination, and hence,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18515

promulgating pretreatment standards,

for chloroform and AOX until it has

sufficient performance data to set

limitations and standards for those

parameters. EPA is promulgating

pretreatment standards for AOX for the

calcium-, magnesium-, and sodiumbased sulfite segment. EPA has made no

pass-through determination at this time

for COD for any segment. More details

are described below in section VI.B.6.d.

5. Best Management Practices for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite

Subcategory

EPA is codifying best management

practices (BMPs) applicable to directand indirect-discharging mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. In

response to comments, EPA changed the

scope of the BMPs to focus on spent

pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap

control and to allow for more flexibility

in implementation. See Section VI.B.7.

III. Background

A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices

of Data Availability, and Public

Participation

The regulations that EPA developed

for the pulp, paper, and paperboard

industry prior to this date are discussed

in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66089–92.

In a Federal Register notice published

on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078),

EPA proposed integrated air and water

rules that included proposed limitations

and standards to reduce the discharge of

toxic, conventional, and

nonconventional pollutants in

wastewaters and to reduce emissions of

hazardous air pollutants from the pulp,

paper, and paperboard industry. These

proposed integrated regulations

subsequently became known as ‘‘the

Cluster Rules.’’ EPA held a public

hearing in Washington, D.C., on

February 10, 1994, to provide interested

persons the opportunity for oral

presentation of data, views, or

arguments concerning the proposed

pretreatment standards. On March 17,

1994 (59 FR 12567), EPA published a

correction notice to the proposed rules

and extended the comment period to

April 18, 1994.

In the preamble to the proposed rules,

EPA solicited data on various issues and

questions related to the proposed

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards and air emissions standards.

The Agency received and added new

material to the Air and Water Dockets.

In a notice of data availability published

on February 22, 1995 (60 FR 9813), EPA

announced the availability of new data

related to the proposed air emissions

standards. Those new data are located

in Air Docket A–92–40.

In a second notice of data availability

published on July 5, 1995 (60 FR

34938), EPA announced the availability

of new information and data related to

the proposed effluent limitations

guidelines and standards. Those new

data are located starting at Section 18.0

of the Post-Proposal Rulemaking

Record, which is a continuation of the

proposal record. The Post-Proposal

Rulemaking Record is located in the

Water Docket. EPA did not solicit

comment on the new air and water data

in either notice.

On March 8, 1996, EPA published a

Federal Register notice pertaining to the

air portions of the proposed rules and

announced the availability of

supplemental information (61 FR 9383).

The comment period for that notice

closed on April 8, 1996. EPA also

proposed MACT standards for

mechanical pulping mills, secondary

fiber pulping (deinked and nondeinked) mills, and non-wood mills,

and asked for additional information on

these mills. Furthermore, EPA

announced that it was continuing to

investigate paper machines and that no

MACT standard for paper machines was

being proposed at the time. EPA

acknowledged an industry testing

program was underway; EPA also

acknowledged its request to States for

data on non-wood pulping mills. EPA

requested additional data on HAP

emissions from, and control

technologies for, paper machines to

supplement information previously

collected under the MACT process.

On July 15, 1996, the Agency

published a Federal Register notice

announcing the Agency’s thinking,

based on preliminary evaluation of the

supplemented record and stakeholder

discussions, regarding the technology

options being considered as a basis for

final effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the proposed Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (61 FR

36835). Data were added to the record

and comments were solicited from

interested parties. The comment period

for that notice closed on August 14,

1996.

The Agency has held numerous

meetings on these proposed integrated

rules with many pulp and paper

industry stakeholders, including a trade

association (American Forest and Paper

Association, or AF&PA), numerous

individual companies, environmental

groups, States, laboratories, consultants

and vendors, labor unions, and other

interested parties. EPA has added

materials to the Air and Water Dockets

to document these meetings.

B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority

Section 112(b) of the CAA lists 189

HAPs and directs EPA to develop rules

to control all major and some area

sources emitting HAPs. Major sources

are facilities that emit 10 tons of any

single HAP or 25 tons of total HAPs

annually. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576), EPA published a list of major

and area sources for which NESHAP are

to be promulgated. The goal of NESHAP

is to require the implementation of

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) to reduce emissions

and, therefore, reduce public health

hazards from pollutants emitted from

stationary sources. Pulp and paper

production was listed as a category of

major sources. On December 3, 1993 (58

FR 83941), EPA published a schedule

for promulgating standards for the listed

major and area sources. Standards for

the pulp and paper source category were

scheduled for promulgation by

November 1997.

NESHAP established under section

112 of the Act reflect MACT or:

* * * the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of the [HAP] * * * that the

Administrator, taking into consideration the

cost of achieving such emission reduction,

and any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts and energy

requirements, determines is achievable for

new or existing sources in the category or

subcategory to which such emission standard

applies * * * (See CAA section 112(d)(2)).

C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority

The objective of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) is to ‘‘restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ CWA

Section 101(a). To assist in achieving

this objective, EPA issues effluent

limitations guidelines, pretreatment

standards, and new source performance

standards for industrial dischargers. The

statutory requirements of these

guidelines and standards are

summarized in the proposal. See 58 FR

at 66088–89.

D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the

Pulp and Paper Industry

1. Land Disposal Restrictions Activities

At the time of proposal, it appeared

that many of the surface impoundments

used for wastewater treatment in the

pulp and paper industry might become

subject to Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation under

the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)

program. See 58 FR at 66091. This

program establishes treatment standards

that hazardous wastes must meet before
18516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

they can be land disposed—placement

in surface impoundments being a type

of land disposal. This requirement

extends not only to wastes that are

identified or listed as hazardous under

the RCRA rules when they are land

disposed, but also to wastes that are

hazardous when generated, cease to be

hazardous as a result of dilution, and

are then disposed. Chemical Waste

Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C.

Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1057

(1993).

The pulp and paper industry has

many mills that fit this pattern:

Numerous wastewater streams are

generated, some of them exhibit a

characteristic of hazardous waste

(corrosivity or toxicity in particular), the

streams are commingled before

centralized wastewater treatment

occurs, and, in the course of

commingling, the wastes no longer

exhibit the characteristic, and the

commingled wastewaters are then

treated in a surface impoundment. EPA

actually took action to temporarily defer

applying LDR rules to this type of

situation in the pulp and paper industry

in order to allow unhindered

promulgation of these Cluster Rules. See

61 FR at 15660, 15574 (April 8, 1996).

This issue, however, is now moot, at

least for the time being. As discussed in

the April 8, 1996, notice partially

withdrawing the LDR Phase III final

rule, 61 FR 15660, the Land Disposal

Program Flexibility Act of 1996

provides, among other things, that

RCRA characteristic wastewaters are no

longer prohibited from land disposal

once they are rendered nonhazardous,

provided that they are managed in

either a treatment system whose

ultimate discharge is regulated under

the CWA (including both direct and

indirect dischargers), a CWA-equivalent

treatment system, or a Class I

nonhazardous injection well regulated

under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Under the Land Disposal Program

Flexibility Act of 1996, the LDR

treatment standards for RCRA

characteristic wastes in the pulp and

paper industry (or any other industry)

do not apply if the characteristic is

removed and the wastes are

subsequently treated in a surface

impoundment that is part of a

wastewater treatment system whose

ultimate discharge is regulated by the

CWA, or if a mill’s treatment system

provides wastewater treatment that is

CWA-equivalent.

It should be noted that the Act

requires EPA to undertake a five-year

study to determine any potential risks

posed by cross-media transfer of

hazardous constituents from surface

impoundments that accept these ‘‘decharacterized’’ wastes and warrant

RCRA regulation. The findings of this

study, begun by the Agency in April

1996, could eventually result in RCRA

regulations for these units.

2. Land Application of Sludges

Under the Consent Decree entered in

the case Environmental Defense Fund

and National Wildlife Federation v.

Thomas, Civ. No. 85–0973 (D.D.C.), EPA

was required to propose rules under

section 6 of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the use

of sludge produced from the treatment

of wastewater effluent of pulp and paper

mills using chlorine and chlorinederivative bleaching processes (56 FR

21802; Docket OPTS–62100). EPA

published the proposed rules on May

10, 1991. The proposed regulations

sought to establish a final maximum

dioxin and furan soil concentration of

ten parts per trillion (ppt) toxic

equivalents (TEQ) and site management

practices for the land application of

bleached kraft and sulfite mill sludge.

EPA originally planned to promulgate

the rule by November 1992.

On December 11, 1992, EPA informed

the plaintiffs of the Consent Decree that

the decision on the promulgation of the

proposed sludge land application rule

was deferred pending promulgation of

the integrated rulemaking for effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

and national emission standards. EPA

reasoned that the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards and air

emissions standards would have the

potential to result in bleach plant

process changes that EPA expected

would result in reduced dioxin and

furan contamination levels in sludge. In

addition, EPA was awaiting the results

of its dioxin reassessment activities.

In light of the anticipated impact of

the effluent limitations guidelines and

standards and air emissions standards

on reducing dioxin in pulp and paper

mill sludges, as well as reduction in

sludge dioxin levels from industryinitiated improvements, EPA chose to

defer the decision on promulgation of

the final sludge land application rule.

When EPA has determined the final

impact of today’s effluent limitations

guidelines and standards on sludge

dioxin concentration, EPA will reevaluate the risk from sludge land

application and will choose the

appropriate regulatory or non-regulatory

mechanism to address the situation.

Prior to that determination, however,

EPA has taken action to achieve risk

reduction for situations where sludge is

being applied to land.

While awaiting completion of the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards, air emission standards and

the dioxin reassessment, EPA has

promoted the establishment of an

industry environmental stewardship

program for the practice of sludge land

application.

3. Hazardous Listing Determination

Under the consent decree entered in

the case of Environmental Defense Fund

v. Browner, Civ. No. 89–0598 (D.D.C.),

‘‘EPA shall promulgate a listing

determination for sludges from pulp and

paper mill effluent on or before the date

24 months after promulgation of an

effluent guideline regulation under the

Clean Water Act for pulp and paper

mills. This listing determination shall

be proposed for public comment on or

before the date 12 months after

promulgation of such effluent guideline

regulation. However, EPA shall not be

required to propose or promulgate such

a listing determination if the final rule

for the pending effluent guideline

rulemaking (amending 40 CFR part 430)

under the Clean Water Act to regulate

the discharge of dioxins from pulp and

paper mills is based on the use of

oxygen delignification, ozone bleaching,

prenox bleaching, enzymatic bleaching,

hydrogen peroxide bleaching, oxygen

and peroxide enhanced extraction, or

any other technology involving

substantially similar reductions in uses

of chlorine-containing compounds. If

EPA concludes that the final effluent

guideline regulation is based on use of

such a process and that, as a result, no

listing determination is required, EPA

shall so inform plaintiff in writing

within 30 days of the promulgation of

the effluent guideline regulation.’’

At this time, EPA is assessing whether

the technology bases for the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

promulgated today would fulfill the

condition described in the Consent

Decree. If so, the Agency would

conclude that a listing determination is

not warranted. If EPA concludes it does

not fulfill the condition, a listing

determination would be conducted.

4. Dioxin Reassessment

In the spring of 1991, EPA initiated an

effort to reassess the scientific bases for

estimating dioxin risk. The activities

associated with the dioxin reassessment

before proposal are described in the

proposal. See 58 FR at 66092–93. After

the proposal, in September 1994, EPA

published a public review draft of this

effort, which is commonly referred to as

the EPA Dioxin Reassessment. The draft

reassessment addressed not only the

health effects of dioxin-like chemicals
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18517

but also dioxin sources and pathways

for human exposure. Since the draft

documents were released, EPA received

thousands of pages of public comments.

EPA submitted the documents to formal

peer review by the EPA Science

Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was

supportive of the overall reassessment

effort and endorsed the major

conclusions of the exposure document

and chapters one through seven of the

health document. They did, however,

believe that additional work was needed

on the dose-response modeling chapter

and the risk characterization chapter.

The reassessment is currently being

revised and updated in response to

public comments. The two chapters

singled out by the SAB are being revised

by specially established panels

composed of scientists from both inside

and outside the Agency. Once the work

of the special panels is completed these

two revised chapters will be examined

by peer review panels, and then

resubmitted to the SAB for final review.

EPA currently anticipates completion

and release of the dioxin reassessment

in the spring of 1998.

5. Clean Water Act Section 307(a)

Petition

On September 14, 1993, the Natural

Resources Defense Council and the

Natural Resources Council of Maine

filed with EPA on behalf of 57

individuals and environmental groups a

petition to prohibit the discharge of

dioxin by pulp and paper mills. The

petitioners ask EPA to accomplish this

prohibition by prohibiting the use of

chlorine and chlorine-containing

compounds as inputs in the

manufacturing process. The petitioners

believe that the prohibition is warranted

by the dangers to human health and the

environment posed by dioxin. The

petitioners invoke CWA section

307(a)(2) for authority for such a

prohibition.

Authority for the petition and

requested prohibition derives from a

different section of the Clean Water Act

than today’s technology-based effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

However, because the petition raised

many issues related to the effluent

guidelines rulemaking, EPA solicited

comment on the issues raised in the

petition at the time it proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the pulp and paper industry. See 58 FR

at 66174. EPA received thousands of

pages of comments and expects to issue

a decision granting or denying the

petition after completion of the dioxin

reassessment.

6. Cooling Tower Intake Assessment

EPA is developing regulations under

section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act,

which provides that any standard

established pursuant to Section 301 or

306 and applicable to a point source

shall require that the location, design,

construction, and capacity of cooling

water intake structures reflect the best

technology available for minimizing

adverse environmental impact. Section

316(b) applies only to the intake of

water, not the discharge. A primary goal

of the regulation that EPA is developing

would be to minimize the destruction of

fish and other aquatic organisms as they

are drawn into an industrial facility’s

water intake. EPA plans to conduct

screening level and detailed surveys to

estimate the number and type of

facilities that utilize cooling water

intake structures and thus are within the

scope of Section 316(b). The pulp and

paper industry uses a significant

amount of cooling water. EPA intends to

gather data on pulp and paper facilities

during the Section 316(b) rulemaking

through questionnaires and site visits.

The Section 316(b) regulation is

scheduled for proposal in 1999 with the

final rule due in 2001.

IV. Changes in the Industry Since

Proposal

A description of the pulp and paper

industry, including manufacturing

processes, pulping processes, bleaching

processes, and papermaking is included

in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66095–96.

The proposed water regulation

encompassed the entire pulp and paper

industry of approximately 500 facilities.

The proposed air regulations (MACT I

and MACT III) covered approximately

the same number. Under today’s action,

approximately 490 mills will be covered

by the final MACT I and MACT III rules.

Of these mills, 155 will be affected by

MACT standards for mills that

chemically pulp wood. A subset of these

mills—96 mills—will be covered by the

final effluent limitations guidelines and

standards promulgated today.

Since the proposal, some facilities

have modified their processes. There

has been a substantial move toward

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching,

and mills are continuing to increase

their substitution of chlorine dioxide for

chlorine. Additionally, more mills are

utilizing oxygen delignification and

extended cooking than at proposal. All

these developments result in decreased

discharges of dioxins and furans to

receiving waters.

The U.S. pulp and paper industry’s

involvement with totally chlorine-free

(TCF) bleaching has not changed

substantially since proposal. As was the

case at the time of proposal, only one

U.S. mill produces TCF kraft pulp;

however, this mill is now able to attain

higher brightness than was achieved at

the time of the proposal.

The number of companies in the

industry is constantly changing as new

companies enter the market and other

companies leave the industry or merge

with other companies. In the

subcategories now designated as

Subparts B and E, only one mill has

closed since proposal and one has

changed subcategories. No new Subpart

B or E mills have commenced

construction since the time of proposal.

For more details on the technology

status of mills covered by the final

Cluster Rules, see the ‘‘Supplemental

Technical Development Document,’’

DCN 14487.

V. Summary of Data Gathering

Activities Since Proposal

A. Data Gathering for the Development

of Air Emissions Standards

To develop today’s standards,

extensive data collection and technical

analyses were conducted. Prior to

proposal, EPA used information in a

1990 census of pulp and paper mills, a

1992 voluntary mill survey, an EPA

sampling program, site visits at a

number of mills, and a review of State

and local regulations to obtain

information on emissions, emission

control technologies, and emission

control costs for pulp and paper mill

emission points. After proposal, EPA

obtained additional information from

the industry. This information included

test reports from a variety of testing

programs, as well as numerous reports,

studies, and memoranda on other issues

related to the development of emission

control requirements. The information

collected before and after proposal was

used as the technical basis in

determining the MACT level of control.

EPA also used information on pulp

and paper mill production processes

available in the general literature and

information on control technology

performance and cost information

developed under other EPA standards to

determine MACT.

Industry commenters indicated that

they would be completing a

comprehensive emission testing

program after proposal, and EPA

considered this information to be vital

to the development of the final

regulation. Therefore, EPA agreed to

consider the new data and issued two

notices of availability of supplemental

information on February 22, 1995 (60

FR 9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR
18518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

9383) announcing the information and

offering the likely implications to the

final rule. The opportunity for a public

hearing was offered on the March 8,

1996 action, but no request for a hearing

was received. Public comments on the

March 8, 1996 action were accepted

from March 8, 1996 to April 8, 1996.

Commenters included industry

representatives, States, environmental

organizations, and other members of the

public.

In the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice, EPA solicited additional data

and comments on proposed changes to

the December 17, 1993 proposed rule.

Data added to Air Docket A–92–40

since the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice are located in section IV of this

docket. These items include additional

information on sulfite mills (IV–D1–98,

IV–D1–100), comments on definitions

(IV–D1–97, IV–D1–99, IV–D1–104),

comments on the emission factor

document (IV–D1–102), clarification of

the 1992 MACT survey responses (IV–

D1–101), and other information.

B. Data Gathering for the Development

of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

EPA has gathered a substantial

amount of new information and data

since proposal in connection with

today’s water regulations. Much of this

information was collected with the

cooperation and support of the

American Forest and Paper Association

(AF&PA) and the National Council of

the Paper Industry for Air and Stream

Improvement (NCASI), and with the

assistance of many individual mills in

the United States. Additional

information also has been submitted by

environmental groups. EPA has

gathered additional information from

pulp and paper mills outside of the

United States, primarily in Canada and

Europe.

Some of the new information and data

were generated through EPA-sponsored

field sampling or visits at individual

mills in the United States, Canada, and

Europe. Additional sampling data were

voluntarily supplied by many facilities,

and information from laboratory and

pilot-scale studies was shared with the

Agency. In order to clarify comments on

the proposal, the Agency also gathered

information from several surveys

administered by AF&PA and NCASI,

including data on secondary fiber mill

processes, recovery furnace capacities,

best management practices, capital and

operating costs, process operations, and

impacts of technology on the recovery

cycle.

The data gathering activities for this

final rule are summarized in detail in

the proposal, see 58 FR at 66096, and in

the July 15, 1996, notice of data

availability, see 61 FR at 36837.

VI. Summary of the Major Changes

Since Proposal and Rationale for the

Selection of the Final Regulations

A. Air Emission Standards

At proposal, the standards for mills

that chemically pulp wood were based

on the MACT floor control level. A

uniform set of requirements would have

applied to all mills that chemically pulp

wood using the kraft, sulfite, soda, or

semi-chemical process. The proposed

standards would have required that,

with the exception of some with very

low volumetric and mass flow rates, all

emission points in the pulping and

bleaching area of these mills be

controlled. The proposed standards also

would have required that all wastewater

streams produced in the pulping area of

the mill be controlled except for those

with a specified low concentration of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The

proposed control technology basis was

to enclose any open process equipment

in the pulping and bleaching areas and

route all vents and pulping wastewater

to a control device. The proposed

control technology basis was

combustion for pulping area vent

sources, scrubbing for bleaching area

vent sources, and steam stripping for

pulping wastewater.

Following proposal, EPA received a

large number of comments and data to

support the need for subcategories with

separate MACT standards for each. After

considering the data and comments, the

final rule specifies separate MACT

requirements for each of the four types

of pulping processes subject to the

standard. The low volumetric and mass

flow rates for pulping and bleaching

vents and the low concentration value

for pulping wastewater are no longer

used to determine applicability to the

standard. Rather, for each subcategory,

the standard lists the specific equipment

and pulping area condensates that

require control.

For each subcategory, the Agency

determined the MACT floor level of

control for existing and new sources,

and analyzed the cost and impacts for

control options more stringent than the

floor. This analysis is presented in

chapter 20 of the background

information document for the

promulgated NESHAP, and is also

discussed in the proposal preamble.

Based on the results of this analysis, the

Agency determined that it was not

reasonable to go beyond the MACT floor

level of control for sources at kraft,

semi-chemical, and sulfite pulp mills,

bleaching systems, or kraft condensate

systems. The Agency determined that

control beyond the floor at soda mills

was technically feasible and could be

achieved at a reasonable cost. A

discussion of the Agency’s decision for

soda mills is presented in the March 8

supplemental notice and in section

VI.A.5.

In response to comments received on

the proposed standards, several changes

have been made to the final rule. While

some of these changes are clarifications

designed to make the Agency’s intent

clearer, a number of them are significant

changes to the compliance

requirements. A summary of the

substantive comments and changes

made since the proposal are described

in the following sections. Detailed

Agency responses to public comments

and the revised analysis for the final

rule are contained in the background

information document and docket. See

Section X.A.

1. Definition of Source

At proposal, EPA defined a single

broad source that was subject to both

existing and new source MACT. That

single source included the pulping

processes, the bleaching processes, and

the pulping and bleaching process

wastewater streams at a pulp and paper

mill. EPA also considered and solicited

comments on the concept of multiple

smaller sources that would be subject to

the existing and new source MACT

requirements.

In defining the source at proposal,

EPA considered the impact of the

definition on mills making changes to

existing facilities. In general, the

narrower the definition of source, the

more likely it is that changes to existing

facilities would be deemed ‘‘new

sources’’ under the CAA. With limited

exceptions, these new sources must be

in compliance with new source MACT

standards on the date of startup or June

15, 1998, whichever is later. However,

the CAA and the CWA differ regarding

applicability requirements and

compliance deadlines for new sources.

As such, EPA was concerned that a pulp

and paper mill planning to construct or

reconstruct a source of HAPs between

proposal and promulgation of these

integrated regulations would find it

necessary to plan for compliance with

the NESHAP (required on the date it

becomes effective) without knowing the

requirements of the effluent guidelines

for the industry. This situation appeared

to be inconsistent with one objective of

the integrated rulemaking: allowing

facilities to do integrated compliance

planning. EPA thus determined that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18519

best solution to these concerns was to

define a single broad source at proposal.

In the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice, EPA indicated a continuing

inclination for a broad, single source

definition. EPA also discussed

broadening the source definition further

to include papermaking systems and

causticizing equipment and solicited

comments on these additions. EPA’s

reason for considering the addition of

these two equipment systems was to

facilitate implementation of the clean

condensate alternative for kraft mills.

Commenters on the proposed

standards and on the March 8 notice

largely agreed with the broad, single

source definition. One commenter

supported a narrow source definition,

noting it was inappropriate for new

construction at an existing source to be

classified as a modification (and hence

subject to existing source MACT). The

commenter further stated that the final

regulation should specify a narrow

source definition for determining

applicability to new source MACT.

Some commenters also stated that EPA

should clarify for the final regulation

that mill processes not included in the

source definition should not be subject

to future case-by-case MACT

requirements under CAA section 112(g).

EPA considered all of the comments

received on this issue since proposal

and maintains that the definition of

source should be broad enough such

that small changes to an existing mill do

not trigger new source requirements in

the NESHAP. However, EPA also agrees

with the commenter that at some point,

changes to an existing mill are

substantial enough that new source

MACT should apply.

In considering how best to define the

source, EPA did not want to define it so

narrowly that changes to or additions of

individual pieces of equipment would

be subject to new source MACT and be

required to be in compliance with new

source MACT at startup. In fact, EPA

was concerned that to do so could

discourage mills from implementing

pollution-prevention changes as soon as

practicable after promulgation of the

Cluster Rules. Such changes might

include replacing an existing rotary

vacuum washer system with a low-flow

washer system or installing an oxygen

delignification system, both of which, if

subject to existing source requirements,

would get the eight-year compliance

time, discussed later in section VI.A.3.b.

Once mills are complying with the

existing source MACT requirements, it

also did not seem reasonable that they

should have to tear out and rebuild that

vent collection system to accommodate

small equipment changes in the future

unless those changes occurred along

with other substantial changes that

would justify rebuilding the vent

collection system.

For the final regulation, EPA is

defining the affected source to which

existing MACT requirements apply to

include the total of all HAP emission

points in the pulping and bleaching

systems (including pulping

condensates). In considering how mills

might engineer their vent collection

systems and control devices, EPA has

concluded that the following actions

occurring after proposal are substantial

enough that new source MACT

requirements apply:

• A pulping or bleaching system at an

existing mill is constructed or

reconstructed; or

• A new pulping line or bleaching

line is added to an existing mill.

The proposal date for mills that

chemically pulp wood is December 17,

1993. The proposal date for mills that

mechanically pulp wood, pulp

secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood

materials is March 8, 1996.

The final regulation also provides for

an alternative definition of source to

facilitate implementation of the clean

condensate alternative. For mills using

the alternative to comply with the kraft

pulping standards, the final regulation

defines a single broad source that

includes the total of all pulping, bleach,

causticizing, and papermaking systems.

A more detailed discussion of the clean

condensate alternative is given in

section VI.A.3.d.

EPA agrees with the commenters that

certain emission points that are

excluded from the definition of affected

source in today’s rule, or are subject to

a determination that MACT for these

operations is no control, should not be

required to undergo CAA section 112(g)

review. The sources that have been so

identified are wood yard operations

(including wood piles); tall oil recovery

systems at kraft mills; pulping systems

at mechanical, secondary fiber, and nonwood fiber pulping mills; and

papermaking systems. With regard to

wood yard operations, tall oil recovery

systems, and pulping systems at

mechanical, secondary fiber, and nonwood fiber pulping mills, EPA has

determined that these sources do not

emit significant quantities of HAPs and

EPA is not aware of any reasonable

technologies for controlling HAPs from

these sources. For papermaking systems,

EPA has not identified any reasonable

control technology, other than the clean

condensate alternative, that can reduce

HAP emissions attributable to HAPs

present in the pulp arriving from the

pulping and bleaching systems.

Additionally, EPA has determined that

the use of papermaking systems

additives and solvents do not result in

significant emissions of HAPs (Air

Docket A–92–40, IV–B–27). Therefore,

based on the applicability requirements

of section 112(g) [40 CFR 63 part B,

63.40(b)], the following sources would

not be required to undergo section

112(g) review: wood yard operations;

pulping systems at mechanical,

secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber

mills; tall oil recovery systems; and

papermaking systems.

2. Named Stream Approach

At proposal, the rule proposed

applicability cutoff values (i.e.,

volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate)

as a way to distinguish the vent and

condensate streams that would be

required to meet the rule. Since

proposal, the pulp and paper industry

submitted additional data that allowed

EPA to better characterize the vent and

condensate streams that should be

controlled.

In the final rule, the applicability

cutoffs contained in the proposed rule

have been replaced in favor of

specifically naming process equipment

and condensate streams that would be

required to meet the rule, with the

exception of decker, knotter, and screen

systems at existing sources. For these

systems, the additional industry data

was used to determine applicability

cutoffs in the form of HAP emission

limits (for knotter and screen systems)

and HAP concentration limits in process

water (for decker systems) to identify

the systems that should be controlled at

existing sources. A description of the

vent and condensate streams to be

controlled is presented in sections

II.B.2, VI.A.3.a, and VI.A.4–7. The

Agency added language in the

definitions for the named systems to

make the definitions applicable to

equipment that serves a similar function

as those specifically listed. This

addition was made because there are no

standard names for process equipment.

The EPA’s intent was to include the

equipment that function the same as the

equipment specifically named in the

definitions, even though the mill may

use a different name for that piece of

equipment.

The different approach used in the

final rule does not significantly change

the number of emission points

controlled from those intended to be

controlled in the proposed rule. The

emission points and condensate streams

that are being controlled in the final rule

are fundamentally the same emission

sources that EPA intended to be

controlled in the proposed rule. EPA
18520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

concluded that the revised approach is

easier and less costly to implement, for

both the affected industry and the

enforcement officials, since extensive

emission source testing is not required

to identify the vent and condensate

streams to be controlled.

3. Kraft Pulping Standards

a. Applicability for Existing Kraft

Sources. In the December 17, 1993

proposal, all pulping system equipment,

with some exceptions, would have been

required to be controlled. The

exceptions were for deckers and screens

at existing sources and small vents

below specified volumetric mass flow

rates and mass loadings. EPA proposed

to require that treatment of all pulping

wastewater streams except those with

HAP concentrations below 500 ppmw

and flow rates below 1.0 liter per

minute.

In the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice, the Agency presented potential

changes to the kraft mill standards.

These changes included specifically

naming equipment systems and pulping

wastewater subject to the standards. For

existing sources, the named equipment

systems in the supplemental notice

included: the LVHC system, pulp

washing system, oxygen delignification

system, the pre-washer knotter and

screening system, and weak liquor

storage tanks. The subject wastewater

streams are the pulping process

condensates from the digester,

evaporator, turpentine recovery, LVHC

collection, and the HVLC collection

systems. EPA identified these systems

and condensates to be controlled based

on information presented in responses

to industry surveys available prior to

proposal and on updates and

clarifications to survey responses

submitted by the pulp and paper

industry after proposal. At proposal,

EPA did not have sufficient information

to define these equipment systems.

At proposal, the Agency solicited

comments on its determination of the

control technology basis for the MACT

floor and for MACT. The proposed

MACT floor level of control at existing

kraft sources was 98 percent reduction

of emissions from the LVHC system,

pulp washing system, and oxygen

delignification system. In considering

information received after proposal, the

Agency continued to have questions,

which were discussed with

representatives of the pulp and paper

industry, on the data provided in the

survey responses on weak liquor storage

tanks, the knotter and screening system,

and the decker system at existing

sources (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–

101). In the March 8, 1996 notice, the

Agency requested further information

on whether to distinguish between types

or ages of weak liquor storage tanks,

methods and costs of controlling them,

and the level of control that represents

the MACT floor for the different tanks.

The Agency also requested data on the

type of controls present on knotter and

screening systems.

Commenters to the March 8 notice

provided additional information on the

kraft mills which control vents from

knotter system, screen systems, decker

systems, weak liquor storage tanks, and

oxygen delignification systems. The

commenters noted that many of the

mills surveyed originally had

misinterpreted survey questions for

these systems. The commenters

concluded that the revised information

indicated that less than 6 percent of the

knotter and screen systems, decker

systems, and weak liquor storage tanks

were actually controlled; they

concluded, therefore, that the existing

source floor for these vents is no

control. Additionally, the commenters

asserted that it would not be costeffective to go beyond the floor to

control weak liquor storage tanks

because tanks at existing sources would

not have the structural integrity to

withstand a vacuum on them caused by

the vent collection system. The

commenters asserted that, to control

emissions, these tanks would either

need to be replaced or be retrofitted

with expensive add-on controls that

would not be cost-effective. One

commenter supported using age as a

means to indicate structural integrity

and, therefore, rule applicability for

weak liquor storage tanks. Several

commenters disagreed that age was an

appropriate indicator.

The Agency has evaluated the

information submitted by the

commenters on the control level for the

knotter system, screen system, decker

system, and weak liquor storage tanks.

Information submitted by the

commenters indicated that of the 597

weak liquor storage tanks in the survey

only 28 (4.7 percent) actually had

emissions routed to a control device

(Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–106).

Some respondents had previously

included other types of controlled tanks,

such as washer filtrate tanks, in their

totals because EPA’s original survey did

not provide a definition of weak liquor

storage tanks. The Agency, therefore,

has concluded that the MACT floor

level of control for weak liquor storage

tanks at existing sources is no control.

While some tanks are controlled,

available information does not support

the supposition that age is a good

parameter for distinguishing structural

integrity. In addition, the Agency

evaluated the cost of going beyond the

floor to control weak liquor tanks. The

results of EPA’s analysis indicated that

a significant cost would be incurred for

a limited emission reduction. This

analysis is presented in Chapter 20 of

the background information document

for the promulgated NESHAP.

Therefore, the Agency agrees with the

commenters that control beyond the

floor is not justified. Weak liquor tanks

at new sources are required to be

controlled.

The Agency disagrees with the

comments that decker systems are not

controlled at the floor at existing

sources. Information supplied by the

pulp and paper industry indicates there

are 170 decker systems in mills

responding to EPA’s industry survey

questionnaires. All the decker systems

are associated with bleached mills. Of

the 170 decker systems, 14 are

controlled (8 percent) (Air Docket A–

92–40, IV–B–16).

The majority of decker systems

controlled at the floor (10 systems) are

associated with oxygen delignification

systems or are being used as an

additional stage of pulp washing. The

Agency believes that these types of

decker systems are operated similarly to

and have similar emissions as pulp

washers. Decker systems used in this

manner receive contaminated

condensates or filtrates that may be

recycled from other processes, such as

the oxygen delignification system or

combined condensate tanks. The

process water may have a HAP

concentration that would release

significant amounts of HAP to the air

from the air-water interface. The Agency

characterized the emissions from this

source to identify the types of decker

systems with high emissions.

Information supplied in NCASI

technical bulletin 678 provided a

relationship between air emissions and

methanol concentrations in process

water used in rotary vacuum drums.

EPA evaluated this relationship and

determined that decker controls and

higher HAP emission rates were

associated with deckers that used

process water with HAP concentrations

greater than or equal to 400 ppmw, or

that did not use fresh water or

‘‘whitewater’’ from papermaking

systems (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–22).

Therefore, the Agency has determined

that it is appropriate to make a

distinction among types of decker

systems at existing sources for the

purpose of setting the MACT standard.

Decker systems at existing sources using

fresh water or ‘‘whitewater’’ from

papermaking systems, or using process
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18521

water with HAP concentrations less

than 400 ppmw, are not required to be

controlled. Decker systems at new

sources are required to be controlled

regardless of the HAP concentration in

the process water introduced into the

decker.

EPA has reviewed available data on

knotter and screen systems and has

concluded that these systems are

controlled sufficiently to establish a

MACT floor level of control, and also

that control more stringent than the

floor is not warranted. Data used to

reach this conclusion include survey

responses from the 1992 voluntary

survey, follow-up telephone surveys

conducted by the National Council of

the Paper Industry for Air and Stream

Improvement (NCASI), and emissions

data from the NCASI 16-mill study.

Although the data indicate that many of

these systems are currently controlled to

some degree, the survey responses were

not detailed enough in their equipment

system descriptions and the test data

were too limited for the Agency to use

these two sources of information alone

to develop the MACT control

requirements. Because these equipment

systems, nomenclature, and control

configurations vary across the industry,

the Agency decided that a HAP

emissions limit would be the best way

for mills to determine which systems

would require control. EPA lacks

sufficient data, however, to pinpoint

any single value that represents the

MACT floor. Rather, based on the

survey and test data, there are a range

of values from which EPA could choose.

EPA further considered the costs of

control in choosing from this zone of

reasonable values.

Of the 171 knotter systems reported in

the 1992 voluntary survey, 12 knotter

systems at 5 mills were reported as

controlled and ducted into the

noncondensible gas (NCG) collection

system and another 49 knotter systems

at 23 mills were reported as having no

vents. NCASI followed up by telephone

surveys with these 28 mills (Air Docket

A–92–40, IV–D1–101, IV–D1–112, IV–

D1–114). The follow-up surveys

indicated a fair amount of misreporting

at these 28 mills. NCASI did not

resurvey for all 171 knotter systems.

Therefore, the following knotter system

floor determination assumes that the

mills not resurveyed that originally

reported no knotter system controls did

not control any vents.

From the 28 mills resurveyed, it was

determined that six knotter systems or

3.6 percent (6/171) route all vents into

the NCG collection system; another two

knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171)

route all knotter hood vents into the

NCG collection system; another eight

knotter systems or 4.7 percent (8/171)

use only pressure knotters; and another

two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/

171) route all vents to the smelt

dissolving tank scrubber. Industry

collected data at seven pressure/open

(also referred to as pressure/vibrating)

knotter systems and found the methanol

emissions to range from 0.005–0.07

kilograms per megagram of oven-dried

pulp (ODP) produced, and collected

data at one pressure knotter system and

found the methanol emissions to be

0.0042 kilograms per megagram ODP

produced. Emissions data are

summarized in the Chemical Pulping

Emission Factor Development

Document (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–A–

8). Because the pressure knotter system

emissions were lower than the

emissions at the pressure/open systems,

pressure systems can be considered a

type of controlled system. Therefore, 18

or 10.5 percent (6+2+8+2 = 18/171) of

the knotter systems have some level of

emissions control. The Agency believes

that this estimate of the number of

knotter systems controlled may be

somewhat low because it is uncertain

how many of the mills not resurveyed

may have had the lower emitting

pressure systems.

The 1992 voluntary MACT survey

responses indicated that 96 screening

systems out of the 199 reported are not

vented. NCASI resurveyed by telephone

41 of these 96 mills. Assuming that the

55 mills not resurveyed look similar to

the 41, the follow-up survey determined

that seven percent (6/41 × 96/199) route

their vents to the NCG collection system

and 41 percent (35/41 × 96/199) have

closed screens that vent through

auxiliary tanks. Therefore, 48 percent of

the screening systems have some level

of control.

Industry collected data at one closed

screen system and one open screen

system. The closed screen system tested

had methanol emissions of 0.004

kilograms per megagram of ODP

produced. The open screen system

tested had methanol emissions of 0.22

kilograms per megagram of ODP

produced.

The Agency considered how best to

characterize the average emissions

limitation achieved by the best

controlled 12 percent of the knotter

systems and screen systems given the

wide variety of control scenarios present

in the industry. Either collecting and

controlling vents on an open system or

using closed equipment results in lower

air emissions. The Agency decided to

select the emissions limitation using the

test data from the closed and open

equipment systems. The Agency’s

decision is due in part to the fact that

the technology basis for the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

being promulgated in these Cluster

Rules at 40 CFR Part 430 for bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills include

closing the screening areas and

returning wastewater to the recovery

system. Thus, it is likely that many

mills will move toward wider use of the

lower air emitting pressure systems.

Because there is only one test data

point for the pressure knotter systems

and that emissions value is similar to

the low end of the range of data points

for the pressure/open knotter systems,

the Agency did not believe it would be

appropriate to set the emission limit

equal to the one pressure knotter

system. Similarly, because there is only

one test data point for closed screens,

the Agency did not believe it would be

appropriate to use that single data point

to set the emission limit for screening

systems. The Agency could have

selected any emission limit within the

range of all available data for knotters

(i.e., 0.0042 to 0.07 kilograms per

megagram of ODP produced) and

screens (i.e., 0.004 to 0.22 kilograms per

megagram of ODP produced). However,

recognizing the limited data available,

the Agency also considered the cost

effectiveness of controlling these

systems to aid in setting the emission

limits within the range of reasonable

values (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–21).

Based on considering all available

data, the final rule requires that existing

kraft sources are required to control

knotter systems with total mass

emission rates greater than or equal to

0.05 kilograms of HAP per megagram

ODP produced. Existing kraft sources

are required to control screening

systems with total mass emission rates

greater than or equal to 0.10 kilograms

of HAP per megagram ODP produced.

Since it is often difficult to distinguish

between the knotter system and

screening system at mills, a mill may

also choose to meet a total mass

emissions limit of 0.15 kilograms of

HAP per megagram ODP produced

across the knotting and screening

combined system. New sources are

required to control all knotter and

screen systems, regardless of emissions

level.

b. Compliance Times for Kraft Mills.

In the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice, the Agency discussed that it was

considering allowing kraft mills an

extended compliance time of five

additional years (eight years total) for

pulp washing and oxygen

delignification systems (61 FR at 9394–

95). The notice discussed how the

additional time would encourage the
18522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

maximum degree of overall multi-media

pollution reduction and, in particular,

would avoid discouraging mills from

installing oxygen delignification

equipment to reduce water pollution.

The notice recognized the time

constraints mills would face in trying to

comply with both air and water rules

essentially at the same time and that too

short a compliance time could preclude

mills from considering pollution

prevention techniques with

considerable environmental benefits,

such as oxygen delignification and lowflow washers. These technologies

reduce the amount of pollutants

discharged into the wastewater. The

March 8, 1996 notice also solicited

comment on whether this compliance

extension should be extended only to

mills that commit to install these

technologies (if EPA were to decide not

to include that equipment as part of its

BAT model technology).

Commenters supported the extension

of compliance time for pulp washing

and oxygen delignification systems at

existing sources. Several commenters

also requested that the compliance time

be extended for weak liquor tanks,

knotter and screening systems, and

other HVLC vent streams because

emissions from these sources will be

transported and controlled by the same

HVLC collection and incineration

system as the pulp washing and oxygen

delignification systems. The

commenters noted that extension of the

compliance period for all HVLC sources

also allows for proper consideration of

the full range of emerging innovative

water and air pollution control options.

Comments were not received on

whether to provide the compliance

extension only to mills that elect to

install more stringent control

technologies than necessary to comply

with the baseline BAT requirements.

The Agency reviewed the comments

and agrees that vents included in the

HVLC system should be allowed a

similar compliance time as the pulp

washing and oxygen delignification

systems. The majority of emissions and

vent gas flow from equipment

associated with the HVLC vent streams

occur from the pulp washing system

and the oxygen delignification system.

Therefore, the design of the HVLC

collection and transport system would

be significantly influenced by these two

systems. The Agency determined if

different compliance times were

provided for the components of the

HVLC system, an affected source would

expend significant amounts of capital to

control systems required to comply in

the three-year time frame. The source

would have to re-design the gas

transport and control devices five years

later to accommodate controlling the

washing system and oxygen

delignification system. This entire cost

could discourage the implementation of

low-flow washing systems and oxygen

delignification.

This would serve as an obvious

disincentive to installation of advanced

wastewater treatment technology since

mills would be understandably

reluctant to replace a newly installed air

pollution control system. Therefore,

EPA concluded that additional

compliance time is appropriate and

necessary for the remaining equipment

controlled by the HVLC collection and

transport system as well as the pulp

washing system and the oxygen

delignification system. See generally 61

FR at 9394–95. The final rule thus

allows affected sources to control all the

equipment in the HVLC system at kraft

pulping systems at the same time, not

later than April 17, 2006. A mill that

installs an oxygen delignification

system at an existing source after April

17, 2006 must comply with the

NESHAP upon commencing operation

of that system.

Regarding EPA’s solicitation of

comments on providing a compliance

extension to all kraft mills, no negative

comments were received. Therefore,

EPA has decided to extend the

compliance time for all kraft mills.

The final rule includes requirements

for kraft mills to submit a non-binding

control strategy report along with the

initial notification required by the part

63 General Provisions. The purpose of

the control strategy report is to provide

the Agency and the permitting authority

with the status of progress towards

compliance with the MACT standards.

The control strategy report must

contain, among other information, a

description of the emission controls or

process modifications selected for

compliance with the control

requirements and a compliance

schedule. The information in the control

strategy report must be revised or

updated every two years until the mill

is in compliance with the standards.

c. Condensate Segregation. The

proposed standards for process

wastewater would have required that all

pulping wastewaters that met the mass

emission rate and flow rate applicability

criteria had to be treated to achieve the

specified control options. Comments

and data submitted to EPA indicated

that kraft mills typically steam stripped

the condensates from the digester,

turpentine recovery, LVHC, and HVLC

systems, and certain evaporator

condensates. The data also indicated

that mills that use steam strippers also

practiced varying degrees of condensate

segregation in order to minimize the

flow rate and maximize the HAP mass

in condensate streams sent to treatment.

In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register

supplemental notice, EPA presented a

discussion of condensate segregation

and included definitions for condensate

segregation and a segregated condensate

stream. Commenters on the March 8

notice supported the definitions for

condensate segregation and segregated

condensate stream. Commenters also

submitted additional information

suggesting definitions for condensate

segregation and segregated condensate

stream as well as options for

demonstrating compliance with the

condensate segregation requirements.

EPA evaluated the information and

included some of the concepts in the

final rule.

The final rule states that the

condensates from pulping process

equipment at kraft mills must be treated

and allows a number of alternative

methods of complying with the

standards, all of which represent MACT.

The final rule also states that the entire

volume of condensate generated from

the named pulping process equipment

at kraft mills must be treated unless the

volume from the digester, turpentine

recovery, and weak liquor feed stages in

the evaporator systems can be reduced

using condensate segregation. If

adequate segregation (as specified in the

rule) is performed, only the high-HAP

fraction streams from the digester

system, turpentine recovery system, and

the weak liquor feed stages in the

evaporator system and the nonsegregated streams from the LVHC and

HVLC collection systems must be sent

to treatment.

Discussions with the pulp and paper

industry after the March 8, 1996

supplemental notice indicated that

some mills might not be able to achieve

the proposed 65 percent mass isolation

with their existing equipment even

though they are achieving high levels of

HAP removal in the steam stripper

system (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–E–84).

Therefore, the final rule contains two

options for demonstrating compliance

with the segregation requirements. The

first option is to isolate at least 65

percent of the HAP mass in the total of

all condensates from the digester

system, turpentine recovery system, and

the weak liquor feed stages in the

evaporator system (condensate streams

from the LVHC and HVLC collection

systems are not segregated). The second

option requires that a minimum total

HAP mass from the high HAP

concentrated condensates from the

digester system, turpentine recovery
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18523

system, and the weak liquor feed stages

in the evaporator system and the total

LVHC and HVLC collection system

condensates be sent to treatment. The

second option was included in the final

rule because it achieves the same

objective by sending a large enough

mass to treatment to meet the floor-level

control requirements.

For a detailed explanation of the

concept of condensate segregation

readers are referred to the docket (Air

Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–107).

d. Clean Condensate Alternative. The

proposed rule did not contain any

provisions for emissions averaging.

Industry comments on the proposal

indicated support for incorporating an

emission averaging approach in the final

rule. After the public comment period,

the pulp and paper industry submitted

a comparison between an option

developed by industry and the proposed

MACT standards. The option formed the

basis for the clean condensate

alternative (CCA) in the final rule. The

CCA focuses on reducing HAP

emissions throughout the mill by

reducing the HAP mass in process water

streams that are recycled to various

process areas in the mill. By lowering

the HAP mass loading in the recycled

streams, less HAP will be volatilized to

the atmosphere.

The March 8, 1996 Federal Register

supplemental notice presented a

discussion of the industry’s alternative

(referred to as the ‘‘clean water

alternative’’ in the notice). In the March

8 notice, EPA indicated that while the

industry’s concept was innovative,

additional information would need to be

submitted to the Agency to make the

concept a viable compliance option,

such as specific design parameters and

data supporting the relationship

between condensate stream HAP

concentrations and HAP emissions from

process equipment receiving the

condensates.

Design specifications for the CCA

were not available since no mills to date

have implemented such a technology.

However, the test data collected by the

pulp and paper industry following the

December 17, 1993 proposal included

data on vent emissions and process

water HAP concentrations that were

used by industry to develop equations

showing the relationship between HAP

emissions from specific process

equipment (e.g., pulp washers) and the

HAP concentrations present in the

process water sent to the equipment.

EPA evaluated these data and

concluded that sufficient relationship

appears to exist between HAP

concentrations in recycled process

wastewater and HAP emissions from

process equipment, such that the CCA

has the potential to achieve or exceed

the requirements of the final standards.

However, EPA has determined that the

correlation equations developed by

industry, because they were derived

from small data sets, would not be

sufficient for demonstrating compliance

or equivalency with the final standards

at a specific mill. Variability at a

specific mill, such as types of process

equipment, operating practices, process

water recycle practices, and even type of

wood pulped, can strongly influence the

relationship between concentration in

the process water and the process

emissions.

The final rule contains provisions for

using the CCA as a compliance option

to the kraft pulping standards for the

subject equipment in the HVLC system.

An owner or operator must demonstrate

to the Administrator’s satisfaction that

the total HAP emissions reductions

achieved using the CCA are equal to or

greater than the total HAP emission

reductions that would have been

achieved by compliance with the kraft

pulping system standards for equipment

in the HVLC system. The baseline HAP

emissions for each equipment system

and the total of all equipment systems

in the CCA affected source (which is the

existing MACT affected source

expanded to include the causticizing

and papermaking systems) must be

determined after compliance with the

pulping process condensate standards;

after consideration of the effects of the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards in 40 CFR part 430, subpart B;

and after all other applicable

requirements of local, State, and Federal

agencies or statutes have been

implemented. While engineering

assessments or test data may be used to

determine the feasibility of using the

CCA, only test data may be used to

demonstrate compliance with the kraft

pulping system standards using the

CCA.

e. Biological Treatment. At proposal,

owners or operators using a biological

treatment system to comply with the

MACT requirements for pulping

wastewater would have been required to

measure the HAP or methanol

concentration in the influent and

effluent across the unit every 30 days

and to identify appropriate parameters

to be monitored to ensure continuous

compliance. The proposed standards

would have required that during the

initial performance test, mills collect

samples and analyze them using

Method 304 to calculate a site-specific

biorate constant. That constant, along

with the operating parameters

associated with the biological treatment

system were to be entered into the

WATER7 (updated to WATER8 since

proposal) emissions model to

demonstrate that the biological

treatment system could achieve the

treatment level required by the

standards. Those operating parameters

measured during the initial performance

test were then to be monitored

continuously to demonstrate

compliance.

EPA acknowledged at proposal that

industry was collecting information on

the performance of biological treatment

systems and monitoring techniques.

EPA also noted that the industry was

investigating the possibility of

monitoring inlet and outlet soluble

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5).

EPA requested comments on applicable

monitoring parameters for biological

treatment systems and supporting data

on biorates and corresponding

parameters for monitoring.

EPA received a number of comments

on testing and monitoring requirements

for biological treatment systems. The

industry submitted studies on biological

treatment systems and on monitoring

soluble BOD5. Discussions were also

held with the industry representatives

on this issue.

In general, commenters objected to

the proposed requirements to use

Method 304 to calculate the site-specific

biorate constants. Commenters felt that

the laboratory-scale simulation of the

biological treatment unit, which is

basically what Method 304 requires,

does not accurately reflect the biological

degradation rates of the full-scale

system. Commenters also stated that

according to data collected, performance

testing to demonstrate that biological

treatment systems can meet the

standards does not appear to be

warranted given that methanol is highly

biodegradable. Commenters further

requested that if they had to conduct a

performance test, they should also be

permitted to use the inlet and outlet

concentration procedures for calculating

a site-specific biological degradation

rate (biorate) constant as set forth in

Appendix C of the Hazardous Organic

NESHAP (HON). See 59 FR 19402 (April

22, 1994). Commenters also objected to

having to demonstrate continuous

compliance with the operating

parameters, pointing out that a

parameter could be exceeded and the

biological treatment system could still

be meeting the standards.

Following proposal, industry also

submitted data on soluble BOD5 across

biological treatment system units.

Industry stated that their data indicated

that as long as the biological treatment

system was achieving at least 80 percent
18524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

removal of soluble BOD5, the biological

treatment system was operating

properly and that the unit would be

meeting the standards. However,

industry argued that soluble BOD5

removal should not be a continuous

monitoring parameter that if exceeded,

would indicate a violation of the

standards. Rather, a mill should be

allowed to start measuring methanol

removal across the system to verify

compliance.

The Agency considered the comments

and data received and agrees that the

provisions in Appendix C of the HON

are an acceptable alternative to Method

304 for calculating site-specific biorate

constants. However, EPA disagrees with

the commenters on the issue of the need

to conduct performance testing. While

EPA agrees that methanol degrades

more rapidly than many compounds,

there are other HAPs present in the

condensate streams subject to the

standards, and biological treatment

systems can vary widely in their

operation and performance, depending

on their design, maintenance, and even

their geographical location. As such, the

final regulation retains the proposed

requirements for performance testing.

EPA also became concerned that

allowing the use of methanol as a

surrogate for total HAP may not be

appropriate for this particular treatment

technology. Because methanol is one of

the most difficult HAPs to remove with

a steam stripper (the technology on

which the standards are based), even

greater removals of total HAP would

occur when a steam stripper is used.

Thus, methanol is a reasonable

surrogate under such conditions. The

opposite is true for biological treatment

systems, where methanol is one of the

easier HAPs to degrade. As such, the

final regulation specifies that a total

HAP removal (not just methanol) of 92

percent be achieved by biological

treatment systems.

EPA agrees with the commenters that

soluble BOD5 is an appropriate

monitoring parameter for biological

treatment systems. However, EPA

disagrees with the commenters on their

position regarding the monitoring of

soluble BOD5 and operating parameters

for demonstrating continuous

compliance. After discussion with the

industry on this issue, EPA has

concluded that soluble BOD5 and

operating parameters are the most

appropriate means available for

monitoring to demonstrate continuous

compliance (A–92–40, IV–E–87). EPA

understands the concerns raised on this

point, and as such the final regulation

provides flexibility. The regulation

allows mills to establish, through

performance testing, their own range of

treatment system outlet soluble BOD5

and operating parameter values to

monitor. The final rule also allows

owners and operators to demonstrate

compliance with the standard using the

WATER8 model and inlet and outlet

samples from each biological treatment

system unit when the specified

monitoring parameters are outside of the

range established during the initial

performance test.

4. Sulfite Standards—Emission Limits

for Sulfite Pulping Processes

In the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice (61 FR 9383), the Agency

presented potential changes to the

proposed standards for sulfite pulping

processes. EPA had proposed that all

pulping equipment at kraft, sulfite,

soda, and semi-chemical processes must

be enclosed and routed to a control

device achieving 98 percent reduction

in emissions. In the March 8 notice, the

Agency proposed that the MACT floor

level of control at existing sulfite

processes was control of vents from the

digester system, evaporator system, and

pulp washing system. The MACT floor

level of control at new sulfite processes

would be control of the equipment

systems listed for existing sources, plus

weak liquor tanks, strong liquor storage

tanks, and acid condensate storage

tanks. In the March 8 notice, the Agency

discussed in detail its preliminary

determination that the sulfite standards

should instead apply to the total

emissions from specific named vents

and to any wastewater emissions

associated with air pollution control

devices used to comply with the rule.

For calcium-based sulfite pulping

processes, the new proposed emission

limit was 0.65 lb methanol/ODTP and

the percent reduction was 92 percent.

For ammonium-and magnesium-based

sulfite pulping processes, the new

proposed emission limit was 1.10 lb

methanol/ODTP, and the percent HAP

reduction was 87 percent. The Agency

developed applicability cutoffs based on

methanol because only methanol

emissions data were obtained for all of

the equipment systems and wastewater

streams considered for control at sulfite

mills. The test data from sulfite mills

also indicated that for the equipment

systems tested for other HAPs, methanol

comprised the majority of HAP

emissions. Therefore, the Agency

believes that the maximum control of

HAP emissions will be achieved by

controlling methanol as a surrogate.

Several commenters objected that the

proposed emission limits were not

appropriate because they were based on

data that only indicated possible levels

of methanol emissions and not a

rigorous assessment of emission rates.

The commenters contended that the

proposed emission limits were derived

from limited data which may not be

representative of the range of mills in

the industry; therefore, they argued, the

limits did not account for variability in

emissions and are not achievable. The

commenters provided the Agency with

emissions test data that illustrated

fluctuations in the methanol mass

emissions over an extended time period

due to variations in products and

process conditions.

The Agency evaluated the information

provided by the commenters and

subsequently agreed with the

commenters regarding process

variability at sulfite mills. The Agency

determined the amount of variability

associated with a 99.9 percent

confidence level in the data supplied by

the commenters (Air Docket A–92–40,

IV–B–20). This amount of variability

(confidence interval), therefore, was

applied to the average emission limits

from the best controlled mills to

develop the final emission limit.

For ammonium- and magnesiumbased sulfite pulping processes, the

final emission limit is 1.1 kilograms of

methanol per megagram of ODP

produced. After the close of the March

8, 1996, Federal Register supplemental

notice comment period, additional

information was provided to the Agency

that indicated that the sodium-based

sulfite pulping process is in use at some

mills (A–92–40, IV–E–94). No emissions

information was available for this

process. However, the Agency

determined, that due to the similarities

in processes between calcium- and

sodium-based sulfite pulping processes,

the same limit developed for calciumbased mills would be applicable to

sodium-based mills. For calcium- and

sodium-based sulfite pulping processes,

the final emission limit is 0.44

kilograms of methanol per megagram of

ODP produced. Because the variability

is incorporated into the mass emission

limit, these emission limits and

corresponding monitoring parameters

are never-to-be-exceeded values.

5. Soda and Semi-chemical Mill

Standards

The proposed standards would have

required the owners or operators of new

or existing kraft, semi-chemical, soda,

and sulfite mills to comply with the

same emission standards. In the March

8, 1996 notice, EPA proposed to

subcategorize the pulp and paper

industry by pulping type and develop

different MACT control requirements

for soda and semi-chemical mills based
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18525

on emission characteristics. Existing

soda and semi-chemical mills would be

required to control the digester and

evaporator systems (LVHC system). New

soda and semi-chemical mills would be

required to control the LVHC and the

pulp washing systems. EPA solicited

comments on this proposed change.

Information provided by the pulp and

paper industry in survey responses and

after proposal confirmed that the MACT

floor level of control at existing semichemical mills is collection and control

of the LVHC system. The Agency

determined that it was not reasonable to

control other emission points at existing

semi-chemical mills (Air Docket A–92–

40, IV–B–12). Data indicated that the

best-controlled semi-chemical mills

combust LVHC system emissions and

emissions from pulp washing systems.

Therefore, the final rule requires that

existing semi-chemical mills control the

LVHC system, and new semi-chemical

mills control the LVHC and the pulp

washing systems.

As discussed in the March 8, 1996

notice, the MACT floor level of control

for soda mills is no control. The Agency

has determined that HAP emissions

from soda mills are similar to kraft mills

(with the exception that TRS

compounds are not emitted from the

soda pulping process) and control of

LVHC system vents is technically

feasible and can be achieved at a

reasonable cost. The Agency has also

determined that controlling additional

vents at existing sources cannot be

achieved at a reasonable cost. However,

controlling the pulp washing system at

new soda mills can be achieved at a

reasonable cost (Air Docket A–92–40,

IV–B–12). Therefore, the final rule

requires that existing soda mills control

the LVHC system, and new soda mills

control the LVHC and the pulp washing

system.

6. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary

Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood Fiber

Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System

Standards

In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register

notice, EPA proposed standards for

pulping and bleaching processes at

mechanical pulping mills, secondary

fiber pulping mills, and non-wood fiber

pulping mills. As discussed in the

proposal, EPA believes that there are no

air pollution control technologies in use

on these processes except for those

installed on bleaching systems using

chlorine. The March 8 notice proposed

no add-on controls for pulping systems

(and the associated wastewater),

papermaking systems, and nonchlorine

bleaching systems for these mills. For

traditional bleaching systems using

chlorine, the proposed control was

based on the performance of caustic

scrubbers. The proposal stated that EPA

would continue to investigate the use of

HAP chemicals in papermaking, the

magnitude of HAP emissions, and the

viability of chemical substitution to

reduce HAP emissions from

papermaking systems.

Some commenters questioned EPA’s

proceeding with the rule in advance of

the receipt of additional industry data

that was being collected. The

commenters cautioned that EPA did not

have sufficient data on which to base a

rule. Since the March 8, 1996 Federal

Register proposal, EPA has received the

results of the NCASI-sponsored testing

program from these sources (A–92–40,

IV–J–80 through IV–J–85). These data

have been used in the determination of

the final standards for these sources in

today’s rule. EPA has concluded that

sufficient data have been collected to

include these sources in today’s action.

Commenters agreed with EPA’s March

8, 1996 proposal for bleaching systems

at these mills. Comments on the March

8 proposal supported the conclusion

that caustic scrubbers are in use only on

chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching

systems. Furthermore, information

available to EPA indicate that non-wood

pulping mills typically use chlorine or

chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. For

chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching

systems, EPA determined that scrubbers

are used to control chlorinated

compound emissions for process and

worker safety reasons. Thus, the control

achieved by this technology represents

the floor for chlorine and chlorine

dioxide bleaching systems at these mills

and is the technological basis for the

standard in today’s rule. As stated in the

December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA

analyzed more stringent controls, such

as combustion of bleaching vent gases

after caustic scrubbing, for bleaching

systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills.

EPA has determined that these more

stringent options are unreasonable

considering cost and environmental

impacts. Because of the operational

similarities of the chlorine and chlorine

dioxide bleaching systems at non-wood

fiber mills to those at kraft, soda, and

sulfite mills, EPA has concluded that

combustion following caustic scrubbers

is also not cost-effective at non-wood

fiber mills. In addition, data available to

EPA indicate that HAP emissions from

chlorine bleaching systems at these

mills are relatively low. In fact, the data

show that the three largest non-wood

pulping mills, of the ten currently in

operation, use elemental chlorine in

their bleaching systems and total HAP

emissions from each of these three mills

is less than five tons of total HAP per

year (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–B–5).

For chlorine and chlorine dioxide

bleaching systems at mechanical

pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping

mills, and non-wood pulping mills,

today’s rule requires the same level of

control required for bleaching systems

at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Those

requirements are specified in § 63.445

(a)–(c) of today’s rule. However,

§ 63.445 (d) and (e) do not apply to

these mills since there are no effluent

limitation guidelines for control of

chloroform at mechanical, secondary

fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills.

Additional requirements for the control

of chloroform emissions, based on the

effluent limitation guidelines for best

available technology economically

achievable, are required in the standards

for bleaching systems for kraft, soda,

and sulfite mills. However, EPA is not

aware of any controls presently in place

or available for reducing chloroform air

emissions at mechanical, secondary

fiber, and non-wood pulping mills.

Therefore, MACT is no control for

chloroform air emissions from bleaching

systems at mechanical, secondary fiber,

and non-wood fiber pulping mills.

Since the March 8 proposal, EPA has

also determined that while mechanical

pulping, secondary fiber pulping, and

other non-wood pulping mills do not

typically use chlorine or chlorine

dioxide bleaching, these mills may

brighten the pulp stock through the use

of hypochlorite and non-chlorine

bleaching compounds. However, data

available to EPA indicate that HAP

emissions from these systems are

relatively low, and that none of the

bleaching systems that use hypochlorite

and non-chlorine compounds have

installed emission controls. Based on

these findings, EPA established the

MACT floor for bleaching systems at

these mills that use hypochlorite and

non-chlorine bleaching to be no control.

EPA considered going beyond the floor

and requiring HAP control through

incineration of vent streams for these

sources but determined that the

minimal level of HAP emission

reductions that would be achieved did

not justify going beyond the floor (Air

Docket A–95–31, IV–B–5).

In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register

notice, EPA proposed no standards for

papermaking systems. The three

potential sources of HAP emissions

from papermaking systems are HAPs

contained in the pulp stock, HAPs

contained in the whitewater, and HAPs

from additives and solvents.

Information available to EPA indicated

no papermaking systems are operating

with HAP controls; thus the floor level
18526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

of control for papermaking systems is no

control. EPA evaluated two possible

control options for papermaking

systems: (1) Removal of HAPs from the

pulp stock and whitewater before the

papermaking system; and (2) control of

papermaking system vent streams.

Analysis of these control options

showed that there are no demonstrated

methods for removing HAPs from the

pulp stock or whitewater and that

applying HAP control to the vent

streams of papermaking systems is not

cost-effective (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–

B–8). Therefore, EPA is not requiring

HAP control beyond the floor.

In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA

indicated that it was investigating the

use of HAP-containing additives in

papermaking systems, the magnitude of

HAP emissions resulting from the use of

papermaking system additives, and the

viability of a MACT standard based on

additive substitution. EPA has

concluded that based on emission test

reports and a survey conducted on

additive use, additives do not contribute

significantly to HAP emissions (Air

Docket A–95–31, Item IV–B–6). The

amount of HAPs contained in additives

used by the paper industry for

papermaking systems is relatively low,

an estimated 236 tpy in 1995.

Furthermore, less than 20 percent of

HAPs contained in the additives is

emitted to the air. About 80 percent of

the HAPs remain on the paper or in the

whitewater. Consequently, total annual

HAP emissions attributable to additives

are an estimated 50 tons per year,

industry-wide. In comparison to the

baseline emission level of 210,000 tons

per year of total HAPs from the entire

pulp and paper industry, the

contribution of HAPs from papermaking

system additives is negligible (Air

Docket A–95–31, IV–B–6).

In a meeting between EPA and several

representatives of the Chemical

Manufacturers Association (CMA), CMA

stated that members have been working

to reduce HAP and solvent use in

papermaking system additives over the

past 15 years, even in the absence of

regulations. Reductions have been

achieved and CMA expects these efforts

to continue. CMA noted that HAP-free

alternatives may not be possible for all

types of additives, as some HAPs are

critical to product performance. EPA

believes that low-HAP additive

substitution is product-specific and it is

not clear from the available information

that substitution options are technically

feasible (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–E–5).

Therefore, EPA has concluded that a

MACT standard for papermaking

systems based on low-HAP additive

substitution is not warranted.

In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA

proposed no standards for pulping

systems at mechanical, secondary fiber,

or non-wood fiber pulping mills.

Information available to EPA indicated

that no pulping systems at these mills

are operating with HAP controls.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that the

floor for pulping systems at these mills

is no control. EPA evaluated the

feasibility of going beyond the floor and

requiring HAP controls for these

sources. Specifically, EPA investigated

the feasibility of routing vent streams

from these pulping systems to a

combustion device for HAP control.

EPA determined that the cost of

combusting the vent streams was not

justified by the HAP emission

reductions achieved, and that requiring

HAP control beyond the floor was not

justified. Furthermore, pulping

chemical usage, which correlates with

HAP emission levels at kraft, semichemical, soda, and sulfite pulping

mills, is much lower at non-wood fiber

and secondary fiber pulping mills and

minimal at mechanical pulping mills;

thus the potential for HAP emissions is

lower (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–B–7).

7. Bleaching System Standards

In the proposed rule, bleaching

systems would have been required to

control all HAP emissions by 99 percent

using a caustic scrubber. In the March

8, 1996 supplemental notice, the

Agency revised the proposal for the

bleaching system requirements based on

information and comments received

after proposal. The new data indicated

that caustic scrubbing reduces

emissions of chlorinated HAP

compounds (except chloroform), but

does not control non-chlorinated HAP

emissions. The Agency determined that

no other option was feasible to control

non-chlorinated HAPs. EPA has

determined that reduction of chloroform

emissions through the use of additional,

add-on air pollution control technology

is cost prohibitive. The only feasible

option for controlling chloroform

emissions is process modification, such

as chlorine dioxide substitution and

elimination of hypochlorite use.

In the March 8 notice, the Agency

proposed to require chlorinated HAP

emissions other than chloroform to be

controlled by 99 percent (with chlorine

as a surrogate for chlorinated HAP)

based on the performance of a caustic

scrubber. As an alternative to the

percent reduction standard, the Agency

also proposed an emission limit of 10

ppmv chlorinated HAP at the caustic

scrubber outlet (with chlorine as a

surrogate for chlorinated HAP). The

Agency also solicited comments on

providing a mass emission limit

alternative to the percent reduction and

the outlet concentration standards.

Commenters on the March 8, 1996

notice supported the changes to the

scrubber requirements in the proposed

rule. Commenters also expressed

concern that bleaching systems with

new low-flow vent systems would not

be able to meet either the percent

reduction or the outlet concentration

standards. Therefore, they asserted,

these standards would discourage the

use of new low-flow bleaching vent

technologies. Based on this concern, one

commenter advocated a chlorinated

HAP mass emission limit for bleaching

systems of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP

(excluding chloroform) per ODTP

produced. The commenter claimed that

a mass emission limit would not

penalize new low-flow bleaching vent

systems.

Based on available data, the Agency

has concluded that low-flow bleaching

vent systems can achieve the 99 percent

reduction and the 10 ppmv outlet

concentration requirements for total

chlorinated HAP (other than

chloroform). Based on a review of the

information provided by the commenter

and the available data on bleaching

system emissions, the Agency has

concluded that the commenter’s

recommended mass emission limit of

0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP (excluding

chloroform) per ODTP produced is too

high. The Agency evaluated the

available data used to develop the

percent reduction and outlet

concentration requirements for

bleaching systems (A–92–40, II–I–24).

From this evaluation, the Agency

determined that a scrubber outlet mass

emission rate of 0.001 kg of total

chlorinated HAP (other than

chloroform) per Mg ODP produced

(0.002 lb/ODTP) would provide

reductions equivalent to 99 percent

reduction standard (A–92–40, IV–B–29).

The mass emission limit of 0.001 kg of

chlorinated HAP (other than

chloroform) per Mg ODP produced

represents a mass emission limit

achievable by all units that also

achieved 99 percent reduction of

chlorine. Furthermore, the available

data show that some of the scrubbers

achieving the 99 percent chlorine

reduction standard, and the 10 ppmv

outlet concentration limit, were also

operating on low-flow bleaching vent

systems.

For the final rule, the Agency has

provided a mass emission limit option

for bleaching systems of 0.001 kg of

chlorinated HAP (excluding chloroform)

per Mg ODP produced (0.002 lb/ODTP).

The Agency maintains that this option
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18527

allows more flexibility for sources

affected by this rule, does not penalize

bleaching systems operating with lowflow technology, and will provide

reductions in chlorinated HAP

emissions (other than chloroform)

equivalent to the 99 percent reduction

standard. Therefore, the final rule

allows sources to comply with the

bleaching system requirements if they

achieve an scrubber outlet mass

emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of

total chlorinated HAP (other than

chloroform) per Mg ODP produced.

Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for

measuring total chlorinated HAP.

After proposal, the Agency also

evaluated the effect of process

modifications on chloroform emissions.

The results of this analysis indicated

that the technology basis for MACT

control of chloroform is complete

chlorine dioxide substitution and

elimination of hypochlorite as a

bleaching agent. These process

modifications were determined to

reduce chloroform emissions

significantly. At the same time, EPA was

proposing complete chlorine dioxide

substitution and hypochlorite

elimination as the technology bases for

the effluent limitations guidelines and

standards under Subparts B and E (see

58 FR at 66109–11, 14–15). Since the

control technologies that would be

installed to comply with effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

and MACT would likely be the same for

these bleached papergrade mills, EPA

therefore proposed in the March 8

notice that chloroform air emissions at

bleached papergrade mills be controlled

by complying with the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

applicable to those mills. No adverse

comments were received on this

proposal.

In the March 8, 1996 notice, the

Agency solicited comments on whether

an alternative numerical air emission

limit for chloroform (i.e., besides

complying with the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards) was needed.

Some commenters contended that a

numerical air emissions limit for

chloroform would be unnecessary

because the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards would achieve

the requisite reductions. The Agency

did not receive any indication of any

benefit from a numerical air emission

limit for chloroform. Additionally, the

Agency did not have sufficient data and

did not receive any further data after the

March 8 notice to develop a numerical

air emission limit (and hence is finding

that a numerical standard is not feasible

for purposes of CAA § 112(h)).

Therefore, the final rule does not

include a numerical air emission limit

for chloroform (see the proposal at 58

FR 66142 for a discussion on setting

MACT standards in a format other than

an emission standard). The Agency is,

however, providing an alternative

compliance mechanism in the form of a

work practice standard of complete

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine and complete

hypochlorite elimination—the technical

basis for BAT. (EPA also notes that

although the Agency’s technical

judgment is that compliance with BAT

also will result in control of air

emissions to reflect the MACT level of

control, the Agency will continue to

investigate whether this proves correct

as the rule is implemented.)

Because MACT for new sources is

equivalent to MACT for existing

sources, the new source MACT

standards for bleaching systems require

compliance with BAT/PSES

requirements (or implementation of 100

percent substitution and elimination of

hypochlorite). This requirement applies

even if the mill or bleaching system also

meets the definition of new source

under the effluent guidelines limitations

and standards, and thus is required to

meet the more stringent new source

effluent requirements of NSPS/PSNS.

Although achievement of the NSPS/

PSNS may result in installation of

technologies that reduce effluent

loading beyond what is achieved by 100

percent substitution and elimination of

hypochlorite, EPA is not aware that

these advanced technologies will

provide air emission reductions beyond

what the BAT/PSES requirements will

achieve.

EPA notes that an affected bleached

papergrade mill must comply with the

existing source MACT requirements no

later than April 16, 2001 even if the

mill’s existing Clean Water Act NPDES

permit does not yet reflect the

corresponding effluent limitations

guidelines and standards because its

existing terms have not expired or it has

been administratively extended. Put

another way, even if a mill’s existing

NPDES permit serves as a shield (until

reissuance) against imposition of new

limits based on new effluent limitations

guidelines (see CWA Section 402(k)),

the MACT requirement for bleached

papergrade mills to control chloroform

emissions through compliance with all

parameter requirements in the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

takes effect to satisfy the requirements

of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, if a

bleached papergrade mill’s NPDES

permit is reissued sooner than the

expiration of the 3-year compliance

schedule authorized for the chloroform

MACT requirements and calls for

immediate compliance with the BAT

limitations, that deadline would prevail.

The same principles will apply when

effluent limitations guidelines and

MACT standards are promulgated for

dissolving grade mills. EPA’s plans for

promulgating MACT standards for these

mills are discussed immediately below.

An additional issue relating to

compliance dates concerns bleaching

systems at existing source papergrade

kraft and soda mills which have elected,

under the Clean Water Act portion of

this rule, to treat wastewater to levels

surpassing baseline BAT requirements

(such as adding oxygen delignification

prior to bleaching, and in some cases,

engaging in additional reduction of

process wastewater and further

reductions in chlorinated bleaching

chemicals used and bleaching system

modifications than are necessary to

meet BAT baseline limitations). As an

incentive to make this election, EPA is

not requiring participating mills to

achieve compliance with the more

stringent portions of the ‘‘Advanced

Technology’’ BAT limitations for six,

eleven, and sixteen years (for Tiers I, II,

and III, respectively) in order to afford

these mills sufficient time to develop,

finance, and install the Advanced

Technologies. In light of this, the

Agency is concerned that requiring

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills to comply in three years with

MACT standards based on process

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine would discourage

these mills from electing to participate

in the Advanced Technology program.

This is largely because a mill that

implements process substitution before

it installs oxygen or other extended

delignification systems is likely to

construct more chlorine dioxide

generating capacity than it ultimately

will need. A mill thus compelled to

invest first in process substitution may

be very reluctant to abandon a portion

of that investment soon afterwards in

order to participate in the voluntary

incentives program.

EPA also believes that requiring

compliance in three years with a

chloroform MACT standard based on

baseline BAT for bleached papergrade

kraft and soda mills would present

similar disincentives to achieving

greater effluent reductions. A mill in

those circumstances will have made a

substantially larger capital investment

than it will need to control chloroform

once its array of advanced water

technologies is installed. Also,

depending on the degree of process

modifications the mill makes, the mill

may need a much smaller scrubber for
18528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs

and, in some cases, a scrubber may not

be needed at all to meet the MACT

standards for chlorinated HAP

concentration limit. Thus, a mill

otherwise interested in participating in

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program will find itself

diverting capital to environmental

controls that it ultimately will not need,

instead of employing that capital to

make more advanced process

modifications that will benefit both the

water and the air.

Under these unusual circumstances

where imposition of MACT

requirements could likely result in

foregoing substantial cross-media

environmental benefits, EPA believes

that a two-stage MACT compliance

scheme is justified for existing sources

at bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills that enroll in the water Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program (see 61 FR 9394 for a similar

argument relating to compliance with

MACT for washers and oxygen

delignification systems). The first stage

is an interim MACT of no backsliding—

which reflects the current level of air

emissions control. The second stage

requires compliance with revised MACT

based on baseline BAT requirements for

all parameters for bleached papergrade

kraft and soda mills. (The second stage

in effect revises MACT to reflect the

control technologies which will be

available at this later date. See CAA

§ 112 (d)(6).) The no-backsliding

provisions apply to the period from June

15, 1998 until compliance with the

second-stage MACT standards is

required April 15, 2004. This two-step

alternative is available only to bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills actually

making the binding decision to comply

with Tier I, II, or III water limitations.

EPA believes that providing these

mills six years to comply with secondstage MACT (i.e., baseline BAT

requirements for all parameters) is an

appropriate and logical outgrowth of the

discussions set forth in the March 8,

1996 supplemental MACT notice (61 FR

9393) and the July 15, 1996

supplemental effluent guidelines notice

(61 FR 36835–58). In the March 8

notice, EPA solicited comments on its

preliminary findings that MACT for

chloroform air emissions should be

compliance with baseline BAT.

Commenters agreed with this

preliminary determination. In the July

15 notice, EPA set forth its vision of

more stringent BAT for mills that

voluntarily enter the Advanced

Technologies Incentives program. As

part of that voluntary program under the

water standards, EPA is promulgating a

requirement that mills in Tiers II and III,

at a minimum, meet all the limitations

promulgated as baseline BAT no later

than April 15, 2004. See Section IX.A.

Thus, more stringent air emission

controls than stage one MACT will

likewise be available at this time since

compliance with these interim BAT

limitations will result in compliance

with MACT. For Tier II and Tier III

mills, this means that the second stage

MACT requirement is compliance with

the baseline BAT limitations by April

15, 2004. The same is the case for Tier

I mills, even though under the water

regulation Tier I mills will be required

to achieve more stringent limitations at

that time. EPA is defining MACT to be

the baseline BAT limitations even in

this situation because compliance with

the more stringent AOX limitations and

other requirements unique to Tier I are

unnecessary to control chloroform

emissions at these mills.

EPA further believes that most plants

likely to elect to comply with a tier

option already control air emissions of

chlorinated HAPs (both chloroform and

other chlorinated HAPs) through

application of the MACT technologies

(process substitution for chloroform and

caustic scrubbing for the remaining

chlorinated HAPs). Thus, there will be

some control of the emissions from

these bleaching operations during the

time preceding compliance with the

second stage of MACT. To ensure that

there is no lessening of existing

controls, EPA also is promulgating a no

backsliding requirement as an interim

MACT—reflecting current control

levels. During the extended compliance

period, mills thus may not increase their

application rates of chlorine or

hypochlorite above the average rates

determined for the three-month period

prior to June 15, 1998.

In the March 8 notice, the Agency

proposed making a distinction between

requirements for bleaching systems at

papergrade and dissolving grade mills.

The Agency solicited data concerning

chloroform emissions from dissolving

grade bleaching processes and requested

comment on an appropriate chloroform

MACT for dissolving grade bleaching

systems. Several commenters suggested

that a separate MACT standard for

chloroform be developed for bleaching

systems at dissolving grade mills. Some

commenters requested that the Agency

defer chloroform control requirements

for dissolving grade mills until effluent

limitations guidelines and standards are

established at those mills.

As stated in the July 15, 1996 Federal

Register notice (61 FR 36835), EPA is

evaluating new data on the technical

feasibility of reducing hypochlorite

usage and implementing high levels of

chlorine dioxide substitution on a range

of dissolving grade pulp products.

Therefore, EPA is deferring issuing

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for dissolving grade mills

until the comments and data can be

fully evaluated. EPA expects to

promulgate final effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for dissolving

grade subcategories at a later date.

EPA has decided to delay establishing

these MACT standards for chloroform

and for other chlorinated HAPs for

dissolving grade bleaching operations

until promulgation of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

those operations, for the following

reasons. With respect to the MACT

standard for chloroform, first, as

explained above and in the March 8

notice, the control technology basis for

the effluent limitations guidelines and

standards and the MACT requirements

will be the same. Second, at present, the

Agency is unsure what level of chlorine

substitution and hypochlorite use is

achievable for dissolving grade mills.

Thus, although EPA has a reasonably

good idea what the technology basis of

MACT and effluent limitations

guidelines and standards is likely to be

for dissolving grade mills, the precise

level of the standards remains to be

determined. Consequently, at present,

EPA is unable to establish what the

MACT floor would be for chloroform

emissions from bleaching systems at

these mills, and there is no conceivable

beyond-the-floor technology to consider.

EPA will make these determinations

based on data being developed, and

then promulgate for these mills effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

and, concurrently, MACT standards

based on those effluent limitations

guidelines and standards. Covered mills

would therefore be required to comply

with the MACT standards reflecting

performance of the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards no later than

three years after the effective date of

those standards, pursuant to CAA

section 112(i)(3)(A).

The basis for delaying MACT

requirements for chlorinated HAPs

other than chloroform (again, from

dissolving-grade bleach operations only)

differs somewhat. As noted above, the

technology basis for control of these

HAPs is use of a caustic scrubber.

However, when plants substitute

chlorine dioxide for chlorine and

eliminate hypochlorite (in order to

control chloroform emissions and

discharges to water, as explained

above), a different scrubber will be

needed that can adequately control both

the chlorine dioxide emissions for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18529

worker safety reasons and the emissions

of chlorinated, non-chloroform HAPs.

The Agency’s concern (shared by the

commenters who addressed this

question) is that immediate control of

the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs

could easily result in plants having to

install and then replace a caustic

scrubber system in a few years due to

promulgation of effluent limitations

guidelines and standards and MACT

requirements for chloroform. This result

would be an inappropriate utilization of

scarce pollution control resources.

8. Test Methods

At proposal, the Agency proposed to

require that Methods 308 and 26A be

used to test for compliance with the

provisions of the NESHAP. Method 308

is used to measure methanol in the vent

stream. Method 308 had not been

validated using Method 301 at the time

the NESHAP was proposed. Method

26A is used to measure chlorine in vent

streams.

At proposal, commenters objected to

the rule referencing an unvalidated test

method (Method 308). The commenters

also contended that Method 26A should

not be used for measuring chlorine in

the bleaching system because chlorine

dioxide, which is expected to be present

in bleaching system vents, is listed as a

possible interferant in Method 26A. The

commenters suggested using a modified

Method 26A developed by the pulp and

paper industry.

Since proposal, Method 308 was

revised to incorporate suggestions made

and data provided by representatives of

the pulp and paper industry.

Since proposal, Method 308 has also

been validated using Method 301

validation criteria. The validation was

conducted by the Atmospheric Research

and Environmental Analysis Laboratory

in EPA’s Office of Research and

Development. The results of the

validation were reported in the January

1995 issue of the Journal of the Air and

Waste Management Association. The

Agency has also evaluated the

commenters’ claims regarding Method

26A. The Agency agrees that chlorine

dioxide is a potential positive

interferant to the method (i.e.,

concentration measurement could

potentially be higher than actual

emissions). The final rule includes

modifications to Method 26A (based on

an NCASI method) to eliminate

potential problems with chlorine

dioxide interference.

In March 1997, industry informed

EPA that it had not used Method 305 to

obtain the methanol steam stripper

performance data (which was used as

the basis for the proposed pulping

process condensate standards). For the

liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a

direct aqueous injection gas

chromatography/flame ionization

detection (GC/FID) method described in

NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 684,

Appendix I. Consequently, the industry

contends that Method 305 should not be

specified in the final rule for

determining compliance with the

pulping process condensate standards.

However, the NCASI test method has

not been validated using EPA Method

301 procedures and it is unlikely that

the test method validation would be

completed before promulgation of the

MACT standard.

The Agency has considered industry’s

argument and has decided to proceed

with specifying Method 305 in the final

rule to demonstrate compliance with the

pulping process condensate standards.

However, if the Agency approves the

Method 301 validation procedures for

NCASI’s GC/FID test method, this

method will be referenced as either an

alternative or a replacement for Method

305 (for determining methanol

concentration only) with a

supplemental Federal Register notice.

EPA believes that this course of action

will adequately address the industry’s

concerns. This decision was reached

since the Method 301 validation

procedures for NCASI’s GC/FID method

would likely be completed before kraft

mills would have to demonstrate

compliance with the pulping process

condensate standards.

9. Backup Control Devices and

Downtime

The proposal would have required

emission limits for the NESHAP to be

met at all times, except during periods

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Allowance for control device or

collection system downtime was not

specified in the proposed rule, and the

need for backup control devices was not

addressed.

Commenters asserted that EPA should

recognize that control technologies on

which the proposed rule was based are

not designed to operate 100 percent of

the time. Therefore, commenters

requested downtime allowances to

account for safety related venting and

periods when the control device is

inoperable. Otherwise, the commenters

asserted that costly backup control

devices would be necessary to achieve

compliance with the NESHAP at all

times. They further contended that the

environmental benefit for the additional

cost associated with the backup controls

would be minimal. Commenters

recommended a one percent downtime

for the LVHC system, four percent for

the HVLC system, and ten percent for

steam stripper systems. Commenters

contended that while most of the LVHC

systems had backup controls, very few

of the HVLC systems had backup

controls. Several commenters added

that the Part 63 General Provisions do

not address safety venting and

downtime necessary for troubleshooting. Another commenter

contended that the Part 63 General

Provisions already allow significant

emissions and should not be further

weakened.

Since proposal, EPA has re-evaluated

the need to incorporate downtime or

excess emission allowances for LVHC,

HVLC, and steam stripper systems into

the final rule. Based on data submitted

by the pulp and paper industry, EPA

has concluded that some allowance for

excess emissions is part of the MACT

floor level of control. For the final rule,

EPA established appropriate excess

emission allowances to approximate the

level of backup control that exists at the

best-performing mills and the associated

period of time during which no control

device is available. The excess emission

allowances in the final rule include

periods when the control device is

inoperable and when the operating

parameter values established during the

initial performance test cannot be

maintained at the appropriate level.

Based on an analysis of the public

comments and the available data

regarding excess emissions and the level

of backup control in the industry, EPA

has determined that an appropriate

excess emissions allowance for LVHC

systems would be one percent of the

operating hours on a semi-annual basis

for the control devices used to reduce

HAP emissions. The best-performing

mills achieve a one percent downtime

in their LVHC system control devices.

For control devices used to reduce

emissions from HVLC systems, EPA has

concluded that an appropriate excess

emissions allowance would be four

percent. The best-performing mills

achieve a four percent downtime in the

control devices used to reduce

emissions from their HVLC system to

account for flow balancing problems

and unpredictable pressure changes

inherent in HVLC systems. For control

devices used to control emissions from

both LVHC and HVLC systems, the

Agency has determined that a four

percent excess emissions allowance is

appropriate. This decision was made

because the control device would be

used for the HVLC system, which has

the higher emissions allowance. For

LVHC and HVLC system control

devices, the excess emissions

allowances do not include scheduled
18530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

maintenance activities that are

discussed in the Part 63 General

Provisions. The allowances address

normal operating variations in the

LVHC and HVLC system control devices

for which the equipment is designed.

The variations would not be considered

startup, shutdown, or malfunction

under the Part 63 General Provisions

(Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–103, IV–

D1–110, IV–D1–115, IV–E–85, and IV–

E–88).

The appropriate excess emissions

allowance for steam stripper systems

was determined to be 10 percent. The

allowance accounts for stripper tray

damage or plugging, efficiency losses in

the stripper due to contamination of

condensate with fiber or black liquor,

steam supply downtime, and

combustion control device downtime.

This downtime allowance includes all

periods when the stripper systems are

inoperable including scheduled

maintenance, malfunctions, startups,

and shutdowns. The startup, shutdown,

malfunction allowances are included in

the stripper allowances because

information was not available to

differentiate these emissions from

normal stripper operating emissions.

Regarding the commenters’ discussion

of whether the startup, shutdown, or

malfunction provisions of the General

Provisions would cover maintenance

and troubleshooting downtime, EPA has

taken public comment and is currently

revising the requirements of the General

Provisions. Among the changes to the

language, EPA intends to incorporate

safety-related venting requirements into

the General Provisions. However,

scheduled maintenance activities are

not considered by EPA to qualify for

excess emissions allowances. The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan

specified in the General Provisions

should address the periods of excess

emissions that are caused by unforeseen

or unexpected events.

10. Equipment Enclosures, Closed-Vent

Systems, and Control Equipment, and

Condensate Conveyance System

a. Requirements for Closed-Vent

Systems. At proposal, the Agency

required specific standards and

monitoring requirements for closed-vent

systems. The standards required: (1)

Maintaining a negative pressure at each

opening, (2) ensuring enclosure

openings that were closed during the

performance test be closed during

normal operation, (3) designing and

operating closed-vent systems to have

no detectable leaks, (4) installing flow

indicators for bypass lines, and (5)

securing bypass line valves. Monitoring

requirements included visual

inspections of seal/closure mechanisms

and closed-vent systems, and

demonstrations of no detectable leaks in

the closed-vent system.

Commenters to the proposed NESHAP

contended that visual inspections were

not necessary due to durability of the

materials used by this industry to

construct the collection system. In

addition, commenters contended that

leak detections were not necessary since

systems are typically operated at

negative pressure. The commenters also

opposed requirements for seals and

locks on bypass lines because the

bypass lines are installed for purposes

of personnel safety, equipment

protection, and to prevent explosions.

The Agency evaluated the comments

and has decided to make the following

changes to the closed-vent system

requirements. The Agency agreed with

the commenters that most closed-vent

systems will be under negative pressure.

Any leaks, therefore, would pull air into

the collection system rather than release

HAPs to the atmosphere. Therefore, the

Agency revised the requirement for

demonstration of no detectable

emissions to apply only to portions of

the closed-vent system operated under

positive pressure. The Agency also

agreed that requiring a lock and keytype seal on bypass lines would be

overburdensome and could potentially

pose a safety hazard. The intention of

the requirements was to prevent

circumvention of the control device by

venting directly to the atmosphere. The

Agency believes that this assurance can

be achieved using car seals or seals that

could easily be broken, to indicate when

a valve has been turned. Proper

recordkeeping is also necessary to

demonstrate proper operation.

Therefore, the Agency revised the

bypass line requirements to allow the

use of car seals but require log entries

recording valve position, flow rate, and

other parameters. The Agency has

modified the enclosure requirements to

allow for short-term openings for pulp

sampling and maintenance.

The final rule retains the visual

monitoring requirements. The

requirements are necessary to ensure

proper operation of collection systems

and can be conducted at a reasonable

cost.

b. Concentration Limit for

Combustion Devices and Design

Incinerator Operating Parameters. At

proposal, the NESHAP would have

required vent streams to be controlled in

a combustion device that achieves 98

percent reduction of HAPs or outlet

HAP emission concentrations of 20

ppmv corrected to three percent oxygen.

Alternatively, mills could comply with

the control requirements by routing vent

streams to a design incinerator operating

at 1,600 °F and a residence time of 0.75

seconds, or to a boiler, lime kiln, or

recovery furnace.

Commenters on the proposed rule

objected to the 20 ppmv limit at a three

percent oxygen correction factor. Some

commenters claimed that incinerator

exhaust streams in the pulp and paper

industry have an oxygen content in

excess of 10 percent. Therefore, if the

outlet concentration was corrected to

three percent oxygen, the concentration

level would not be achievable. Some

commenters recommended increasing

the correction factor to 10 percent

oxygen.

The 20 ppmv limit represents the

performance that is achieved on low

concentration streams by a well

designed combustion device. This limit

was based on previous EPA studies (Air

Docket A–79–32, II–B–31). The three

percent oxygen correction factor at

proposal was based on stream

characteristics of other industries, such

as the synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry. The three

percent correction factor has been used

on many previous standards for

controlling organic pollutants. EPA reevaluated the three percent correction

factor to ensure that it is appropriate for

the pulp and paper industry. Test data

supplied by the industry confirmed

their comments that the oxygen content

of the incinerator flue gas is typically

greater than ten percent at pulp and

paper mills. Based on the industry data

and the thermodynamic models, EPA

changed the oxygen correction factor to

ten percent (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–

19). Therefore, the final rule allows

combustion devices to be in compliance

if they reduce HAP concentrations to 20

ppmv at ten percent oxygen.

Information supplied by the pulp and

paper industry indicates that many of

the existing incinerators meet this limit.

Commenters on the proposed rule

objected that the requirements for the

design incinerator were too stringent

and that equivalent control could be

achieved at lower temperatures. Many

commenters requested that the Agency

allow incinerators meeting the operating

conditions in the kraft NSPS of 1,200 oF

and 0.5 seconds residence time to be

used for the NESHAP.

EPA has decided not to change the

proposed design incinerator operating

parameters for the NESHAP because the

parameters are necessary to meet the

MACT floor. EPA would first like to

clarify that the final rule does not limit

owners or operators of incinerators to

operate at the specified temperatures

and residence times. Any control device
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18531

that is demonstrated to achieve 98

percent destruction of HAPs will

comply with the rule. Any thermal

oxidizer which reduces HAP emissions

to a concentration of 20 ppmv at ten

percent oxygen will also comply with

the rule. The 98 percent destruction

requirement represents the control level

achieved by well-operated combustion

devices. The 20 ppmv limit represents

the performance achieved by welloperated combustion devices on low

concentration vent streams.

Second, EPA has made this part of the

rule as flexible as possible while still

achieving a level of control reflecting

MACT. In the December 17, 1993

proposal and in this final rule, EPA

developed compliance alternatives in

order to reduce the compliance testing

burden. The compliance alternatives

(i.e., operating thermal oxidizers at a

temperature of 1,600 °F and a residence

time of 0.75 seconds) were developed to

ensure that the thermal oxidizers

perform at a level that would meet the

destruction efficiency requirements. The

operating parameters are based on

previous Agency studies that show that

these conditions are necessary to

achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs.

However, the NSPS operating

parameters (1,200 °F and 0.5 seconds

residence time) do not destroy HAPs to

this extent.

The purpose of the kraft NSPS was to

reduce emissions of TRS compounds.

EPA has evaluated the temperature and

residence time required by the NSPS to

determine whether the NSPS

temperature and residence time are

sufficient to achieve 98 percent

reduction of HAPs. EPA’s analysis

indicates that while the NSPS

requirements are sufficient to achieve 98

percent destruction of TRS compounds,

kinetic calculations for methanol (the

majority of HAP in pulping vent gases)

show that the NSPS criteria will not

achieve 98 percent reduction of HAPs

(Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–18).

Additionally, EPA evaluated incinerator

performance data submitted by industry

(Air Docket A–92–40, IV–J–33). The

data indicated that the NSPS operating

parameters were not sufficient for

achieving 98 percent destruction of

methanol. This conclusion was reached

by EPA since the operating conditions

(i.e., temperature and residence time) of

the incinerators that achieved 98

percent methanol destruction were

greater than the levels specified in the

kraft NSPS. Therefore, the NSPS

specifications will not meet the

requirements of MACT for new and

existing sources.

c. Condensate Collection System. In

the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA

proposed to require pulping process

condensate collection systems to be

designed and operated without leaks.

EPA proposed that all tanks, containers,

and surface impoundments storing

applicable condensate streams were

required to be enclosed and all vent

emissions must be routed to a control

device by means of a closed-vent

system. A submerged fill pipe would

have been required on containers and

tanks storing an applicable condensate

stream or any stream containing HAP

removed from a condensate stream. All

drain systems that received or managed

applicable condensate streams would

have been required to be enclosed with

no detectable leaks and any HAP

emissions from vents were required to

be routed to a control device. Several

commenters on the proposed pulp and

paper NESHAP contended that the

proposed requirements were overly

burdensome and, in some cases,

unnecessary.

After the pulp and paper NESHAP

was proposed, the Agency promulgated

a separate rulemaking in 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart RR (National Emission

Standards for Individual Drain

Systems). This rule established emission

control, inspection and monitoring, and

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for individual drain

systems. The individual drain system

requirements specify that air emissions

from collection systems must be

controlled using covers or seals, hardpiping, or venting of individual drain

systems through a closed-vent system to

a control device or a combination of

these control options. The emission

control techniques specified in the

individual drain system standard (i.e.,

covers/seals and vent combustion) are

common techniques that are applicable

to a variety of wastewater collection

systems, regardless of the type of

process that produced the wastewater

streams.

EPA compared the collection system

requirements contained in the proposed

pulp and paper NESHAP with the

individual drain system requirements in

subpart RR. Since the subpart RR

requirements are consistent with the

intent of the proposed standards, EPA

concluded that the requirements of

subpart RR constitute MACT for the

pulp and paper industry. The control

costs presented in the ‘‘Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard Industry-Background

Information for Promulgated Air

Emission Standards, Manufacturing

Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, SemiChemical, Mechanical, and Secondary

and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final

EIS’’(EPA–453/R–93–050b) were based

on industry estimates for hard-piping

systems. The Agency has concluded that

these costs would be the same or greater

than would be needed for complying

with the requirements of subpart RR.

The final pulp and paper NESHAP

references 40 CFR Subpart RR for the

standards for individual drain systems

for the pulping process condensate

closed collection system. The Subpart

RR standards provide uniform language

that simplifies compliance and

enforcement.

The final rule requires tanks to be

controlled as at proposal, but containers

and surface impoundments are not

required to be controlled. Public

comments indicated that containers are

not used in the pulp and paper industry.

The Agency’s intention in the proposed

rule was not to require surface

impoundments to be controlled, except

when used as part of the condensate

collection system. After further review

of this issue, the Agency has determined

that mills do not use and are unlikely

to use surface impoundments as part of

their closed collection system for

condensate streams and therefore that

the language on control of surface

impoundments does not need to appear

in the rule.

11. Interaction With Other Rules

a. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/

NSR). To comply with the MACT

portion of the pulp and paper cluster

rule, mills will route vent gases from

specified pulping and condensate

emission points to a combustion control

device for destruction. The incineration

of these gases at kraft mills has the

potential to generate sulfur dioxide

(SO2) and, to a lesser degree, nitrogen

oxides (NOX). The emission increases of

SO2 and NOX may be of such magnitude

to trigger the need for preconstruction

permits under the nonattainment NSR

or PSD program (hereinafter referred to

as major NSR).

Industry and some States have

commented extensively that in

developing the rule, EPA did not take

into account the impacts that would be

incurred in triggering major NSR.

Commenters indicated that major NSR

would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper

industry significantly more for

permitting and implementation of

additional SO2 or NOX controls than

predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large

permitting review burden on State air

quality offices; and (3) present

difficulties for mills to meet the

proposed NESHAP compliance

schedule of 3 years due to the time

required to obtain a preconstruction

permit. Industry commenters have

stated that the pollution control project
18532 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(PCP) exemption allowed under the

current PSD policy provides inadequate

relief from these potential impacts and

recommended including specific

language in the pulp and paper rule

exempting MACT compliance projects

from NSR/PSD.

In a July 1, 1994 guidance

memorandum issued by EPA (available

on the Technology Transfer Network;

see ‘‘Pollution Control Projects and New

Source Review (NSR) Applicability’’

from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS to

EPA Regional Air Division Directors),

EPA provided guidance for permitting

authorities on the approvability of PCP

exclusions for source categories other

than electric utilities. In the guidance,

EPA indicated that add-on controls and

fuel switches to less polluting fuels

qualify for an exclusion from major

NSR. To be eligible to be excluded from

otherwise applicable major NSR

requirements, a PCP must on balance be

‘‘environmentally beneficial,’’ and the

permitting authority must ensure that

the project will not cause or contribute

to a violation of a national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD

increment, or adversely affect visibility

or other air quality related values

(AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting reductions are secured in the

case of a project which would result in

a significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting

authority can make these

determinations outside of the major

NSR process. The 1994 guidance did not

void or create an exclusion from any

applicable minor source preconstruction

review requirements in an approved

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Any

minor NSR permitting requirements in a

SIP would continue to apply, regardless

of any exclusion from major NSR that

might be approved for a source under

the PCP exclusion policy.

In the July 1, 1994 guidance

memorandum, EPA specifically

identified the combustion of organic

toxic pollutants as an example of an

add-on control that could be considered

a PCP and an appropriate candidate for

a case-by-case exclusion from major

NSR. For the purposes of the pulp and

paper MACT rule, EPA considers that

combustion for the control of HAP

emissions from pulping systems and

condensate control systems to be a PCP,

because the combustion controls are

being installed to comply with MACT

and will reduce emissions of hazardous

organic air pollutants. EPA also

considers the reduction of these

pollutants to represent an

environmental benefit. However, EPA

recognizes that the incidental formation

of SO2 and NOX due to the destruction

of HAPs will occur. Consistent with the

1994 guidance, the permitting authority

should confirm that, in each case, the

resultant emissions increase would not

cause or contribute to a violation of a

NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely

affect an AQRV.

The EPA believes that the current

guidance on pollution control projects

adequately provides for the exclusion

from major NSR of air pollution control

projects in the pulp and paper industry

resulting from today’s rule. Such

projects would be covered under minor

source regulations in the applicable

state implementation plan (SIP), and

permitting authorities would be

expected to provide adequate safeguards

against NAAQS and increment

violations and adverse impacts on air

quality related values in Federal Class I

areas. Only in those cases where

potential adverse impacts cannot be

resolved through the minor NSR

programs or other mechanisms would

major NSR apply.

The EPA recognizes that, where there

is a potential for an adverse impact,

some small percentage of mills located

near Class I PSD areas might be subject

to major NSR, i.e., the permitting

authority determines that the impact or

potential impact cannot be adequately

addressed by its minor NSR program or

other SIP measures. If this occurs, there

is a question whether MACT and NSR

compliance can both be done within the

respective rule deadlines. EPA believes,

however, that the eight year compliance

deadline provided in the final MACT

rule for HVLC kraft pulping sources

substantially mitigates the potential

scheduling problem. The equipment

with the eight year compliance deadline

are the primary sources of the additional

SO2 and NOX emissions. The additional

time should be sufficient to resolve any

preconstruction permitting issues.

While the Agency believes that eight

years is sufficient for kraft mills with

HVLC systems to meet permitting

requirements, industry has raised

concerns that there could be a potential

problem for a few mills in Class I

attainment areas that are required to

comply with the final rule in three

years. The PCP exemption and extended

compliance schedule may not resolve

all NSR conflicts for every mill.

Although too speculative to warrant

disposition in this rule, EPA is alert to

this potential problem and will attempt

to create implementation flexibility on a

case-by-case basis should a problem

actually occur.

Commenters requested that the PCP

exclusion also be expanded to actions

undertaken at mills that enroll in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology (AT)

Incentives Program in the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

portion of today’s rule. In the July 23,

1996 notice on changes to the NSR

Program (61 FR 38250), EPA solicited

comments on the appropriate scope of

the PCP exclusion. EPA also solicited

comments in the July 15, 1996

supplemental pulp and paper effluent

guidelines notice (61 FR 36857) on

whether advanced water pollution

control technologies implemented by

the pulp and paper industry should be

eligible for an exclusion from major

NSR and if so, whether the exclusion

should be implemented under the

provisions of the PCP exclusion under

the NSR proposed regulations. In the

context of these notices, EPA received

several comments in favor of extending

the PCP exclusion to multi-media

activities, such as those that would be

undertaken for the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program but

received little information on

appropriate criteria for determining the

relative benefits of reduced water

pollution to potential coincident

increases in air pollution.

The Agency believes that, depending

on the control technologies selected by

a mill, the potential exists for an overall

environmental benefit to result from

control strategies implemented under

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. However, unlike

the MACT rule in today’s action, where

the controls that would be installed to

reduce hazardous air pollutants are

fairly well known and the potential

pollutant tradeoffs within the same

environmental media are fairly well

understood, the Agency is less certain

about the controls that might be

installed to comply with this Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and the potential pollutant

tradeoffs that may occur across

environmental media. Therefore, while

the Agency is continuing to consider

extending this PCP status to activities

undertaken to implement the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program, the Agency is not extending

that status in today’s action because the

Agency currently lacks sufficient

information to establish a process and

set of criteria by which a determination

could be made as to whether these

advanced control technologies result in

an overall environmental benefit at

individual mills that participate in this

program. The Agency intends to

continue discussions with stakeholders

on a process and set of criteria by which

a determination could be made as to the

appropriateness of extending the PCP

exclusion to controls installed at
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18533

individual mills to comply with the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. Because the control

technologies that could be installed to

implement the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program may

vary significantly from one mill to

another, mills that want controls

implemented within the context of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

effluent program to be considered PCP

will likely need to make a site-specific

demonstration that such controls result

in an overall environmental benefit.

When a mill would need to make such

a demonstration would depend upon

that particular mill’s compliance

timeline—dictated by the AT Incentives

Tier to which they commit and the time

necessary to get applicable permits

approved. While it is not possible at this

time to identify the criteria the Agency

would use for approving a PCP

exclusion, the Agency would not

consider projects which result in any

increases in emissions of highly toxic

compounds to be an acceptable

candidate PCP. For example, the Agency

believes it would not be

environmentally acceptable to give the

PCP exclusion to an activity which

results in a chlorinated material being

sent to a boiler that would result in the

release of a chlorinated toxic air

pollutant. The Agency also believes that

the public should be provided an

opportunity to review and comment on

mill-specific cases where a PCP

exclusion is being considered for these

advanced water technologies,

particularly if there would be a

potentially significant emissions

increase of criteria air pollutants such as

SO2 or NOX.

Since mills must declare within one

year of promulgation of the cluster rules

whether they will participate in the

Voluntary AT Incentives Program, the

Agency is aware that mills would like

to know whether a mechanism exists

whereby they may apply for a PCP

exclusion among the many factors that

may influence their participation in this

incentives program. In order for the

Agency to proceed further on this issue,

the Agency again is requesting that

interested stakeholders submit

information on the types of control

technologies that could be installed

under the Voluntary AT Incentives

Program along with information on the

type and potential magnitude of

collateral air pollutant increases that

may occur at mills. The Agency requests

information from stakeholders that

could be useful for developing a process

by which mills would apply for the PCP

exclusion and for setting forth criteria

for determining whether an activity

performed under the Voluntary AT

Incentives Program qualifies for the PCP

exclusion. Given the potentially varying

control strategies that could be adopted

by participating mills, the Agency also

requests information that may be useful

in assessing whether generic guidance

on when a PCP exclusion may be

appropriate should be set forth within

the context of the NSR Reform effort or

whether NSR determinations should

more appropriately be made in the

context of mill-specific applications.

The EPA needs this information within

60 days of the publishing of this notice

to evaluate the information and proceed

with this issue in a useful time period

for mills to make their decisions on

participation in the Voluntary AT

Incentives Program. Stakeholders

should submit information on this topic

directly to Ms. Penny Lassiter, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

b. Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA)/Boilers and

Industrial Furnaces (BIF). One of the

options for controlling emissions from

pulping process condensates is to steam

strip HAPs, primarily methanol, from

kraft pulping process condensate

streams. After the HAPs are removed,

the vent gas from the steam stripper is

required to be sent to a combustion

device for destruction. Several

commenters pointed out that some mills

may choose to concentrate the methanol

in the steam stripper vent gas, using a

rectification column, and burn the

condensate as a fuel.

However, the concentrated methanol

condensate that would be derived from

the steam stripper overheads may be

identified as hazardous waste under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) because it exhibits the

ignitability characteristic. See 40 CFR

261.21. Boilers burning such a

hazardous waste fuel would ordinarily

be required to comply with emission

standards set out in 40 CFR Part 266

Subpart H (the so-called BIF regulation,

i.e., standards for boilers and industrial

furnaces burning hazardous waste).

Several commenters recommended

incorporating a ‘‘clean fuels’’ exclusion

into the pulp and paper NESHAP so that

the condensate can be burned for energy

recovery without the combustion unit

also being subject to the RCRA rules.

The ‘‘clean fuels’’ exclusion is a

recommendation from EPA’s Solid

Waste Task Force to allow recovery of

energy from waste-derived fuels that are

considered hazardous only because they

exhibit the ignitability characteristics

and do not contain significant

concentrations of HAP. For background

information see 61 FR at 17459–69

(April 19, 1996), where EPA proposed

such an exclusion based on similarity of

waste-derived fuels to certain fossil

fuels.

The Agency proposed to exclude this

practice from RCRA regulation in the

March 8, 1996 notice and solicited

comments on this determination (61 FR

at 9396). All of the comments supported

granting this exemption. As stated in the

notice, EPA does not believe that RCRA

regulation of the rectification and

combustion of the condensate is

appropriate or necessary. The

rectification practice would not increase

environmental risk, would reduce

secondary environmental impacts, and

would provide a cost savings. Moreover,

the burning of condensate will not

increase the potential environmental

risk over the burning of the steam

stripper vent gases prior to

condensation. (See generally 61 FR at

9397.) Finally, consideration of risk

would more appropriately be handled as

part of the section 112(f) residual risk

determination required for all sources

after implementation of MACT

standards. For these reasons, EPA will

exclude specific sources at kraft mills

that burn condensates derived from

steam stripper overhead vent gases from

RCRA, including condensates from the

steam stripper methanol rectification

process. The scope of this exclusion is

limited to that requested by

commenters, combustion at the facility

generating the stream. (Limitation of the

scope of the exclusion to on-site burning

also eliminates questions about whether

RCRA regulation is needed to assure

proper tracking and transport of the

material.)

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

1. Subcategorization

The subcategorization scheme being

promulgated today for effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the pulp, paper, and paperboard

industry replaces the subcategorization

of this industry that dates back to 1974.

EPA’s reasons for combining and

reorganizing the 26 old subcategories

(formerly found in Parts 430 and 431)

into 12 new subcategories are set forth

below, in the proposal, see 58 FR at

66098–100, and in ‘‘Selected Issues

Concerning Subcategorization’’ (DCN

14497, Volume 1).

In reorganizing Part 430 to comport

with the new subcategorization scheme,

EPA has reprinted in their entirety the

current effluent limitations guidelines

and standards applicable to the newly
18534 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

formed subcategories. The only

substantive changes to the current

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards are the BAT limitations,

NSPS, PSES, PSNS, and best

management practices being

promulgated today for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

(subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory (subpart E). In addition,

EPA is promulgating the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program applicable to subpart B. EPA is

making no changes to the BPT and BCT

limitations previously promulgated for

what are now subparts B and E.

Similarly, EPA is retaining the NSPS

promulgated in 1982 in new Subparts B

and E for new sources that commenced

discharge that met the 1982 NSPS after

June 15, 1988 but before June 15, 1998

provided that the new source was

constructed to meet those standards.

EPA is also retaining, without

substantive revision, the new source

pretreatment standards previously

promulgated for subparts B and E for

facilities constructed between June 15,

1988 and June 15, 1998.

These limitations and standards are

recodified at subparts B and E in the

form of segments corresponding to the

old subcategorization scheme. (In recodifying these limitations and

standards, EPA has simplified the text

introducing the limitations tables, but

has not changed the former regulations’

substance.) Direct discharging mills

currently subject to the 1982 NSPS

remain subject to those standards until

the date ten years after the completion

of construction of the new source or

during the period of depreciation or

amortization of such facility, whichever

comes first. See CWA section 306(d).

After such time, the BAT limitations

promulgated today apply for toxic and

nonconventional pollutants. Limitations

on conventional pollutants will be

based on the formerly promulgated

BPT/BCT limitations corresponding to

the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the

discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for

conventional pollutants, whichever is

more stringent.

EPA is making no substantive changes

to the limitations and standards

applicable to any other subcategory.

EPA will promulgate new or revised

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards, as appropriate, for the

remaining subcategories at a later date.

See Table II–2. Until then, the

previously promulgated effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

remain in effect.

EPA is making one non-substantive

revision in each subpart. Where the

existing regulation includes a narrative

statement describing the procedure to

calculate the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for noncontinuous dischargers, e.g., 40 CFR

430.13, 430.15, 430.62(a)–(d), 430.65

(1996 ed.), EPA has performed the

calculations and presented the results in

tables. The resulting effluent limitations

and standards are the same; this

procedure was done simply to

streamline the regulation and to make it

easier to apply for the permit writer.

In order to ensure that any facilities

that would not have been subject to the

previous subparts will not inadvertently

be subject to limitations and standards

set forth in the newly redesignated

subparts, EPA is using the applicability

language of each previously

promulgated subpart to define the

applicability of the newly redesignated

subparts that consolidate them. For

example, rather than promulgate the

applicability statement proposed for

subpart C, see 58 FR at 66199, EPA has

instead codified as a single applicability

statement, the applicability statements

of former subparts A, D and V, which

new subpart C now comprises. See 40

CFR 430.30.

The Agency received comments that

the groupings comprising the new

subcategories are unreasonable because

they purportedly ignore distinctions

among facilities that affect their ability

to implement the technologies that form

the basis of the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

for subparts B and E. Thus, some

commenters asserted, these facilities

would be unable to meet the same limits

as other mills in the same new

subcategory. EPA considered these

comments in detail where they involved

mills subject to new effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today in order to determine whether the

groupings of the mills into subparts B

and E were appropriate. In response to

these comments, EPA segmented

subpart E. See section VI.B.6.a. When

EPA develops the final regulations for

the remaining subcategories, EPA

similarly will consider if it is

appropriate to fine-tune these initial

groupings to better respond to material

differences between facilities.

EPA also acknowledges that the

subcategorization scheme promulgated

today was developed based on data

received in the ‘‘1990 National Census

of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

Manufacturing Facilities,’’ and that

there have been changes in the industry

since that data gathering effort. Because

the resubcategorization has no

substantive effect on any mill other than

those with production in subparts B and

E (for whom revised effluent limitations

guidelines and standards are

promulgated today), EPA believes that

changes in the industry affecting the

remaining subparts are best addressed

when EPA makes the decision whether

to revise the regulations for those

subcategories.

a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory. The Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,

for which regulations are promulgated

in this rulemaking at 40 CFR part 430

subpart B, encompasses the former

subparts G (market bleached kraft), H

(BCT bleached kraft), I (fine bleached

kraft), and P (soda). EPA has retained

the applicability statements associated

with those former subparts. See 40 CFR

430.20. EPA intends for this merged

subcategory to apply to mills that

chemically pulp wood fiber using a kraft

method with an alkaline sodium

hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking

liquor to produce bleached papergrade

pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard.

It also applies to mills that chemically

pulp wood fiber using a soda method

with an alkaline sodium hydroxide

cooking liquor. Principal products of

bleached kraft wood pulp include

papergrade kraft market pulp,

paperboard, coarse papers, tissue

papers, uncoated free sheet, and fine

papers, which include business, writing,

and printing papers. Principal products

of bleached soda wood pulp are fine

papers, which include printing, writing,

and business papers, and market pulp.

b. Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, for

which regulations are promulgated in

this rulemaking, is defined as 40 CFR

part 430 subpart E and encompasses

former subpart J (papergrade sulfiteblow pit wash) and subpart U

(papergrade sulfite-drum wash). EPA

has retained the applicability statements

associated with those former subparts.

See 40 CFR 430.50. EPA intends for this

merged subcategory to apply to mills

that chemically pulp wood fiber using a

sulfite method, with or without

brightening or bleaching, using an

acidic cooking liquor of calcium,

magnesium, ammonium, or sodium

sulfites to produce bleached papergrade

pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard.

The provisions of this merged subpart

apply regardless of whether blow pit

pulp washing techniques or vacuum or

pressure drum pulp washing techniques

are used.

2. BPT/BCT for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the

Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

a. Background. EPA proposed to

revise effluent limitations for the

conventional pollutants biochemical
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18535

oxygen demand (BOD5) and total

suspended solids (TSS) based on the

best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT) for all of the

proposed subcategories, including

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite. As presented in

the proposal, 58 FR at 66105, EPA

highlighted several controversial issues

concerning the BPT limitations, their

calculation, and their interpretation.

EPA also presented a rationale and

methodology and identified related

controversies for establishing

limitations based on the best

conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

b. BPT. In December 1993, the Agency

proposed to revise BPT for conventional

pollutants for subparts B and E and

specifically solicited comment on that

proposed decision. See 58 FR at 66105–

06. In response, EPA received comments

claiming that EPA lacks the legal

authority to revise BPT once BPT

effluent limitations guidelines have

been promulgated. EPA also received

other comments asserting that the Clean

Water Act compels EPA to revise BPT.

Although the Agency believes that it has

the statutory authority to revise BPT, the

Agency also believes that it has the

discretion to determine whether to

revise BPT effluent limitations

guidelines in particular circumstances.

The question of EPA’s legal authority is

not relevant here, however, because

EPA has decided, in the exercise of its

discretion, that it is not appropriate to

revise BPT effluent limitations

guidelines for conventional pollutants

for subparts B and E at this time. Instead

the current BPT effluent limitations

guidelines for conventional pollutants

will continue to apply to these

subcategories.

EPA bases this decision on its

determination that the total cost of

applying the proposed BPT model

technology is disproportionate in this

instance to the effluent reduction

benefits to be achieved. See CWA

section 304(b)(1)(B). When setting BPT

limitations, EPA is required under

section 304(b) to perform a limited costbenefit balancing to make sure that costs

are not wholly out of proportion to the

benefits achieved. See, e.g.,

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d

1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978). It therefore

follows that EPA is authorized to

perform such balancing when

determining whether to revise existing

BPT limitations.

Mills in subparts B and E have

significantly reduced their loadings of

BOD5 and TSS since promulgation of

the current BPT effluent limitations

guidelines in 1977. Although additional

removals could be achieved if BPT were

revised, EPA has determined for subpart

B and, separately, for subpart E that the

costs of achieving that incremental

improvement beyond either the current

BOD5 and TSS limitations or the current

long term average for BOD5 and TSS are

disproportionate to the benefits. A

single mill might have to spend as much

as $17.4 million in order to upgrade to

advanced secondary treatment. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487. These

expenditures are particularly significant

when one considers the cumulative

costs of this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA

has decided not to revise BPT

limitations for conventional pollutants

for mills in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory and the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory at this

time.

EPA’s decision not to revise BPT

limitations for subpart B at this time is

also informed by the Agency’s long-term

goal for this industry: that the industry

will continuously improve its

environmental performance primarily

through sound capital planning and

expenditures. EPA has determined that

this interplay between potentially more

stringent revised BPT limitations and

the industry’s long-term environmental

improvement is an appropriate factor to

be considered in this rulemaking with

respect to BPT. See CWA section

304(b)(1)(B). It is also consistent with

the Clean Water Act’s overarching

objective, which calls upon EPA to

implement the statute’s provisions with

the goal of eliminating the discharge of

pollutants into the Nation’s waters. See

CWA Section 101(a). In this rulemaking,

EPA has determined that the baseline

regulatory requirements—effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

and air emissions standards—are only

one component of the framework to

achieve long-term environmental goals.

EPA believes that the mills of the future

will approach closed loop operations,

thus achieving minimal impact on the

aquatic environment. To promote this,

EPA is promulgating an incentives

program to encourage subpart B mills to

implement pollution prevention leading

to the mill of the future. See Section IX.

EPA believes that near-term

investments to achieve more stringent

BPT effluent limitations for

conventional pollutants would divert

limited resources away from

environmentally more preferable

investments in advanced pollution

prevention technologies. Thus, EPA is

concerned that revising BPT effluent

limitations guidelines at this time could

discourage mills from achieving even

greater environmental results through

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. Moreover, EPA

estimates that, even without revising

BPT limitations for subpart B, loadings

of BOD5, for example, will decline by

approximately 20 percent when mills

meet the baseline BAT limitations and

best management practices requirements

promulgated today. Incidental removals

are even greater for subpart B mills

implementing more advanced

technologies (e.g., loadings of BOD5 are

estimated to decline by approximately

30 percent at the Tier I level, and EPA

expects substantially greater reductions

from Tiers II and III). See Table IX–1.

EPA also expects comparable TSS

loading reductions to occur. See the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program Technical Support

Document, DCN 14488. In short,

because sufficient additional removals

of conventional pollutants from subpart

B mills can be obtained without revising

BPT at this time, EPA has determined

that, on balance, the incremental

benefits attributable to revised BPT

limits do not justify the comparatively

high costs associated with achieving

those limits. For these additional

reasons, EPA has decided not to revise

BPT for conventional pollutants for

mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory at this time.

Finally, if additional removals of

BOD5 and TSS are needed to protect

particular receiving waters, CWA

section 301(b)(1)(C) requires mills on a

case-by-case basis to meet more

stringent limitations as necessary to

achieve applicable water quality

standards.

For the foregoing reasons, therefore,

EPA has decided, in the exercise of its

discretion, that it is not appropriate to

revise BPT limitations for conventional

pollutants for subparts B and E at this

time. Rather, the BPT effluent

limitations guidelines promulgated for

former subparts G, H, I, and P (now

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory, subpart B) and former

subparts J and U (now Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain

in effect. These limitations are

recodified at subparts B and E in the

form of segments corresponding to the

old subcategorization scheme. See 40

CFR 430.22 and 430.52.

c. BCT Methodology. In considering

whether to promulgate revised BCT

limits for subparts B and E, EPA

considered whether there are

technologies that achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants

than the current BPT effluent

limitations guidelines, and whether

those technologies are cost-reasonable

according to the BCT cost test. At
18536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

proposal, EPA presented two alternative

methodologies for developing BCT

limitations. The first assumed that BPT

limits would be revised in the final

rulemaking; the alternative analysis was

based on the assumption that BPT limits

would not be revised. See 58 FR at

66106–07. The principal difference

between the two methodologies

involved the BPT baseline that EPA

would use to compare the incremental

removals and costs associated with the

candidate BCT technologies. Because

the Agency is not revising BPT, EPA

used the second alternative to determine

whether to revise the current BCT limits

for subparts B and E.

d. BCT Technology Options

Considered. For the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,

EPA identified two candidate BCT

technologies for the final rule. These

were: (i) The technology required to

perform at the level achieved by the best

90 percent of mills in the subcategory;

and (ii) the technology required to

perform at the level achieved by the best

50 percent of mills in the subcategory.

The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory

was not divided into segments for the

purpose of conducting a BCT analysis

because EPA found that treatability of

BOD5 and TSS in the wastewater

generated by the three segments does

not differ. EPA identified one candidate

BCT technology for the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory. This was the

technology required to perform at the

average level achieved by three mills in

the subcategory with at least 85 percent

of their production in the segment.

Development of candidate BCT

technology options based on the best 90

and 50 percent of mills, which EPA

used for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory, is not

appropriate for this subcategory because

there are only 11 mills in this

subcategory and only four of these have

at least 85 percent of their production in

the subcategory. The wastewater

treatment performance of three of these

mills was determined to reflect BCT

level performance for the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory. EPA did not

consider the wastewater treatment

performance of the fourth mill to be

representative of the subcategory as a

whole because it treats wastewater from

liquor by-products manufactured on

site, and thus is unique among

papergrade sulfite mills.

e. Results of BCT Analysis. EPA

evaluated the candidate BCT

technologies for both the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory

and concluded that none of the

candidate options passed the BCT cost

test. For more details, see the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, Section 12, DCN 14487.

Therefore, at this time, the Agency is

not promulgating more stringent BCT

effluent limitations guidelines for the

newly constituted subparts B and E.

Rather, the BCT limitations promulgated

for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory, subpart B) and former

subparts J and U (now Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain

in effect. These limitations are

recodified at subparts B and E in the

form of segments corresponding to the

old subcategorization scheme. See 40

CFR 430.23 and 430.53.

3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/

PSES/PSNS

a. Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated

Phenolic Pollutants. EPA is

promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-

TCDD (‘‘dioxin’’), 2,3,7,8-TCDF

(‘‘furan’’), and 12 specific chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for subparts B and

E (except for those mills regulated by

TCF limitations). For a discussion of

EPA’s rationale for regulating these

parameters, see the proposal, 58 FR at

66102–03 and the proposal Technical

Development Document (EPA 821–R–

93–019). For a discussion of EPA’s passthrough analysis regarding these

pollutants, see Section VI.B.5.c(2) and

VI.B.6.d.

b. Volatile Compounds. EPA is

promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for chloroform

for subpart B. For a discussion of EPA’s

rationale for regulating chloroform, see

the proposal, 58 FR at 66102 and the

proposal Technical Development

Document (EPA 821–R93–019). EPA is

not promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for chloroform

for subpart E at this time. For a

discussion of EPA’s pass-through

analysis regarding chloroform, see

Section VI.B.5.c(2). For the reasons set

forth below and in the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487, EPA is not promulgating effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the discharge of acetone, methylene

chloride, and methyl ethyl ketone

(MEK). EPA received no adverse

comments in response to its preliminary

determination, presented in the July

1996 Notice of Availability, 61 FR at

36839, not to regulate these pollutants.

EPA has reviewed data from both

hardwood and softwood mills

employing a variety of bleaching

processes in an effort to identify factors

that contribute to the formation of

acetone, methylene chloride, and MEK

in the bleach plant. The bleaching

processes evaluated included bleaching

using elemental chlorine, BAT Option A

(elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching

using 100 percent chlorine dioxide),

BAT Option B (oxygen delignification

plus ECF bleaching using 100 percent

chlorine dioxide), ECF bleaching using

ozone, and totally chlorine-free

bleaching. The ranges of loadings for

each pollutant were similar across the

different bleaching technologies and for

both hardwood and softwood mills. The

average loadings for these pollutants do

not exhibit a performance trend with

regard to the bleaching technologies.

In the EPA/Industry long-term study,

methylene chloride was found to be a

sample- and laboratory-contaminant in

certain cases. Among the more recent

data reviewed by EPA, methylene

chloride was detected in the bleach

plant effluent at ten percent of the

sampled mills. Where detected,

methylene chloride was present at low

concentrations. Therefore, because

methylene chloride is infrequently

detected, because its formation

processes are not fully understood, and

because the cases in which it is detected

are often attributed to sample and

laboratory contamination, EPA has

decided not to promulgate effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

methylene chloride in this rulemaking.

EPA had proposed limitations for

acetone and MEK based on limited data

indicating that these parameters may be

affected by the technology options being

considered. EPA has decided not to

promulgate effluent limitations

guidelines or standards for these

parameters because additional data have

shown that this is not the case.

Moreover, EPA believes that the

limitations and new source performance

standards being promulgated today for

adsorbable organic halides for subpart B

mills will ensure that mills will

continue to operate their biological

wastewater systems at levels necessary

to achieve very high removals of these

pollutants, thus obviating the need for

separate limitations.

In view of the efficacy of biological

wastewater treatment in removing

acetone and MEK and the fact that

process changes have no effect on the

levels at which they are generated, EPA

is not convinced that these pollutants

pass through POTWs. Therefore, EPA is

also not setting pretreatment standards

for acetone or MEK for subpart B at this

time.

With respect to papergrade sulfite

mills, EPA expects that, once

promulgated, the limitations and

standards for AOX based on, among

other things, efficient biological
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18537

treatment, will ensure that treatment

systems are operated at levels necessary

to obviate the need for separate

limitations for acetone and MEK.

Therefore, EPA is deferring its decision

on whether to regulate acetone and MEK

until that time.

c. Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX).

EPA is establishing BAT limitations,

NSPS, and pretreatment standards for

the control of adsorbable organic halide

(AOX) discharges from mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. EPA is also establishing

BAT limitations, NSPS, and

pretreatment standards to control AOX

discharges from mills in the calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based segment

of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

For a discussion of EPA’s pass through

analysis for AOX discharges from these

mills, see Sections VI.B.5.c(2), VI.B.6.d,

and the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, Section 8, DCN

14487. As discussed in more detail in

those sections, EPA is not setting

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for AOX for other mills in

subpart E at this time.

AOX is a measure of the total

chlorinated organic matter in

wastewaters. At pulp and paper mills,

almost all of the AOX results from

bleaching processes. Even though

dioxin and furan are no longer

measurable using today’s analytical

methods at the end of the pipe at many

mills, the potential for formation of

these pollutants continues to exist at

pulp and paper mills as long as any

chlorine-containing compounds

(including chlorine dioxide) are used in

the bleaching process. The record

demonstrates a correlation between the

presence of AOX and the amount of

chlorinated bleaching chemical used in

relation to the residual lignin in the

pulp (expressed as the kappa factor).

The record further shows that there is a

correlation between the kappa factor

and the formation of dioxin and furan.

Therefore, EPA concluded that reducing

AOX loadings will have the effect of

reducing the mass of dioxin, furan, and

other chlorinated organic pollutants

discharged by this industry. For further

discussion of EPA’s rationale for

regulating AOX, see the Supplemental

Technical Development Document

(DCN 14487) and response to comments

on justification for establishing

limitations for AOX (DCN 14497, Vol. I).

EPA’s decision to regulate AOX is

also based on the fact that AOX, unlike

most of the chlorinated organic

compounds regulated today, is

comparatively inexpensive to monitor

for and is easily quantified by

applicable analytical methods. Thus,

while EPA could have decided to

control the formation of dioxin, furan,

chloroform, and the 12 regulated

chlorinated phenolic pollutants by

requiring mills to monitor for those

pollutants on a daily basis, EPA also

recognizes that testing for those

pollutants is expensive and time

consuming. In contrast, daily

monitoring for AOX as required in

today’s rule is considerably less

expensive. See Section VI.B.8.b(4) and

DCN 14487. Additionally, under the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, enrolled mills are

eligible for reduced AOX monitoring.

See Section IX.B.2 and DCN 14488.

Moreover, the presence of AOX can be

readily measured in mill effluent, in

contrast to the presence of many of the

chlorinated organic compounds

regulated in today’s rule, which for the

most part are likely to be present at

levels that cannot be reliably measured

by today’s analytical methods. See

Section VI.B.5.a(4). Thus, although EPA

is not required under the Clean Water

Act to consider the environmental or

human health effects of its technologybased regulations, EPA has also

determined that regulating AOX as part

of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS provides

further assurance that human health and

the environment will be protected

against the potential harm associated

with dioxin, furan, and the other

chlorinated organic pollutants.

d. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).

The proposed rule included end-of-pipe

BAT limitations and PSES for COD. EPA

continues to believe that COD

limitations can be used to ensure the

operation of processes that minimize the

discharge of all organic compounds,

including toxic organic compounds that

are not readily biodegraded. However,

the limited data available at this time do

not adequately characterize other

sources of COD that may be present at

some complex mills, although it appears

that the COD contributed by these

sources may be as great as the COD

contribution from the pulp mill and

bleach plant areas of the mill. These

other sources of COD could include

paper machines, mechanical pulping,

other on-site chemical pulping, and

secondary fiber processing (including

deinking). See DCN 13958 and DCN

14495. Even if sufficient data were now

available to establish COD limitations

and standards for pulp mill operations

in subparts B and E, EPA does not have

sufficient information at present to

evaluate the other sources of COD and

the performance of control technologies

to limit COD at those sources in order

to set national effluent limitations

guidelines and standards.

For this reason, EPA is not

establishing final effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for COD at this

time. EPA does, however, intend to

promulgate COD limitations and NSPS

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories in a later rulemaking. For

this purpose, EPA will gather additional

data to characterize other sources of

COD that may be present at complex

mills subject to subparts B or E. This

effort will be undertaken concurrently

with data gathering to assess the need

for establishing COD limits for mills

operating in other subcategories (Phase

II rulemaking). EPA believes that this

data-gathering effort will facilitate

setting limits in permits for complex

mills with other onsite process

operations. EPA will also decide as part

of the Phase II rulemaking whether COD

passes through or interferes with the

operation of POTWs and, therefore,

whether pretreatment standards for COD

would be appropriate for subparts B and

E.

While EPA does not have sufficient

data to issue national technology-based

regulations for COD at this time, EPA

strongly urges permitting authorities to

consider including COD limitations in

NPDES permits for Subpart B and E

mills on the basis of best professional

judgment. See 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3).

Pretreatment authorities should

establish COD local limits if COD passes

through or interferes with the POTWs

within the meaning of the general

pretreatment regulations. See 40 CFR

403.5(c). EPA believes that permitting or

pretreatment authorities should address

COD for the following reasons. Chronic

sublethal toxic effects have been found

to result from the discharge of treated

effluent from bleached and unbleached

kraft, mechanical, and groundwood/

sulfite pulp mills (see DCNs 3984,

13985, 13975, 13976, 13979, and

00012). These chronic toxic effects were

measured as increased liver mixedfunction oxydase activity and symptoms

of altered reproductive capacity in fish

(DCN 60002). This toxicity is associated

at least in part with families of nonchlorinated organic materials that are

measured by the existing COD analytical

method. Some of these materials,

including several wood extractive

constituents found in pulping liquors,

are refractory (i.e., resistant to rapid

biological degradation) and thus are not

measurable by the five-day biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD5) analytical

method.

In order to assist permitting or

pretreatment authorities in developing
18538 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

COD limitations, EPA describes below

various processes that mills can use to

control COD. The major sources of COD

(which includes slowly biodegradable

and non-biodegradable organic material)

at a pulp mill are the pulp mill and

bleach plant areas. Pulping sources of

COD include digester condensates and

spent pulping liquor. Open screening

processes can be a major source of COD

discharges. Spent pulping liquor can

also be lost from the process through

process spills and equipment leaks.

Bleach plant filtrates, the recovery area,

leaks from turpentine processing areas

at softwood mills, and pulp dryers are

examples of other sources of COD at

pulp mills.

The process changes that form the

basis of the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today include processes that can reduce

discharges of primarily non-chlorinated

organic compounds. These as yet

unidentified refractory organic

compounds have been correlated with

chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity from

pulp mill effluents. By recovering much

of the non-chlorinated organic

compounds prior to bleaching,

discharges of chlorinated organic

compounds also are reduced. For

example, improved brownstock

washing, which is part of the model

technology basis for today’s regulations,

can be operated (for the purposes of

achieving COD limitations) to minimize

black liquor carryover to the bleach

plant and thus reduce the formation of

AOX and toxic chlorinated compounds.

Another process technology effective at

reducing organic discharges associated

with pulping liquors is for a mill to

return all water from pulp screening to

the process, termed a closed screen

room.

EPA intends for the best management

practices promulgated today for

Subparts B and E to lead mills to retain

spent pulping liquors in the process, to

the maximum extent practicable,

through preventing leaks and spills and

through capturing those leaks and spills

that do occur and returning the organic

material to the recovery system. The

BMPs are also intended to lead mills to

collect intentional diversions of spent

pulping liquors and return those

materials to the process. However, the

BMP regulations do not require that the

contained leaked and spilled material be

recovered in the process, nor are

intentional diversions required to be

returned to the process. In the absence

of COD limitations, significant

quantities of this organic material could

be metered to the wastewater treatment

system. As a result, while the BMP

program will effectively prevent releases

of pulping liquors (and soap and

turpentine) that would upset or

otherwise interfere with the operation of

the wastewater treatment system,

refractory organic material believed to

cause chronic toxic effects could still be

discharged at levels greater than the

levels achievable through optimized

process technologies and effective end-

-of-pipe treatment. For this additional

reason, EPA believes that COD

limitations established on a best

professional judgment basis would be

appropriate.

The COD data considered by EPA are

presented in the support document,

Analysis of Data for COD Limitations,

DCN 13958, for this rule. This support

document also presents EPA’s estimates

(based on data available today) of the

ranges of COD effluent load believed to

be contributed by other mill operations,

which EPA is supplying as limited

guidance to permitting and pretreatment

authorities. EPA urges permitting

authorities to include—and exercise—

reopener clauses in NPDES permits for

mills subject to Subpart B or E in order

to impose or revise COD effluent

limitations once effluent limitations

guidelines for COD are promulgated.

e. Color and Other Pollutants. EPA

proposed BAT limitations and PSES for

color for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory only. Commenters

asserted that EPA should not establish

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for color because it is a

concern more appropriately addressed

in individual permits based on

applicable water quality standards. EPA

agrees with this comment. The potential

for significant aesthetic or aquatic

impacts from color discharges is driven

by highly site-specific conditions and is

best dealt with on a case-by-case basis

through individual NPDES permits or,

when appropriate, through local limits.

Therefore, the Agency is not

promulgating technology-based

limitations or standards for color. See

DCN 14497, Vol. I.

EPA did not propose effluent

limitations for four pollutants, including

biphenyl, carbon disulfide, dimethyl

sulfone, and mercury, and indicated in

the Technical Development Document

(at Section 7.3.5) that these four

pollutants were remaining under

consideration for regulation. Based on

limited data available to date, EPA has

decided not to establish effluent

limitations and standards for these

pollutants. EPA has reached this

decision because these pollutants are

not found consistently in effluents and

thus they are not directly related to

pulping and bleaching processes serving

as the basis for BAT and NSPS. EPA

notes that where mercury was found to

be present, the concentrations at which

it was found suggests that a possible

source of this pollutant may be

contaminants of purchased chemicals.

However, the Agency did not obtain any

information or data which would either

clearly identify the source or sources of

mercury or the other pollutants, or

provide a basis for identifying

applicable control technologies or

establishing effluent limitations.

Therefore, EPA is not developing

effluent limitations and standards.

Individual mills may still receive water

quality based effluent limitations

(Section 301(b)(1)(C)) for any of these

pollutants where necessary to protect

local water quality.

f. Biocides. EPA is retaining the

current effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for the biocides

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory, subpart B) and former

subparts J and U (now Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory, subpart E). These

limitations and standards are recodified

at subparts B and E. See 40 CFR

430.24(d), 430.25(d), 430.26(b),

430.27(b), 430.54(b), 430.55(c),

430.56(b), 430.57(b). For subpart B, the

limitations and standards are presented

in the form of segments corresponding

to the old subcategorization scheme.

(EPA did not need to track the old

subcategorization scheme for subpart E

because the limitations and standards

for former subparts J and U were the

same.) EPA is not codifying any

minimum monitoring frequency for

these pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.02. In

addition, unless the permitting or

pretreatment authority decides

otherwise, EPA expects that mills would

demonstrate compliance with these

limitations at the end of the pipe.

As before, the regulations continue to

provide that a discharger is not required

to meet the biocides limitations or

standards if it certifies to the permitting

or pretreatment authority that it is not

using these compounds as biocides. See,

e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(d). (These

certification provisions have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget under control number 2040–

0033. See 40 CFR 9.1.) EPA notes,

however, that mills using chlorinecontaining compounds in their

bleaching processes are required to meet

separate limitations or standards for

pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-

trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol in connection with the

new effluent limitations and standards

promulgated today for subparts B and E

regardless whether these compounds are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18539

also used as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR

430.24(a)(1). (Those compounds are

included within the list of the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants

discussed in Section VI.B.3.a.) EPA is

requiring dischargers to demonstrate

compliance with these limitations and

standards by monitoring for those

pollutants at the point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the bleach plant. See, e.g., 40 CFR

430.24(e).

EPA believes it is appropriate to

codify separate limitations and

standards for those pollutants, even

though in very rare cases a mill may be

required to comply with both sets. First,

although for the same pollutants the two

sets of limitations arise from different

chemical applications in different parts

of the mill. As biocides,

pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol

could be used virtually anywhere in a

mill’s industrial process, but were

typically used as slimicides in

whitewater recirculation systems. In the

limitations and standards promulgated

today, however, pentachlorophenol,

2,4,5-trichlorophenol and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol are being regulated

because they are found in bleach plant

wastewater when chlorine-containing

compounds are used for bleaching.

Second, EPA expects these pollutants to

be reduced to quantities below the

minimum level of the applicable

analytical method as a result of bleach

plant process changes, which is not the

case when they are used as biocides.

Thus the different limitations and

standards found in subparts B and E for

these pollutants respond to different

situations and reflect different model

process technologies. Finally, EPA

believes that mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

or the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory

generally do not use pentachlorophenol

or trichlorophenol as biocides today.

See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

Therefore, EPA expects that each mill

will be able to certify that it is not using

the compounds as biocides and

therefore will not be subject to the

biocides-related limitations.

4. Analytical Methods

In this rule, EPA is promulgating

Method 1650 for the analysis of AOX

and Method 1653 for the analysis of

certain chlorinated phenolic

compounds.

a. Authority. The analytical methods

in this final rule are promulgated under

the authority of CWA sections 301,

304(h), 307, 308, and 501(a). Section

301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of

any pollutant into navigable waters

unless the discharge complies with an

NPDES permit issued under section 402

of the Act. Section 301 also specifies

levels of pollutant reductions to be

achieved by certain dates. Section

304(h) of the Act requires the EPA

Administrator to ‘‘promulgate

guidelines establishing test procedures

for the analysis of pollutants that shall

include the factors which must be

provided in any certification pursuant

to section 401 of this Act or permit

applications pursuant to section 402 of

this Act.’’ These test procedures for the

analysis of pollutants also assist in the

implementation of Section 301. Section

501(a) of the Act authorizes the

Administrator to prescribe such

regulations as are necessary to carry out

her function under this Act.

The Administrator has also made

these test procedures (methods)

applicable to monitoring and reporting

of NPDES permits (40 CFR part 122,

§§ 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, and 123.25),

and implementation of the pretreatment

standards issued under section 307 of

CWA (40 CFR part 403, §§ 403.10 and

403.12). Section 308 provides authority

for information gathering.

b. Background and History. In the

December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA

referenced a compendium entitled

‘‘Analytical Methods for the

Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and

Paper Industry Wastewater.’’ This

compendium contained methods that

had not been promulgated at 40 CFR

part 136, but would be applicable for

monitoring compliance with the

limitations and standards proposed for

part 430 at that time. The compendium

included methods for the analysis of

CDDs and CDFs (i.e., dioxin and furans),

AOX, chlorinated phenolics, and color.

These methods were proposed for

promulgation at 40 CFR part 430 to

support the proposed regulation and

were included in the docket for the

proposed pulp and paper rule.

EPA received more than 200

individual comments and suggestions

concerning the proposed analytical

methods. Some of these were comments

on the methods not being promulgated

today. Many of the comments and

suggestions were technically detailed,

ranging from suggestions on changing

the integration time in Method 1650 (for

AOX) to reducing the spike levels for

labeled compounds used in Method

1653 (for chlorinated phenolics). Other

comments raised questions about EPA’s

approach to technical issues and

policies regarding the handling of

analytical data. EPA has included a

summary of the detailed comments and

specific responses to those comments in

the record for today’s rule.

On July 15, 1996, EPA published a

notice of availability that, among other

things, summarized the changes the

Agency intended to make to the

proposed or promulgated analytical

methods and stated that detailed

revisions to the methods would be

added to the record at a later date. See

61 FR at 36848–49. In promulgating

today’s rule, EPA has implemented the

changes identified in the July 1996

Notice. These changes are summarized

below and detailed in the response to

comments provided in the record.

c. Analytical Methods Promulgated

Today. EPA has revised the analytical

methods compendium entitled

‘‘Analytical Methods for the

Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and

Paper Industry Wastewater’’ to

incorporate revisions to the methods

made since proposal. This compendium

(EPA–821–B–97–001, August 1997)

contains the analytical methods to be

used for monitoring compliance with

the limitations and standards

promulgated today for subparts B and E.

The compendium includes Method

1650 for the determination of AOX and

Method 1653 for the determination of

chlorinated phenolics. These two

analytical methods are being

promulgated today as appendices to 40

CFR part 430. They have not yet been

promulgated at 40 CFR part 136.

(1) Method 1650: AOX by Adsorption

and Coulometric Titration

Method 1650 can be used to measure

AOX in water and wastewater. AOX is

a measure of halogenated organic

compounds that adsorb onto granular

activated carbon (GAC). The method

involves adsorption of the organic

halides (chlorine, bromine, iodine) in

water onto GAC, removal of inorganic

halides by washing, combustion of the

organic halides (along with the GAC) to

form hydrogen halides, and titration of

the hydrogen halides with silver ions in

a microcoulometer. The results are

reported as organic chlorine even

though other halides may be present

because chlorine is the halide of

concern in pulp and paper wastewaters.

EPA studies have demonstrated a

Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 6.6

μg/L. Based on this MDL and on

calibration of the microcoulometer, the

minimum level (ML) in Method 1650

has been determined to be 20 μg/L. The

minimum level and other performance

attributes for this method have been

validated in single laboratory method

validation studies and by use in data

gathering for today’s final rule. All

laboratories that used Method 1650 in

the data gathering effort calibrated their

instruments at the ML.
18540 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Since proposal, EPA has made

changes to Method 1650 to improve the

ease of use and the reliability of this

method. These changes are reflected in

the version of Method 1650 being

promulgated today and they largely

reflect comments and suggestions made

following proposal of the method. In

response to comments, EPA made

several changes to Method 1650,

including: adjustment of the

breakthrough specification to 25 percent

based on recent data; allowance of a

100- or 25-mL adsorption volume,

provided the sensitivity requirements in

the method are met; provision of greater

flexibility in allowable glassware sizes;

use of 100-mL volumes of standards for

calibration and other purposes to

conserve reagents; use of only 2-mm

columns to make the column procedure

more reproducible; adjustment of the

QC acceptance criteria based on an

industry interlaboratory method

validation study; and the addition of a

minimum integration time of 10

minutes to assure that all AOX is

measured. In addition, the format of the

method has been modified to reflect the

standardized format recommended by

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring

Management Council (EMMC). For a

more detailed discussion of the changes

made to Method 1650 since proposal,

see DCN 14497, Vol. VII.

EPA disagreed with several comments

on EPA’s proposed Method 1650 and

therefore did not make the changes

suggested by commenters. In particular,

EPA disagrees that the method detection

limit (MDL) should be increased to 20

μg/L to allow for blank contamination.

In EPA’s view, blank contamination can

be controlled to levels well below 20 μg/

L. EPA also disagrees that it should

eliminate Section 8.1.2 of the proposed

method. (Section 8.1.2 contained

provisions for flexibility.) EPA has

received a large number of requests that

analytical methods be ‘‘performancebased,’’ and has attempted to implement

the means for allowing changes in

Section 8.1.2 (Section 9.1.2 in the

version of Method 1650 being

promulgated today). Under Section

8.1.2, the laboratory can make minor

modifications to Method 1650 provided

that the laboratory performs all quality

control (QC) tests and meets all QC

acceptance criteria. In addition, contrary

to a suggestion from a commenter, EPA

has not included examples of cell

maintenance in Method 1650 because

EPA believes that analysts who

maintain the coulometric cell must be

familiar with the cell maintenance

procedures provided by the instrument

manufacturer. For more information on

these issues, see DCN 14497, Vol. VII.

(2) Method 1653: Chlorophenolics by

In-Situ Derivatization and Isotope

Dilution GC/MS

Method 1653 can be used to measure

chlorinated phenolic compounds in

water and wastewater amenable to in

situ acetylation, extraction, and

determination by HRGC combined with

low-resolution mass spectrometry

(LRMS). In this method,

chlorophenolics are derivatized in situ

to form acetic acid phenolates that are

extracted with hexane, concentrated,

and injected into the HRGC/LRMS

where separation and detection occurs.

EPA studies have demonstrated MDLs

of 0.09–1.39 μg/L for chlorophenolics in

water. Based on these MDLs and on

calibration of the GCMS instrument,

minimum levels have been determined

for the 12 chlorinated phenolics in

today’s rule. These minimum levels of

2.5 or 5.0 μg/L depend on the specific

compound and have been validated in

single laboratory validation studies and

by use in data gathering for today’s final

rule. All laboratories that used Method

1653 in the data gathering effort

calibrated their instruments at the ML.

Since proposal, EPA has made

changes to Method 1653 to improve the

reliability of the method and to lower

costs of measurements. These changes

are incorporated into the version of the

method being promulgated today; they

largely reflect comments and

suggestions made following proposal of

the method.

In response to comments, EPA made

several specific changes to Method

1653, the most significant of which are

as follows: lowering the spike level of

the labeled compounds to reduce

interferences with trace levels of the

analytes of interest and to lower the cost

of labeled compounds; specifying more

appropriate solvents for the analytical

standards containing labeled and native

analytes; requiring laboratories to add

the labeled compounds to the sample

prior to pH adjustment; restating the

quality control acceptance criteria for

recovery in terms of percent instead of

concentration; and reducing method

flexibility in certain critical areas. In

addition, as with Method 1650, the

method has been revised into the

standardized EMMC format.

EPA disagreed with several comments

on EPA’s proposed Method 1653 and

therefore did not make changes

suggested by commenters. EPA received

comments that Method 1653 has not

been validated adequately. EPA

disagrees. Method 1653 has been

validated in multiple single-laboratory

method validation studies and

extensively validated in field studies for

this final rule. EPA believes that these

extensive studies are more than

adequate to validate Method 1653 for

use in data gathering to support this

final rule and for use in monitoring

under this final rule. EPA also disagrees

with comments that Method 1653 is

inadequate for chlorocatechols. EPA

believes that Method 1653 provides

more reliable data for catechols and the

other chlorophenolics than any other

method available, and the commenter

provided no suggestions for how

Method 1653 could be improved for

determination of chlorocatechols. EPA

has, therefore, kept chlorocatechols in

Method 1653. EPA also disagrees with

comments that initial precision and

recovery (IPR) and ongoing precision

and recovery (OPR) tests should be

replaced with initial calibration (ICAL)

and calibration verification (VER) tests.

(The ICAL and IPR are different in both

form and function. The calibration test

is for calibrating the analytical system

while the IPR test is conducted to check

performance. The OPR and VER tests

are the same; only the terminology is

different. EPA has retained use of the

OPR terminology to be consistent with

other methods.) EPA also disagrees with

comments that use of labeled

compounds is not worth the benefit and

that all phenols and guaiacols should be

quantitated against 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol. EPA believes that data

gathered to support today’s final rule

and in other studies demonstrate that

isotope dilution provides the most

precise and accurate measurement of

chlorophenolics and other compounds

determined by gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry. EPA also received

comments urging EPA not to allow

modifications to the method. However,

EPA also received a large number of

requests that analytical methods be

‘‘performance-based,’’ and has

attempted to implement the means for

allowing changes to improve detection

and quantitation or to lower costs of

measurements. Limited changes may be

made, except where specifically

prohibited in Method 1653, provided

that the performance tests are repeated

and the results produced by the change

are equivalent or superior to results

produced with the unmodified method.

EPA has also decided to retain the

mention of field duplicates in the

method in the event that a laboratory or

discharger desires to measure sampling

precision. Finally, EPA has not added

the requirement that laboratories should

be forced to overcome emulsions. EPA

believes that nearly all emulsions can be

overcome and provides specific steps in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18541

the method that the laboratory must take

to break the emulsion. However, EPA

does not wish to impose such a

requirement on laboratories in the event

that a future sample is encountered that

produces an emulsion that cannot be

broken. If all efforts to break the

emulsion fail, Method 1653 allows the

use of a dilute aliquot. For more

discussion, see Comment Response

Document, Vol. VII, DCN 14497.

d. Other Methods. In addition to the

methods promulgated today, the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards also call for the use of Method

1613 (for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)) and

any of the approved methods for

chloroform to monitor compliance.

These methods are discussed below.

(1) Method 1613: CDDs and CDFs by

HRGC/HRMS

Method 1613 uses isotope dilution

and high-resolution gas chromatography

combined with high-resolution mass

spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) for

separation and detection of 17 tetrathrough octa-substituted dibenzo-pdioxin and dibenzofuran isomers and

congeners that are chlorinated at the 2,

3, 7, and 8 positions. Separate

procedures are available for the

determination of these analytes in water

and solid matrices. In the procedure, a

1–L sample is passed through a 0.45-μ

glass fiber filter. The filter is extracted

with toluene in a Soxhlet/Dean-Stark

(SDS) extractor. The aqueous filtrate is

extracted with methylene chloride in a

separatory funnel. Extracts from the SDS

and separatory funnel extractions are

combined and concentrated. To remove

interferences, the combined,

concentrated extract is cleaned up using

various combinations of acid and base

washes, acidic and basic silica gel, gel

permeation chromatography (GPC),

high-performance liquid

chromatography (HPLC), and activated

carbon. The cleaned up extract is

concentrated to 20 μL and a 1–2 μL

aliquot is injected into the HRGC/

HRMS.

The MDL determined for TCDD is 4.4

part-per-quadrillion (ppq). Minimum

levels for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for

TCDD and TCDF. These MLs have been

validated through an interlaboratory

study and by use in the analysis of mill

effluents.

EPA recently promulgated Method

1613 for the determination of CDDs and

CDFs at 40 CFR 136, Appendix A in a

final rule published on September 15,

1997 (62 FR 48394). Of the 17 congeners

that may be measured with this method,

only TCDD and TCDF are regulated

under this final rule. Method 1613 was

first proposed for general use in

compliance monitoring and for other

purposes at 40 CFR part 136 on

February 7, 1991 (56 FR 5090) and was

proposed for use in pulp and paper

industry wastewaters at 40 CFR part 430

on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078).

EPA received extensive comments and

suggestions on both proposals of

Method 1613; in several cases, the same

set of comments was submitted. EPA

updated the final Method 1613 based on

suggestions and comments received on

the original proposal (56 FR 5090) and

on the proposal of Method 1613 for use

at 40 CFR part 430 (58 FR 66078). In the

docket supporting promulgation of

Method 1613, EPA provided a listing of

detailed comments received on both

proposals of Method 1613, along with

detailed responses to all of those

comments. Because Method 1613 was

promulgated in a final rule prior to

promulgation of today’s final rule, and

because EPA received comments and

provided responses in support of that

final rule, EPA is not promulgating

Method 1613 as part of today’s final

rule. See the final rule promulgating

Method 1613 (62 FR 48394) for all

information concerning that method.

(2) Method 1624: Volatiles by Purgeand-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS

Method 1624 is used for the

determination of volatile pollutants in

water and wastewater. It employs a gas

chromatograph coupled to a mass

spectrometer (GC/MS) to separate and

quantify volatile pollutants. Detected

pollutants are quantified by isotope

dilution. Samples of water or solids

suspended in water are purged of

volatile organic pollutants by a stream

of inert gas into the gaseous phase

where they are concentrated onto a trap.

Subsequent heating of the trap

introduces the concentrated volatile

organics into a GC/MS for separation

and quantification.

With no interferences present,

minimum levels of 10–50 μg/L can be

achieved, depending on the specific

pollutant. For chloroform, the minimum

level is 10 μg/L. This minimum level

has been validated by use.

When EPA initially proposed today’s

rule, it proposed to regulate four volatile

organic pollutants. Method 1624,

Revision C was proposed for monitoring

the presence of these pollutants in

effluent discharges. Revision C

contained updates and improvements to

Method 1624, Revision B, which was

promulgated October 26, 1984 (49 FR

43234).

In today’s final rule, EPA is regulating

only one of the originally proposed

volatile pollutants (chloroform); this

pollutant can be measured by alreadyapproved EPA Methods 601, 624, and

1624B and Standard Methods 6210B

and 6230B. Therefore, EPA has not

included Method 1624C in today’s final

rule and has not formally addressed

comments concerning Method 1624C.

EPA will consider comments on Method

1624C when this version of the method

is promulgated for general use at 40 CFR

136 or when the method is further

revised.

(3) Other Issues Concerning Analytical

Methods Promulgated in Today’s Final

Rule

The overall comments received from

the regulated industry and others

provide suggestions for method

improvement but, in some cases,

question EPA’s approach to technical

issues in the methods and the handling

of data. For example, commenters

suggested that quality control tests be

performed at the minimum level (ML),

that a 3-point calibration should be used

for labeled compounds in isotope

dilution methods, and that additional

QC tests should be required.

Commenters also stated that all methods

must be subjected to interlaboratory

validation, and that the compliance

monitoring detection limit (CMDL) and

compliance monitoring quantitation

limit (CMQL) should be used in place of

EPA’s method detection limit (MDL)

and ML, respectively. EPA responded to

these suggestions by providing specific

reasons why they are inconsistent with

the provisions in other methods, are

more extensive than required to assure

reliable results, or that they would not

substantively alter the conclusions of

studies and data gathering used to

support this final rule. The detailed

responses to these issues are in the

record for this rule.

5. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory

a. BAT. (1) Technology Options

Considered.

(a) Options Proposed. The Agency

considered many combinations of

pollution prevention technologies as

regulatory options to reduce the

discharge of toxic and nonconventional

pollutants from bleached papergrade

kraft and soda mills. These options are

discussed in the proposal and the

Notice of Availability published on July

15, 1996. See 58 FR at 66109–11 and 61

FR at 36838–39, 36848. Five different

options were presented in the proposal.

The Agency proposed BAT effluent

limitations guidelines based on an

option that included the use of oxygen

delignification or extended cooking
18542 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

with elimination of hypochlorite and

complete (100 percent) substitution of

chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine

as the key process technologies.

Complete substitution of chlorine

dioxide for elemental chlorine and

elimination of hypochlorite is known as

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching.

EPA’s definition of ECF bleaching

includes high shear mixing to ensure

adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching

chemicals, as well as other technology

elements.

EPA proposed this option because it

believed, based on the record at the

time, that this combination of

technologies was both available and

economically achievable and that no

other available and economically

achievable option resulted in greater

effluent reductions. See 58 FR at 66110.

In the July 1996 Notice, EPA identified

this technology option as Option B. See

61 FR at 36838.

EPA also considered at proposal

another option based on conventional

pulping—complete substitution of

chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,

but without the use of oxygen

delignification or extended cooking (i.e.,

conventional pulping). See 58 FR at

66111. At the time of proposal, EPA was

unable to fully analyze this alternative

because very limited performance data

were available from mills using this

technology. Therefore, EPA solicited

further data and comments on this

option, Id. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA

published preliminary findings

regarding this option, which it

identified as Option A. See 61 FR at

36838–42.

The Agency also considered a totally

chlorine-free (TCF) option for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory at proposal. See 58 FR at

66109. TCF bleaching processes are

pulp bleaching operations that are

performed without the use of chlorine,

sodium hypochlorite, calcium

hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine

monoxide, or any other chlorinecontaining compound. EPA concluded

that TCF was not an available pollution

prevention technology at the time of

proposal because of limited worldwide

experience with this process and a lack

of data for TCF bleaching of softwood to

full market brightness. To encourage

continuing innovation in the

development of processes to reduce or

eliminate the discharge of pollutants

from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory, however, EPA

proposed alternative BAT limits for

mills adopting TCF processes.

In the July 1996 Notice, EPA also

described an incentives program that it

was considering for Subpart B mills in

order to promote more widespread use

of advanced pollution prevention

technologies. See 61 FR at 36849–58. As

part of this voluntary program, EPA

proposed to establish up to three sets of

alternative BAT limitations that would

complement the compulsory baseline

BAT requirements. EPA identified the

proposed alternative BAT limitations as

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III BAT

limitations. See 61 FR at 36850. EPA

considered basing Tier I limits on BAT

Option B technology (if Option A were

chosen as the basis for the baseline BAT

limitations). The Tier II and Tier III

limitations, in turn, would be based on

technologies and processes that EPA

expected to achieve substantial

reductions in pulping area condensate,

evaporator condensate, and bleach plant

wastewater flow.

(b) Final ECF Options Evaluated. For

this final rule, EPA considered two ECF

technology options—Option A and

Option B—as the basis for BAT effluent

limitations. Option A consists of

conventional pulping followed by

complete substitution of chlorine

dioxide for elemental chlorine, as well

as the following nine elements:

(i) Adequate chip thickness control;

(ii) Closed brownstock pulp screen

room operation, such that screening

filtrates are returned to the recovery

cycle;

(iii) Use of dioxin- and furanprecursor-free defoamers (i.e., waterbased defoamers or defoamers made

with precursor-free oils);

(iv) Effective brownstock washing,

i.e., washing that achieves a soda loss of

less than or equal to 10 kg Na2SO4 per

ADMT of pulp (equivalent to

approximately 99 percent recovery of

pulping chemicals from the pulp);

(v) Elimination of hypochlorite, i.e.,

replacement of hypochlorite with

equivalent bleaching power in the form

of additions of peroxide and/or oxygen

to the first extraction stage and/or

additional chlorine dioxide in final

brightening stages;

(vi) Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced

extraction, which allows elimination of

hypochlorite and/or use of a lower

kappa factor in the first bleaching stage;

(vii) Use of strategies to minimize

kappa factor and dioxin- and furanprecursors in brownstock pulp;

(viii) High shear mixing during

bleaching to ensure adequate mixing of

pulp and bleaching chemicals; and

(ix) Efficient biological wastewater

treatment, achieving removal of

approximately 90 percent or more of

influent BOD5. These elements are

discussed in detail in the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487. Option B is identical to Option

A, with the addition of extended

delignification (oxygen delignification

and/or extended cooking). EPA also

considered a TCF option, see subsection

(c) immediately below, and, in the

context of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program, three

sets of voluntary alternative BAT

limitations. See Section IX.A.

In a slight change from the definition

of the proposed BAT option, EPA has

defined Option B not only in terms of

the presence of extended delignification

technology (i.e., oxygen delignification

or extended cooking) but also by the

pre-bleaching kappa number achieved

by extended delignification. Kappa

number is the measure of lignin content

in unbleached pulp and is commonly

used by the industry. Many researchers

have shown (and EPA has confirmed)

strong correlations between the kappa

number of the pulp entering the first

stage of bleaching and the bleach plant

effluent loads of AOX and COD. See

DCN 14497, Vol. I. EPA concluded that

merely employing extended

delignification technologies, without

reducing the unbleached pulp kappa

number, is not sufficient to achieve the

low effluent loadings of AOX and COD

characteristic of Option B. Therefore,

EPA has redefined Option B as ECF

with extended delignification resulting

in a kappa number at or below 20 for

softwoods and below 13 for hardwoods

(see the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487).

EPA found that these kappa numbers

are achievable by virtually all mills that

currently have installed and are

effectively operating extended

delignification technology.

As part of the nine elements common

to both Option A and Option B, EPA has

included strategies for minimizing

kappa factor and dioxin- and furanprecursors in brownstock pulp. These

strategies are part of Options A and B

because EPA has determined that they

minimize the generation of dioxin,

furan, and AOX and, hence, are part of

the model process sequence to achieve

those limitations. See 61 FR at 36848

and the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

Kappa factor, also known as active

chlorine multiple, is the ratio of

chlorine bleaching power to the pulp

kappa number. (The kappa factor is

different from the kappa number

discussed above.) The kappa factor used

on a particular bleach line depends on

the fiber furnish, final product

specifications, pre-bleaching processes

employed, and optimization of

bleaching costs. At the mills whose data

were used to characterize Option A

performance, kappa factors for softwood
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18543

furnish averaged 0.17 and all were less

than 0.2. At the mills whose data were

used to characterize Option B

performance, kappa factors for softwood

furnish averaged 0.23, with all but one

at less than 0.21. Well-operated and

maintained mills using comparable

kappa factors will be capable of

achieving limitations corresponding to

Option A or B, respectively. Based on

certain site-specific factors, such as

furnish, some mills will be capable of

achieving today’s limitations with

higher kappa factors. There are

numerous strategies a mill can employ

to minimize its kappa factor. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

In addition, there are numerous

strategies a mill can employ to minimize

precursors of dioxin and furan

contained in brownstock pulp. These

strategies include, but are not limited to,

improved brownstock washing,

improved screening to produce cleaner

pulp, eliminating compression wood

(knots) from brownstock pulp, and

using only precursor-free condensates in

brownstock washers. The strategy or

strategies appropriate for the production

of a given pulp depend on the raw

material (wood species and the form it

takes, i.e., chips, waste wood, or

sawdust), process equipment, and the

specifications of the final pulp product

(brightness, cleanliness, strength,

absorbency, and others). For a

discussion of these strategies, see the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

(c) Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF)

Bleaching Option Evaluated. The

Agency received many comments that it

should continue to investigate TCF

bleaching because dioxin and furan are

not generated at any level with TCF

bleaching, thus assuring that these

pollutants are not released to the

environment. The Agency conducted

two sampling programs at the one U.S.

mill that produces TCF bleached kraft

softwood pulp. EPA collected samples

of bleach plant filtrates but could not

collect samples of treated effluent

because the mill does not employ

secondary treatment. The Agency also

conducted a sampling program at a

Nordic mill that produces hardwood

and softwood kraft pulp on two bleach

lines that alternate between ECF and

TCF bleaching. Samples collected at this

mill could not be used to characterize

treated TCF bleaching effluents because

they are combined with ECF bleaching

effluents for treatment.

Both of the sampled TCF softwood

fiber lines employed oxygen

delignification followed by multiple

stages of peroxide bleaching. The

Nordic mill also uses extended cooking,

and was able to reduce the lignin

content of unbleached pulp to a very

low kappa number of four. At the time

of sampling, this mill bleached pulp to

a brightness of 83 ISO. The U.S. mill’s

unbleached pulp kappa number was

between seven and ten. Bleached pulp

brightness was approximately 79 during

the first sampling episode at the U.S.

mill, but by the time of the second

sampling episode, the mill had

improved its process to achieve a pulp

brightness of 83 ISO.

At both mills, chloroform or

chlorinated phenolic pollutants were

not detected in samples collected by

EPA. At the U.S. mill, dioxin, furan, and

AOX were not detected above the

analytical minimum level during

sampling fully representative of TCF

operations. The average bleach plant

AOX loading measured by EPA at the

Nordic mill was 0.002 kg/ADMT

(compared to a long-term average of 0.51

kg/ADMT for Option A). EPA’s dioxin

sampling results for the Nordic mill

were surprising. Dioxin was detected at

a concentration just above the minimum

level in one sample of combined bleach

plant filtrate, when the mill was

bleaching without the use of chlorine or

any chlorinated compounds. Furan was

not detected. EPA believes the dioxin

results were unique to the operation of

this mill and does not conclude that

TCF bleaching generates dioxin.

Neither of the two sampled mills

produced softwood pulp at full market

brightness. In the last three years,

however, several non-U.S. mills have

reported the production of TCF

softwood kraft pulp at full market

brightness. EPA’s data are insufficient to

confirm that TCF processes are

technically available for the full range of

market products currently served by

ECF processes. See DCN 14497, Vol. I.

Further, EPA’s data are insufficient to

define a segment of the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

where TCF processing is known to be

technically feasible and thus could be

the basis of compulsory BAT

limitations. Despite these impediments,

EPA believes that the progress being

made in TCF process development is

substantial, and that additional data

may demonstrate that TCF processes are

indeed available for the full range of

market products. For this reason, EPA

also evaluated the performance of TCF

mills in order to establish alternative

limitations for mills that voluntarily

choose to employ TCF processes. See

Section VI.B.5.a(4).

(2) Costs of Technology Options

Considered. The Agency estimated the

cost for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory to achieve each of

the technology options considered

today. These estimated costs are

summarized in this section and are

discussed in more detail in several

technical support documents. (See the

BAT Cost Model Support Document,

DCN 13953; Memorandum: Costing

Revisions Made Since Publication of

July 15, 1996 Notice of Data

Availability, DCN 14493; Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487; Analysis of Impacts of BAT

Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle,

DCN 14490; Effect of Oxygen

Delignification on Yield of the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft Pulp Manufacturing

Process, DCN 14491; and the Technical

Support Document for Best Management

Practices for Spent Pulping Liquors

Management, Spill Prevention, and

Control, DCN 14489.) (For a discussion

of the costs associated with the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program BAT technologies,

see the Technical Support Document,

DCN 14488.) All cost estimates in this

section are expressed in 1995 dollars.

The cost components reported in this

section are engineering estimates of the

cost of purchasing and installing

equipment and the annual operating

and maintenance costs associated with

that equipment. See Section VIII of this

preamble for a discussion of the costs

used in the economic impact analysis.

Because EPA considers efficient

biological wastewater treatment to be

current industry practice, EPA has not

included its costs in the estimates of

costs of BAT. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.c.

below, for PSES for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,

EPA evaluated the same process change

technology options that it evaluated for

BAT, with the exception of biological

wastewater treatment. As a result, EPA

used the same cost model to estimate

the costs of PSES and BAT. Set forth

below are the total costs for all mills in

the subcategory (direct and indirect

dischargers) to complete the process

changes that are the technology bases

for the options considered for BAT and

PSES. The costs of complying with

today’s BMP requirements are also

included.

(i) Additional Data Gathering and

Analysis Since Proposal. EPA updated

its database of mill process information

by reviewing comments on the proposed

rule and the July 15, 1996 Notice, by

examining information from publicly

available sources as well as information

gathered by AF&PA and NCASI, and by

contacting mills directly. The Agency

revised the cost estimates it made at
18544 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

proposal in many ways but retained two

major assumptions: (1) Mills would

continue to make the same quantities

and grades of pulp; and (2) mills already

using the technology bases for the BAT

technology options generally would

incur only monitoring costs to comply

with regulations based on those options.

See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA received comments that it

severely underestimated the costs of its

proposed option (now identified as

Option B). Commenters contended that

this underestimate derived in large part

from EPA’s underestimate of the

increase in load of black liquor solids

that will be routed to the recovery

system after installation of oxygen

delignification, closing screen rooms,

improving brownstock washing, and

recovering additional pulping liquors

through a best management practices

(BMP) program. In addition to

underestimating the increase in load,

commenters claimed that EPA also

underestimated the costs for recovery

boilers to accommodate the increased

load. Commenters asserted that most

mills are recovery boiler-limited and, to

employ the proposed BAT, would have

to install new recovery boilers at a very

high cost.

In response to these and other

comments on the proposed rule, EPA

and NCASI undertook several data

gathering efforts aimed specifically at

obtaining information to improve EPA’s

cost estimates. In late 1994, NCASI

distributed a survey to collect

information about recovery furnace

capacity and a second survey about the

implementation and cost of pulping

liquor spill prevention and control

programs (i.e., BMPs).

Based on this and other information,

EPA concluded that there is no

foreseeable set of circumstances where

implementation of either Option A or B

would force a mill to replace or even

rebuild an existing recovery boiler.

Therefore, EPA strongly disagrees with

comments that it severely

underestimated the costs of what is now

known as Option B. Based on data

reported in the NCASI survey, almost 60

percent of the recovery boilers operated

by the industry have sufficient capacity

to accommodate the increased loads that

would result from implementing either

Option A or B, in combination with the

BMP program promulgated today. At

most of the remaining 40 percent of the

recovery boilers, any increased thermal

load can be accommodated through

improved boiler operation requiring no

capital expenditures, by increasing pulp

yield by using anthraquinone, or by

reducing the caloric value of the black

liquor burned in the boiler by using

oxygen-black liquor oxidation. EPA

estimates that only one boiler operated

by a bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mill would need to be upgraded

regardless which option is selected as

the technology basis for today’s rule.

The cost of the upgrade is small in

comparison to the cost of building or

replacing a boiler. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487, and Analysis of Impacts of BAT

Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle,

DCN 14490.

For the purposes of estimating the

costs of Option B, EPA estimated costs

for implementation of oxygen

delignification (OD) based on the record

as a whole that shows that OD does not

have an impact on yield of bleached

pulp. Although some stakeholders

asserted that EPA’s yield estimates were

in error, the entire record on yield

supports EPA’s basis for estimating the

cost of BAT Option B. Some

commenters asserted that EPA

overestimated the costs for Option B

presented in the July 1996 Notice by

failing to account for the increase in

yield that would result from

implementation of OD. Industry

commenters asserted that OD would

result in reduced bleached pulp yields.

In response to these comments, EPA

reviewed all available literature reports

and contacted companies operating

mills with OD systems. Although some

laboratory and modeling analyses

indicate that OD following a modified

kraft cooking could increase yields by

one to two percent, EPA found no

documentation that full-scale OD

systems are being operated in this

manner. One of the two U.S. companies

that operate more mills with OD

systems than any other has found no

statistical difference in yield measured

at the end of the bleach plant with the

installation of OD. The other company

offered no specific data on yield, but has

seen no substantial impact on recovery

boilers, indicating that no appreciable

change in yield has been experienced.

See DCN 14491.

EPA also collected additional

information about the costs of process

equipment and updated its information

about the costs of chemicals, wood,

energy, and labor (record sections 21.1.2

to 21.1.6). EPA used this information to

revise the cost model spreadsheet. See

the Memorandum: Costing Revisions

Made Since Publication of July 15, 1996

Notice of Data Availability, DCN 14493,

and BAT Cost Model Support

Document, DCN 13953. These changes

are discussed immediately below.

(ii) Major Changes Since Proposal.

Among other changes since proposal,

EPA’s cost estimates for Option B now

include the costs for new or incremental

increases in OD systems for mills unable

to achieve the kappa numbers used to

characterize the Option B technology. In

its July 1996 Notice, EPA described this

change and additional changes to the

cost model. See 61 FR at 36840–41 and

BAT Cost Model Support Document,

DCN 13953.

In response to comments on the July

1996 Notice, EPA corrected mill-specific

information and made additional

changes to the cost model. See the

Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made

Since Publication of July 15, 1996

Notice of Availability, DCN 14493.

Among those changes was a correction

of errors in the costs of caustic and

hydrogen peroxide that resulted from a

unit conversion error (this error carried

through the proposal and the Notice

cost estimates). As a result of the

changes, including the correction made

to the cost of caustic and hydrogen

peroxide, the net engineering operating

and maintenance (O&M) costs for

Option B for all mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

increased from the savings of $7

million/year presented in the July 1996

Notice, to the $2 million/year increased

costs estimated today. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

For the purpose of estimating the cost

of the regulations, EPA excluded the

costs of process changes that were either

completed or under construction as of

mid-1995. EPA incorrectly stated in the

July 1996 Notice that costs for process

changes committed to but not yet under

construction as of mid-1995 were also

excluded from the cost of this

regulation. These latter costs have been

included. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.

(iii) Final Cost Estimates of the

Options Considered. EPA’s final cost

estimates for Option A and B for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)

follow in Table VI–1.

TABLE VI–1.—TOTAL BLEACHED

PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA

SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGINEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT,

PSES AND BMPS

[1995 dollars]

Final cost

estimates

Option

A

Option

B

Capital ($ million) ........ 966 2,130
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18545

TABLE VI–1.—TOTAL BLEACHED

PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA

SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGINEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT,

PSES AND BMPS—Continued

[1995 dollars]

Final cost

estimates

Option

A

Option

B

Engineering O&M ($

million/yr) ................. 113 2.02

For both Option A and Option B, EPA

excluded costs for the use of dioxin- and

furan-precursor-free defoamers,

adequate wood chip size control, and

efficient biological wastewater treatment

in its estimates of the costs of the final

BAT technology options. These

processes represent current industry

practice. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487. However, EPA’s estimate of the

costs of BAT also includes a general

allowance for increased technical

supervision and process engineering

that could be used, in part, to design

and implement a chip quality control

program or to improve operation of

existing biological wastewater

treatment. In addition, any mill not

currently using dioxin- and furanprecursor-free defoamers can use them

without incurring significant costs. See

the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA evaluated the costs of retrofitting

U.S. bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills to TCF bleaching to provide

perspective on the likelihood of TCF

processes being found to be

economically achievable once they are

shown to be technically available. EPA

investigated the costs of two TCF bleach

sequences. These bleach sequences

included all common elements that are

part of Option A and Option B

(adequate chip thickness control, closed

brownstock pulp screen room operation,

use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free

defoamers, effective brownstock

washing, elimination of hypochlorite,

oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced

extraction, use of strategies to minimize

kappa factor and dioxin- and furanprecursors in brown stock pulp, highshear mixing during bleaching, and

efficient biological wastewater

treatment). The bleaching sequences

also include medium-consistency

oxygen delignification. One TCF bleach

sequence was based on peroxide

bleaching (OQPP) and the other was

based on ozone and peroxide bleaching

(OZEopQPZP). EPA’s final cost estimates

for TCF bleach sequences for the total

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) are

as follows. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.

TABLE VI–2.—TOTAL BLEACHED

PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA

SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGINEERING O&M COSTS OF TCF OPTIONS FOR BAT, PSES, AND BMP

[1995 dollars]

Estimated costs

PeroxideTCF

(OQPP)

Ozone-TCF

(OZEopQPZP)

Capital ($ million) ... 3,090 5,630

Engineering O&M

($million/yr) ......... 660 849

(3) Effluent Reductions Associated

with Technology Options Considered.

The Agency estimated the effluent

reductions for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory that will

result from the BAT options it analyzed.

These estimated reductions are

summarized in this section and are

discussed in more detail in the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

As discussed in the July 1996 Notice,

EPA recalculated the effluent reduction

benefits using a new baseline of mid1995. See 61 FR at 36840. In addition,

EPA revised and simplified the

methodology used to estimate that

baseline (using a model mill approach).

Id. EPA also used a second approach to

estimate the effluent loads of dioxin and

furan using data for individual mills as

compiled in the NCASI 1994 Dioxin

Profile (see DCN 13764). The baseline

calculation methodology revisions,

along with details of the effluent

reduction calculations, are described in

record section 22.6.

As explained in DCN 14487, after July

1996, EPA again recalculated the

effluent reductions. The baseline

remains mid-1995. As before, EPA used

one-half of the minimum level specified

in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the

reported detection limits to estimate

effluent discharge loadings when

pollutant concentrations were below

minimum levels. EPA considers this a

reasonable approach for estimating mass

loads because the actual concentration

of the sample is too small to measure by

current analytical methods, but is

between zero and the detection limit.

Furthermore, ECF processes use and

generate chlorinated compounds, so

EPA expects that chlorinated

compounds were present (i.e., with a

concentration value greater than zero) in

the samples. Thus, EPA believes that it

is appropriate to substitute a value at

the midpoint between zero and the

detection limit (i.e., the upper bound of

the concentration in the sample) for ECF

mills. The methodology was modified

slightly for mills that use TCF bleaching

sequences. Because chlorinated

compounds are not used and are not

generated by TCF processes, EPA

assumed that TCF mills would

discharge zero kilograms per year of

AOX and the individual chlorinated

pollutants rather than an amount

equivalent to one-half the minimum

level or detection limit multiplied by an

appropriate production-normalized flow

rate.

EPA’s revised baselines, which were

again found to be comparable to

NCASI’s industry-wide estimates for

dioxin and furan, were used to calculate

effluent reductions summarized in

Table VI–3. The table shows the

estimated baseline and the reduction

from baseline expected if the option

were implemented by all the existing

direct discharging mills in the

subcategory (i.e., those mills to which

BAT will apply). The slightly greater

removals of the bleach plant pollutants

by Option B are a result of the reduced

bleach plant flow found at mills

employing Option B technology.

TABLE VI–3.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT

AND SODA MILLS COMPLYING WITH BAT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED a

Pollutant parameter Units

Mid-1995

baseline

discharge

Estimated

reductions:

option A

Estimated

reductions:

option B

Estimated

reductions:

TCF

2,3,7,8–TCDD ............................................................................ g/yr 14.0 9.88 10.8 14.0

2,3,7,8–TCDF ............................................................................ g/yr 105 98.0 99.5 105

Chloroform ................................................................................. kkg/yr 43.6 35.5 35.5 43.6
18546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI–3.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT

AND SODA MILLS COMPLYING WITH BAT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED a—Continued

Pollutant parameter Units

Mid-1995

baseline

discharge

Estimated

reductions:

option A

Estimated

reductions:

option B

Estimated

reductions:

TCF

12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants ............................................ kkg/yr 51.7 42.3 44.1 51.7

AOX ........................................................................................... kkg/yr 33,300 22,100 27,900 33,300

aThe TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA assumed that pollutants reported

as ‘‘not detected’’ were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the reported detection limit.

The effluent reductions described and

shown above are used in Section VII to

estimate reduced human health and

environmental risk attributable to

today’s rules. These estimates also form

the basis for estimating monetized

benefits in Section VIII.

(4) Development of Limitations. The

proposed BAT regulations included

limitations for dioxin, furan, 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants,

acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl

ketone (MEK), and methylene chloride

(based on BAT process changes); and

limitations for color, COD, and AOX

(based on BAT process changes and

biological wastewater treatment). In

today’s rule, EPA is promulgating

limitations for dioxin, furan, 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants,

chloroform, and AOX. See 40 CFR

430.24(a)(1). As discussed in Section

VI.B.3. above, EPA is not promulgating

limitations for acetone, MEK, methylene

chloride, or color. EPA intends to

promulgate effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for COD in a

later rulemaking.

In addition to the new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory promulgated today and

discussed immediately below, mills in

this subcategory continue to be subject

to existing limitations and standards for

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

(now denominated as supplemental

limitations and standards). These mills

continue to have the opportunity to be

exempt from these supplemental

limitations and standards if they certify

to the permitting or pretreatment

authority that they are not using these

chemicals as biocides. See 40 CFR

430.24(d).

Except where noted, the following

discussion of BAT limitations also

applies to EPA’s procedures for setting

NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for Subpart B.

(a) Performance Data. EPA revised the

proposed limitations and standards

based on data collected after proposal

(see Pulp and Paper Mill Data Available

for BAT Limitations Development, DCN

13951) and presented the revisions in

the July 1996 Notice. See 61 FR at

36841–42. Today’s TCDF, chloroform,

and AOX limitations and standards

have been further revised since the July

1996 Notice as a result of the selection

of data sets used for the long-term

averages, variability factors, and

limitations. See DCN 14494, 14496, and

Record Section 22.5. The rationale for

changes in the data set selections is

provided immediately below. See DCN

14487.

(i) Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated

Phenolic Pollutants. For non-TCF mills,

EPA had proposed mass-based

limitations and standards for furan; in

July 1996, EPA presented preliminary

revised limitations and standards that

were concentration-based. EPA has

determined that a limitation on the

concentration of furan is a more direct,

and hence, a more reasonable

measurement of the presence of furan

than a mass-based limitation would be.

When detected, furan typically is

present in the effluent of Subpart B

mills that use ECF bleaching at levels at

or only slightly above the minimum

level specified in the applicable

analytical method. In this case, the

value of mass-based limitations and

standards are predominantly influenced

by the variability in the bleach plant

effluent flow rate and thus may not be

a consistent and reliable measurement

of the presence of furan. Since the July

1996 Notice, EPA has used one

additional data set to calculate the furan

limitation; this data set was from an

Option B bleach line with a typical

unbleached kappa number of 20.

Because of this change and because of

changes to assumptions used in the

statistical analysis and changes to the

computer programs, see Section

VI.B.5.a(4)(b), the value of the furan

limitations and standards has changed

slightly from that presented in the July

1996 Notice.

EPA has made no changes to the

limitations for dioxin and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants

presented in the July 1996 Notice. Upon

further review after the July 1996

Notice, EPA discovered that some

sample-specific minimum levels for

some chlorinated phenolic pollutants

were incorrectly entered into the

databases. These values have been

corrected. See DCN 14496, and Record

Section 22.5.

EPA has determined that TCF

bleaching processes do not result in the

generation of dioxin, furan, chloroform

or chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For

this reason, EPA is not setting

limitations for these pollutants as part of

the voluntary alternative BAT

limitations and standards promulgated

today for mills that certify to the use of

TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR

430.24(a)(2).

(ii) AOX. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA

presented preliminary revised AOX

BAT limitations and NSPS for non-TCF

mills.

In the July 1996 Notice, EPA

indicated that although it was

presenting revised limitations and

standards it would continue to analyze

data from two mills representing the

performance of BAT Option A. These

data were submitted to EPA by the

industry without sufficient time for the

results to be reflected in the preliminary

limitations and standards presented in

the July 1996 Notice.

Commenters encouraged EPA to use

the newly acquired data for the two

Option A mills, but also questioned why

certain other data in the record were not

used to develop the preliminary revised

AOX limitations and standards. EPA

continued its analysis of the new data

and obtained new information about

mill operations associated with the

other data addressed by comments. As

a result, EPA added data from the two

Option A mills to the data used to

characterize the performance of Option

A and added data from two other mills

to the data used to characterize the

performance of Option B. EPA

ultimately used data from six mills to

develop the AOX limitations for each

option, including at least one mill for

each option for which long-term

monitoring data (for about one and a

half years) were available. The mills

used to represent each option pulp
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18547

primarily softwood and most of them

subsequently bleach the pulp to high

brightness (i.e., greater than 88 ISO).

Tables presented in DCN 14494 show

several statistics for each mill (reflecting

the mill characteristics during the

sampling period), including furnish,

kappa number, kappa factor, brightness,

type of wastewater treatment system,

and approximate AOX removal in the

treatment system. For a discussion of

EPA’s development of pretreatment

standards for AOX, see section

VI.B.5.c(6).

Another factor that has contributed to

revisions in today’s AOX limitations

and standards is the adjustment for

autocorrelation in the data. See DCN

14496. EPA intended that this

adjustment be made to the preliminary

AOX limitations presented in the July

1996 Notice; however, comments on

that notice stated correctly that this

adjustment had been excluded from the

calculations. This oversight has been

corrected in the calculations of today’s

final AOX limitations and NSPS.

Since proposal, EPA has gathered

additional data in order to establish a

final limitation for AOX for TCF

bleaching processes. See 40 CFR

430.24(a)(2). EPA sampled at two mills

with TCF bleaching processes, one U.S.

mill and one European mill. Analytical

data from sampling these two mills

during periods representative of TCF

processes indicate that AOX

concentrations were consistently below

minimum levels in bleach plant

wastewaters. See DCN 14494 and DCN

14488. Therefore, EPA has concluded

that TCF bleaching processes are

capable of achieving concentrations less

than the minimum level for AOX in

process wastewaters, whether measured

at the bleach plant or after secondary

biological treatment, and is setting AOX

limitations and standards accordingly

for TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR

430.24(a)(2).

(iii) Chloroform. EPA proposed a

monthly average chloroform limitation

of 2.01 g/kkg based on sampling results

from one mill that used extended

delignification and complete

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine, and that did not use

hypochlorite during bleaching. Data

collected by EPA after proposal

indicated that bleach plant loads of

chloroform did not differ between mills

that used conventional pulping (Option

A) and extended delignification (Option

B), as long as bleaching was carried out

without elemental chlorine or

hypochlorite. However, these data

indicate that the type of pulp washers

used in a mill’s bleach plant influence

the partitioning of chloroform between

the air and effluent. Use of low air flow

washers results in less emission of

chloroform to the air and greater loads

of chloroform in bleach plant effluent

than use of high air flow washers. See

DCN 14494. In general, modern low air

flow washers (such as pressure

diffusion) also use less water to

accomplish equivalent washing, i.e.,

they are more efficient than

conventional vacuum drum washers

(high air flow washers). See DCN 14494,

and DCN 14497, Vol. I. Because of their

efficient use of water and their potential

to reduce non-water quality

environmental impacts, EPA encourages

industry to use modern low air flow

washers. For this reason, EPA

developed revised chloroform

limitations and standards using only

data from mills that use low air flow

washers. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA

presented a revised bleach plant

monthly average chloroform limitation

of 2.80 g/kkg. This limitation was

developed using data from four mills

that did not use elemental chlorine or

hypochlorite during bleaching, and that

used low air flow bleach plant washers.

EPA received comments that the

revised chloroform limitations and

standards were not consistently

achievable by mills with the process

technologies serving as the basis for

Options A and B. As a result of these

comments, EPA re-evaluated the

chloroform limitations and standards

presented in the July 1996 Notice.

EPA has revised the long-term average

and variability factors used to calculate

the chloroform limitations and

standards after considering data from

five mills that did not use elemental

chlorine or hypochlorite during

bleaching and that used low air flow

bleach plant washers (data from four of

these mills were used in the July 1996

Notice). In developing the long-term

average, EPA used data from two mills

that bleach pulp to a high brightness (88

to 90 ISO). In developing the variability

factors, EPA also considered data from

the other three mills with low air flow

washers to obtain a more realistic

estimate of variability associated with

operating low air flow washers. Two of

these mills bleach pulp to a lower

brightness (80 to 85 ISO). EPA believes

that the resulting limitations and

standards can be met by all welloperated and maintained ECF mills

regardless of the type of bleach plant

washers used. (EPA’s revised bleach

plant monthly average chloroform

limitation is now 4.14 g/kkg.) The data

in the record indicate that it is highly

unlikely that a mill employing

elemental chlorine or hypochlorite in its

bleach plant could comply with the

chloroform limitations promulgated in

this rule. See DCN 14494.

(iv) COD. As discussed in VI.B.3.d.,

EPA is reserving limitations for COD at

this time.

(b) Changes to Statistical

Methodology. After the July 1996

Notice, EPA performed a detailed

review of the results of the statistical

analyses, the documentation of the

statistical methodology, the computer

programs, and the data for all of the

limitations and standards. As a result of

this review, EPA revised the

assumptions regarding statistical

analysis of data to ensure that long-term

averages for TCDF and chloroform were

greater than or equal to the minimum

level of the analytical methods. EPA

made other revisions to the statistical

assumptions and the computer

programs that resulted in minor changes

to the values of the limitations and

standards. All of these revisions are

identified and described in the

Statistical Support Document for the

Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart B,

DCN 14496. In the record, EPA has also

provided detailed responses to

comments about the statistical

methodology. See DCN 14497, Vol. VI.

(c) Definition of Limitations and

Standards Expressed at Less Than the

Minimum Level. In today’s rulemaking,

EPA is establishing limitations and

standards for Subparts B and E for 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants and

dioxin that are expressed as less than

the minimum level (‘‘<ML’’). (EPA is

also expressing today’s AOX limitations

and standards for TCF processes as

‘‘<ML.’’) The limitations and standards

hereafter are referred to as ‘‘ML

limitations.’’ The ‘‘ML’’ is an

abbreviation for the minimum level

identified in § 430.01(i) of today’s rule

for the analytical methods that EPA

used to determine the level of pollution

reduction achievable through the use of

BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS model

technologies for the 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants, dioxin, and, for

alternative TCF technologies, AOX. (For

Subpart E, limitations and standards for

furan and AOX are also expressed as

‘‘<ML’’.) EPA intends for mills subject

to ML limitations to have pollutant

discharges with concentrations less than

the minimum levels of the analytical

methods specified today in 40 CFR

430.01(i).

In general terms, the ML is the level

at which the analytical system gives

recognizable signals and an acceptable

calibration point. Method 1613 (used for

dioxin and furan), Method 1650 (used

for AOX), and Method 1653 (used for

the chlorinated phenolic pollutants)

provide precise definitions of the ML
18548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

relative to those analytes. See 40 CFR

430.01(i). In the proposal and the July

1996 Notice, EPA referred to the ML

limitations as ‘‘ND limitations.’’ EPA

has changed the terminology, but not

the concept, in response to comments

that the terminology was potentially

misleading. This section provides a

discussion of ML limitations.

Compliance with the ML limitations is

discussed in Section VI.B.8.c(2).

EPA expects that future analytical

methods will be more sensitive than

today’s methods, and their minimum

levels will have values that are less than

those for the analytical methods

identified today in § 430.01(i). However,

the analytical methods (and their

minimum levels) specified in § 430.01(i)

were used to chemically analyze the

wastewaters from mills with the BAT,

NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model

technologies selected today for Subparts

B and E. EPA used the data from these

chemical analyses to determine that

today’s ML limitations were technically

and economically achievable. EPA is

unable to determine, based on the data

from these chemical analyses, whether

more stringent limitations (that is,

limitations with values or associated

with minimum levels less than the

minimum levels published today in

§ 430.01) would be technically and

economically achievable. To determine

whether the technologies are capable of

achieving more stringent limitations,

EPA would need to evaluate data from

chemical analyses using these future

more sensitive methods. Those data

obviously are not available today. Until

any further revision of today’s

limitations and standards for subparts B

and E, the limitations for these analytes

will continue to be associated with the

minimum levels specified today in

Section 430.01(i).

Table VI–4 identifies the analytical

methods used to generate the data for

today’s rule. The minimum levels in

this Table are established by the

analytical methods and have been

validated by use.

TABLE VI–4.—ANALYTICAL METHODS AND MINIMUM LEVELS FOR REGULATED POLLUTANTS

Pollutant Method Minimum

level

2,3,7,8-TCDD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1613 10 pg/L

2,3,7,8-TCDF ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1613 10 pg/L

Trichlorosyringol ................................................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 μg/L

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ........................................................................................................................................................ 1653 5.0 μg/L

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ........................................................................................................................................................ 1653 5.0 μg/L

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ........................................................................................................................................................ 1653 2.5 μg/L

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ........................................................................................................................................................ 1653 2.5 μg/L

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ........................................................................................................................................................ 1653 2.5 μg/L

2,4,5-trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................... 1653 2.5 μg/L

2,4,6-trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................... 1653 2.5 μg/L

Tetrachlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................................ 1653 5.0 μg/L

Tetrachloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................................ 1653 5.0 μg/L

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................... 1653 2.5 μg/L

Pentachlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................. 1653 5.0 μg/L

AOX .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1650 20 μg/L

(d) Limitations. Table VI–5 presents

the final effluent limitations for Options

A and B for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory that are

based on in-plant process changes.

These limitations are based on data

obtained from bleach plant effluent

prior to mixing with other mill

wastestreams.

TABLE VI–5.—BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA LIMITATIONS COMPARISON OF OPTIONS A AND B

Daily maximum limitation Monthly average

limitation

Option A Option B Option A Option B

TCDD (pg/L) ....................................................................................................... <ML <ML N/A N/A

TCDF (pg/L) ........................................................................................................ 31.9 31.9 N/A N/A

Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants* (μg/L) ............................................................. <ML <ML N/A N/A

Chloroform (g/kkg) .............................................................................................. 6.92 6.92 4.14 4.14

* Trichlorosyringol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol, 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,6-

trichloroguaiacol, 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol, tetrachlorocatechol, tetrachloroguaiacol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.

ML or Minimum level—the level at which the analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point. See 40 CFR

430.01(i).

N/A Not applicable.

EPA did not establish monthly

average limitations and standards for

dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants because the daily maximum

limitations and standards for these

pollutants are expressed as less than the

Minimum Level (<ML). (The same is

true for AOX limitations for TCF

processes.) The purpose of a monthly

average limitation is to require

continuous dischargers to provide better

control, on a monthly basis, than

required by the daily maximum

limitation. However, for these

pollutants, today’s analytical methods

cannot measure below the minimum

levels associated with the daily

maximum limitations. Thus, even if a

permitting or pretreatment authority

requires more frequent monitoring for

these pollutants than the monthly

monitoring frequencies specified in

today’s rule, see 40 CFR 430.02,

monthly average limitations would still

be expressed as <ML.

EPA did not establish a monthly

average limitation for furan because a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18549

monthly average limitation would be

based on the assumption that a mill

would be required to monitor more

frequently than once a month. For the

reasons set forth in Section

VI.B.8.c(4)(b), EPA believes that one

monthly monitoring event is sufficient;

however, if permitting or pretreatment

authorities choose to require more

frequent monitoring for furan, they may

set monthly average limitations and

standards based on their best

professional judgment. See, e.g., 40 CFR

430.24(a)(1), footnote b. Today’s rule

requires mills to monitor for chloroform

four times per month (i.e., weekly);

therefore, both daily maximum and

monthly average limitations are

presented.

EPA has also calculated both daily

maximum and monthly average

limitations for AOX based on Option A,

Option B, and TCF bleaching processes.

These limitations are presented in Table

VI–6. Today’s rules require AOX to be

monitored every day during the month.

See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Annual average

limitations for AOX apply only to noncontinuous discharges. The alternative

TCF effluent limitations apply only to

AOX and are expressed as ‘‘<ML.’’

TABLE VI–6.—BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AOX LIMITATIONS

[Comparison of Options A and B, and Alternative TCF Limitations]

Option A

(kg/kkg)

Option B

(kg/kkg)

Alternative

TCF limitations

(kg/kkg)

Annual Average .......................................................................................................................................... 0.512 0.208 N/A

Monthly Average Limitation ........................................................................................................................ 0.623 0.272 N/A

Daily Maximum Limitation .......................................................................................................................... 0.951 0.476 <ML

In order for a fiber line to qualify for

the voluntary alternative TCF

limitations, the discharger must certify

to the permitting authority, as part of its

NPDES permit application, that the fiber

line bleaches pulp exclusively with TCF

bleaching processes. See 40 CFR

430.24(a)(2). (A fiber line that swings

between ECF and TCF bleaching

processes, for example, would not be

eligible for these alternative effluent

limitations because dioxin and other

chlorinated organic pollutants will be

generated at least some of the time and

therefore need to be controlled.) EPA

decided not to promulgate an additional

requirement, as it had proposed, that

would have required dischargers to

provide monitoring results for three

composite bleach plant wastewater

samples for dioxin, furan, and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants and

three grab samples for chloroform in

order to qualify for those limitations.

See 58 FR at 66195. EPA believes that

the additional proposed requirement is

unnecessary because EPA has no reason

to believe that a discharger would falsify

its TCF certification and because a

discharger certifying to TCF processes at

a particular fiber line is required in any

case to notify the permitting authority if

it converts the fiber line in whole or in

part to bleaching processes employing

chlorine or chlorine-containing

compounds. As a result of this

notification, the discharger’s TCF-based

permit limits would need to be modified

to reflect the new processes. See, e.g., 40

CFR 122.21(g)(3), 122.21(g)(7), and

122.41(l).

(5) Selection of BAT/PSES

Technology Basis. After considering all

of the technology options described in

the December 1993 proposal and the

July 1996 Notice in light of the factors

specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) of the

Clean Water Act, EPA has selected

Option A as its technology basis for the

BAT limitations promulgated today for

Subpart B. For the reasons set forth

below, EPA has also selected Option A

as its technology basis for the PSES

promulgated today for Subpart B. (For a

discussion of PSES options, parameters,

and EPA’s pass-through analysis, see

Section VI.B.5.c.) The record establishes

that Option A is technically available.

See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487. As

discussed in more detail below, EPA has

also concluded that it is economically

achievable. Further, EPA has

determined, for the reasons set forth in

Section VII, that Option A has no

unacceptable adverse non-water quality

environmental impacts. Finally, EPA

determined that Option A achieves

greater environmental benefits than any

other economically achievable

technology considered by EPA and, for

that reason, also represents the best

technology among those considered.

EPA considered the age, size,

processes, other engineering factors, and

non-water quality environmental

impacts pertinent to mills in this

subcategory for the purpose of

evaluating the BAT and PSES

technology options. None of these

factors provides a basis for selecting

different technologies than EPA has

chosen as the basis for today’s BAT

limitations and PSES.

In order to evaluate economic

achievability, EPA concluded that it was

appropriate to examine BAT/PSES in

view of the MACT requirements also

being promulgated today for mills

subject to subpart B. As a general

matter, when evaluating the economic

impact of the candidate BAT/PSES

technologies, EPA generally looks at the

industry as it exists at the time the

decision is made. In this industry,

subpart B mills will be subject to

significant additional costs as a result of

today’s MACT I rule. See Section VIII.

Therefore, although EPA has not

ascribed MACT I costs to the BAT/PSES

costs of today’s rule, EPA is taking those

costs into account when considering the

total impact of the various BAT/PSES

options on subpart B mills. This is

particularly appropriate here because

EPA undertook this Cluster rulemaking

in order to consider at one time a range

of air and water controls and their total

economic consequences, among other

things. Thus, EPA believes that its BAT/

PSES analysis more accurately reflects

the actual costs and economic impacts

that mills in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory will

experience. EPA also performed its

economic achievability analysis based

on the impact of BAT/PSES costs

without considering the impact of the

MACT I rule on subpart B mills. This

analysis did not change EPA’s final

conclusions. Additionally, in response

to comments, and because more

information is now available regarding

estimated costs, EPA also considered

the economic impacts of the MACT II

requirements being proposed at this

time. The additional consideration of

projected MACT II costs also does not

alter EPA’s determination of economic

achievability in this instance.

EPA has determined that the selected

BAT/PSES model technology (Option A)
18550 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

is economically achievable for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory as a whole for several

reasons. When EPA considered the

effect of BAT/PSES compliance in light

of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills,

EPA estimated that the selected BAT/

PSES Option would cause two mill

closures, with related direct loss of 900

jobs and a $275 million decrease in

shipments, and no firm failures that are

likely to result in additional job loss.

(See Section VIII.F and Table VIII–4 for

other economic impacts associated with

the selected BAT/PSES option, with and

without MACT I compliance costs.) The

number of closures (two) is less than 3

percent of the affected mills (86) in the

subcategory. The loss of jobs associated

with these closures is about one percent

of subcategory employment. EPA

believes that, even with these projected

impacts, the selected BAT/PSES is

economically achievable for this

subcategory as a whole. When the cost

of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills

is not considered, the selected BAT/

PSES would cause one mill closure and

no firm failures they are likely to result

in additional job loss. See Section

VIII.E. For confidentiality reasons,

related losses of jobs and shipments

cannot be disclosed in this Federal

Register notice, but are described in the

CBI portion of the record.

EPA concluded that Option B is not

economically achievable for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory as a whole. When EPA

considered the effect of BAT/PSES

compliance in light of the MACT I rule

on subpart B mills, EPA estimated that

Option B would cause four mill

closures, with a related direct loss of up

to 4,800 jobs, and a $1.3 billion decrease

in shipments, and one or more firm

failures that are likely to result in

additional job loss. (See Section VIII.F

and Table VIII–4 for other economic

impacts associated with Option B with

and without MACT I compliance costs.)

EPA estimates that when the cost of the

MACT I rule is not considered, Option

B would cause two mill closures, with

a related direct loss of 900 jobs and a

$275 million decrease in shipments, and

one or more firm failures. See Section

VIII.F.1.

While the increased number of

closures and related job losses

associated with Option B are strong

indicators of economic unachievability,

the potential firm failures (i.e.,

bankruptcies) associated with this

Option are particularly problematic. For

each option, EPA’s bankruptcy analysis

focuses on whether each affected

company can afford to make the

collective investment required to install

the technology upon which the option

is based for all of its facilities. The

substantially higher capital cost

associated with Option B results in the

potential failure of one or more firms

that Option A does not cause. In most

cases, requirements to raise capital to

upgrade each mill to meet Option B

limitations and standards may seriously

jeopardize some companies’ ability to

cover interest on the new investments as

well as other costs. In other words, some

companies with insufficient cash or

equity resources to cover the costs of

these upgrades may be in jeopardy of

bankruptcy. It takes an event of

considerable magnitude to induce

bankruptcy in a firm. The fact that

Option B, even when considered

without regard for the impact of the

MACT I rule on this subpart, is

projected to drive one or more firms into

bankruptcy indicates to EPA the

significant magnitude of Option B’s

capital requirements. In EPA’s view, the

overall effect of Option B on those firms

would be substantial. See Section VIII.F.

For a more detailed discussion of EPA’s

firm failure analysis, see the Economic

Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN 14649).

The magnitude of the effects that may

arise from large firm bankruptcies is a

substantial indicator of the economic

unachievability of Option B. The

negative effects are indefinite and

unquantifiable, but EPA has reason to

believe, based on the recent history of

the domestic pulp and paper industry,

that they are likely to be significant. The

effects include, as examples, stock price

turmoil, reduced workforces, and

foreign ownership of formerly

American-owned assets. Which impacts

occur would depend on the responses of

the potentially affected firm(s) to the

increased costs. Companies that enter

bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy are more

likely to see their stock prices fall,

causing substantial loss of investor

value and possibly becoming the target

of a hostile takeover by a domestic or

foreign company. Recent history of

hostile or friendly takeovers shows that

the acquiring companies subsequently

divested themselves of unproductive

assets, closed a number of mills and

eliminated over 15,000 jobs, affecting

both smaller and larger communities,

with the most devastating consequences

on the smaller communities. Some

companies may downsize some

operations without closing any mills,

thus potentially causing job losses in

communities that depend on the mills

directly or indirectly for their economic

well-being. The potential job losses

associated with the likely firm failure(s)

represent an unacceptably large portion

of the employment losses associated

with this option for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.

See DCN 14379, 14382, and 14388

(contained in CBI record). In addition,

weaker companies might be forced to

sell off blocks of assets, or their

corporate existence might be

endangered. Companies may choose to

close marginal plants to avoid the cost

of upgrade or to sell off mills both to

avoid the costs of upgrade and to raise

capital to upgrade the remaining mills.

Closed mills’ equipment could be sold

to overseas companies, who could

initiate low cost pulp or paper

production and gain market share from

U.S. firms as a result. Foreign

companies acquiring U.S. mills might

close or alter those mills to gain market

share (although such behavior is not

necessarily economically efficient).

Substituting foreign for domestic

production means an additional loss of

jobs and income for Americans. See

Economic Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN

14649).

EPA also considered the effects of

delaying the implementation of Option

B for five years. EPA acknowledges that

the uncertainties of the pulp and paper

market and the financial circumstances

of individual firms make questionable

the validity of any assumptions

regarding the relative effects of a fiveyear delay. EPA’s evaluation of delaying

the implementation of Option B for five

years involves consideration of

discounting Option B costs for five

years, the expected industry price and

revenue cycle, and resulting aggregate

costs, closures, and firm failures. EPA

has determined, due to expected effects

of the industry cycle, that deferring the

costs of this technology for five years

would not appreciably reduce the

economic impacts for this subcategory

as a whole compared to immediate

compliance. See Economic Analysis,

Chapter 6 (DCN 14649). For example,

EPA found that under the most likely

scenario (in which the costs of

complying with MACT I are taken into

account), the same number of mills

(four) would be predicted to close even

if implementation of Option B were

delayed for five years. Firm failure

predictions could not be made for five

years hence because the analysis is

based on several financial components,

each of which may change dramatically

and unpredictably in the interim.

Based on the above discussion, EPA

concludes that only the selected BAT/

PSES technology option—Option A—is

economically achievable today for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory as a whole. EPA

acknowledges that the number of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18551

predicted closures attributable to Option

B, when considered without regard for

the impact of the MACT I rule on

subpart B mills, is the same as the

number of predicted closures under

Option A when MACT I impacts are

considered. (This is also true for job

losses and effects on shipments.)

However, EPA does not believe that

these impacts alone are a compelling

decision basis for this rulemaking. Not

only would such an analysis fail to

account for the real-world economic

impacts of the concurrent MACT I

rulemaking, but the closures and related

impacts by themselves fail to express

the total economic impacts EPA predicts

for Option B. For the reasons described

above, EPA concludes that it is

appropriate to take into account the

potential firm failures attributable to

Option B in this rulemaking. Further,

EPA concludes that it is appropriate in

this rulemaking to base the economic

achievability determination on the total

economic impacts (the closures and the

projected firm failures, coupled with

predicted regional and market impacts)

of its BAT/PSES options on the

industry. Those total economic impacts

constitute the principal and deciding

difference between the selected BAT/

PSES technology basis and Option B.

Based on that conclusion, EPA has

determined that only Option A is

economically achievable for subpart B

as a whole, both when the impacts of

compliance with the MACT I rule are

considered and when they are not.

EPA is also rejecting Option B

because its capital costs are simply too

high when compared to Option A.

Implementation of Option B would

result in capital costs that are more than

$1 billion greater than those associated

with Option A. EPA believes that this

consideration is particularly relevant in

this rulemaking for several reasons.

First, these Cluster Rules represent the

fourth set of effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

for subpart B mills. Since 1977, the

industry has incurred substantial capital

costs to achieve its current level of

pollutant control and has achieved

significant pollutant loading reductions.

This is also the first pulp and paper

regulation to employ process changes,

rather than treatment technologies, as

the core of its model BAT/PSES

technology. EPA is authorized, in the

exercise of its discretion, to consider

these factors as the Administrator deems

appropriate in selecting BAT. See CWA

section 304(b)(2)(B). For all of these

additional reasons, EPA has concluded

that Option B is not the best available

technology economically achievable for

subpart B at this time.

EPA also evaluated the economic

achievability of TCF process

technologies for subpart B mills. EPA

concluded that the annualized cost of

retrofitting existing sources for TCF is

substantially greater than the

annualized cost of Option B (regardless

which bleaching chemicals are used),

with additional impacts ranging from

seven estimated closures and 7,100 job

losses to the potential that a greater

number of firms would be placed in

jeopardy of bankruptcy. See Section

VIII.F. (When this option is considered

in light of MACT I compliance costs, the

economic impacts would be even

greater. See id.) EPA, therefore,

concluded that TCF bleaching processes

are not economically achievable for the

subcategory as a whole at this time.

Nevertheless, EPA is promulgating

voluntary alternative BAT limitations

and PSES based on TCF bleaching

processes in order to encourage mills to

use this technology whenever possible.

See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2), 430.26(a)(2).

EPA determined that Option A is the

best technology because no other option

that was both available and

economically achievable resulted in

greater reductions in effluent loadings

for dioxin, furan and other significant

pollutants of concern. (See 58 FR at

66110 for other options considered at

proposal.) For a discussion of the

effluent reduction benefits associated

with Option A, see Section VIII.G.

(6) Point of Compliance Monitoring.

EPA is requiring mills in subpart B to

demonstrate compliance with BAT

limitations for dioxin, furan,

chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants inside the discharger’s

facility at the point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the bleach plant. EPA is

authorized by the Clean Water Act and

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i),

122.45(h), and 125.3(e) to specify an inplant point of compliance monitoring

for technology-based limitations.

Hereafter, EPA refers to the BAT

limitations for which compliance must

be demonstrated in-plant as ‘‘in-plant

limitations.’’ As set forth in more detail

below, EPA is establishing in-plant

limitations on bleach plant effluent

because limitations imposed on those

pollutants at the point of discharge are

impractical and infeasible as measures

of the performance of process

technologies representing the

technology-based levels of control.

Moreover, in-plant effluent limitations

are consistent with the MACT standards

for chloroform, which independently

require achievement of BAT limitations

on dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12

chlorinated phenolic compounds at the

bleach plant (in addition to compliance

with AOX limitations) in order to

ensure that the removals represented by

the MACT technology floor—complete

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine and elimination of

hypochlorite—are attained.

Mills using the model BAT

technology, described in section

VI.B.5.a(1), are able to achieve at the

bleach plant concentrations of dioxin

and the 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants at levels below the minimum

levels of currently available analytical

methods. Furan concentrations, in turn,

are very near the analytical minimum

levels. (At the end of the pipe, furan in

many mills’ effluent cannot be detected

by available analytical methods.)

Because only 10 to 40 percent of the

wastewater discharged by mills in

subpart B originates in the bleach plant,

(see the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487)

the concentrations of pollutants in the

final effluent would be one-tenth to twofifths of their concentrations at the

bleach plant. In the biological

wastewater treatment system, the

pollutants may be present but in

concentrations below the applicable

analytical minimum levels. When they

are discharged to receiving streams,

however, dioxin and furan

bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.

Were EPA to allow compliance

monitoring of the final effluent, there

would be no way to determine whether

the bleach plant effluent has been

adequately controlled or whether the

effluent has simply been diluted below

the analytical minimum level by the

other flows. Diluting pollutants in this

manner rather than preventing their

discharge is inconsistent with achieving

the removals represented by the

technology-based levels of control, and

hence with the purpose of the BAT

limitations. It is also inconsistent with

the goals of the Clean Water Act in

general. See sections 101(a) and

301(b)(2)(A). While no mill is required

to install EPA’s model BAT technology,

establishing limitations at the bleach

plant is the only way EPA can ensure

that none of these pollutants will be

discharged at concentrations greater

than the levels achievable through

implementation of the best available

technology. See E.I. du Pont de

Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112,

129 (1977).

With respect to the 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants, EPA acknowledges

that these pollutants could be degraded

by biological treatment of the facility’s

combined wastewater. However, the
18552 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

same process technologies necessary to

address dioxin and furan also reduce

the levels of chlorinated phenolic

pollutants to concentrations below

minimum levels at the bleach plant.

Commenters have supplied no data

showing that the chlorinated phenolic

pollutants should or indeed, as a

practical matter, could be segregated

from the dioxin- or furan-bearing

wastestreams in order to utilize a mill’s

secondary treatment system fully. Nor is

there any assurance that BAT

limitations for these pollutants, if

monitored at the end of the pipe, would

be achieved by treatment rather than

simply by the effects of dilution. See 40

CFR 122.45(h). Thus, EPA believes that

it is appropriate to require compliance

monitoring for the BAT limitations on

the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants

at the point they most easily can be

achieved and measured—at the bleach

plant.

In the case of chloroform, in-plant

limits are authorized by 40 CFR

122.45(h) because they offset the effects

of dilution, in this case, the occurrence

of uncontrolled volatilization. In other

regulatory contexts, EPA recognizes that

dilution includes not only mixing a

pollutant of concern with other

wastestreams, but also mixing it with

excess air in the form of uncontrolled

volatilization. See 52 FR 25760, 25778–

79 (July 8, 1987). Volatilization, like

dilution, does nothing to remove,

destroy, or immobilize pollutants, and

for this reason is not in itself a form of

treatment. id. at 25779. The policy

reasons supporting that principle in the

hazardous waste context similarly apply

here.

Finally, EPA is setting effluent

limitations at the bleach plant in order

to avert the non-water quality

environmental impacts caused by the

volatilization of chloroform to the air

and in order to be consistent with its

Clean Air Act determination that the

MACT floor for chloroform consists of

bleach plant process modifications, i.e.,

complete chlorine dioxide substitution

and elimination of hypochlorite as

bleaching agents. Specifically, EPA is

requiring under the Clean Air Act that

chloroform emissions be controlled by

complying with the BAT requirements

for all regulated pollutants. See 40 CFR

63.445(d). Therefore, EPA has

determined under its Clean Air Act

authority that bleach plant

technologies—and bleach plant

limitations on dioxin, furan, chloroform

and the 12 chlorinated phenolics—are

necessary to regulate air emissions of

chloroform. The situation presented

here is very different from the situation

EPA faced when promulgating effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the organic chemicals, plastics and

synthetic fibers industrial category in

1987. See 52 FR 42522, 42658–62 (Nov.

5, 1987). In that rulemaking, the issue

before EPA was whether to use in-plant

limitations and standards to regulate air

emissions of certain volatile and semivolatile pollutants; EPA chose not to set

in-plant requirements for that purpose

because it determined that the

regulation of such emissions was best

accomplished in a Clean Air Act

proceeding, which EPA was

commencing at that time. See 52 FR at

42560–62. In contrast, EPA in this

rulemaking integrated its decisionmaking under the Clean Water Act and

the Clean Air Act expressly to address

these cross-media issues. Taking into

account both the air and water

objectives of these Cluster Rules, EPA

therefore concludes that it is highly

appropriate for EPA to set effluent

limitations under the Clean Water Act to

correspond to and support its

concurrent regulation of air emissions

under the Clean Air Act.

b. New Source Performance

Standards. (1) Background. The Agency

proposed to revise NSPS for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. New mills have the

opportunity to incorporate the best

available demonstrated technologies,

including process changes, in-plant

controls, and end-of-pipe treatment

technologies.

(a) Definition of ‘‘New Source’’. EPA

had proposed supplemental definitions

of the term ‘‘new source,’’ as provided

in National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

program regulations found at 40 CFR

122.2 and 122.29, for the pulp and

paper industry only. See 58 FR at

66116–17. EPA is codifying a definition

of ‘‘new source’’ in Part 430 for subparts

B and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(j). The new

definition provides that new source

performance standards are triggered by

new ‘‘greenfield’’ mills, complete

replacements of entire fiber lines (e.g.,

pulping and bleaching), or the

construction of a new source whose

processes are substantially independent

of an existing source, such as a new

fiber line built to supplement an

existing fiber line. Specifically excluded

from the definition of new source are

existing mills that modify existing fiber

lines for purposes of complying with

either BAT limitations or PSES, and

existing mills that replace entire fiber

lines in order to comply with Advanced

Technology BAT limitations. For more

details, see Section VI.B.8.a(2).

(b) Proposed NSPS. EPA proposed

NSPS for toxic and nonconventional

pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory based on the

combination of both oxygen

delignification and extended cooking

followed by 100 percent substitution of

chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine

and elimination of hypochlorite

(identified at proposal as Option 5). The

proposed technology bases for NSPS

also included the other elements

described as part of BAT in VI.B.5.a(1).

EPA also proposed NSPS for BOD5 and

TSS based on the single best

demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary

wastewater treatment system. See 58 FR

at 66116–18, 66197. To encourage

continuing innovation in the

development of processes to reduce or

eliminate the discharge of pollutants

from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory, EPA also proposed

alternative NSPS limits for mills

adopting TCF processes. See 58 FR at

66111.

(2) Options Considered. In addition to

the option proposed for NSPS, EPA

considered three other options for the

technology basis of NSPS for toxic and

nonconventional pollutants. These

options are summarized below. For

further discussion of these options, see

the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

The first alternative option is identical

to BAT Option B, described above. This

revised NSPS option includes extended

delignification (i.e., oxygen

delignification and/or extended

cooking) to produce softwood pulps

with a kappa number of approximately

equal to or less than 20 (approximately

13 for hardwoods), followed by

complete (100 percent) substitution of

chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine

and elimination of hypochlorite for

bleaching. EPA concluded that there are

no performance differences between the

proposed NSPS option and this revised

option. See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA also considered an ECF

technology used at two U.S. mills

consisting of oxygen delignification

followed by ozone bleaching, enhanced

extraction, and final chlorine dioxide

brightening. This technology is used to

produce pulps of somewhat lower

brightness than market pulps. Finally,

the Agency considered a TCF process

technology that one U.S. mill is

currently using to produce pulps with

brightness up to 83 ISO.

For conventional pollutants, EPA

considered the proposed NSPS option

based on the single best available

demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary

wastewater treatment and a second

option based on the best available

demonstrated performance of a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18553

secondary wastewater treatment system

as characterized by the average of the

best 50 percent of the existing mills in

the subcategory.

(3) Option Selected, Pollutants

Regulated, and Costs. EPA is

promulgating NSPS for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

for toxic and nonconventional

pollutants based on the NSPS option

equivalent to BAT Option B. EPA has

determined that Option B technology

represents the best demonstrated control

technology, process, operating method,

or other alternative available at this

time. The toxic and nonconventional

pollutants regulated by NSPS are the

same as those regulated by BAT. For

further discussion of the NSPS model

technology, the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA rejected as possible NSPS

technologies the technologies that have

not been demonstrated to achieve full

market pulp specifications. EPA knows

of two ECF bleach lines using ozonebased bleaching in the U.S. One line

uses an OZEoDD bleach sequence to

bleach hardwood to 83 GE brightness

(less than 82 ISO). The other line uses

an OZEoD bleach sequence to bleach

softwood to 84 ISO, somewhat less than

full market brightness. EPA collected

data from this line that confirm that

OZEoD bleaching results in much lower

water use and pollutant loadings than

either Option A or Option B. Because of

this level of performance, EPA strongly

encourages further development of

ozone-based bleaching sequences—as

part of either ECF or TCF sequences. It

is possible that lines using ozone-based

bleaching sequences will achieve the

AOX limits promulgated as part of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, which is described

in Section IX of this Notice.

With respect to TCF bleaching

processes, several non-U.S. mills have

reported the production of TCF

softwood kraft pulp at full market

brightness. However, EPA’s data are not

sufficient to confirm that TCF bleaching

processes are technically demonstrated

for the full range of market products

currently served by the kraft process.

EPA is also unable to define a segment

of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory for which TCF

bleaching processes are known to be

technically feasible and thus could be

the basis for NSPS. EPA believes that

progress being made in developing TCF

bleaching processes is substantial,

however, and that additional data may

demonstrate that TCF processes are

indeed available for the full range of

market products. To this end, elsewhere

in today’s Federal Register Notice, EPA

is inviting additional data and comment

on the full range of market

specifications currently being achieved

for TCF kraft pulp (e.g., brightness,

strength, and cleanliness). EPA will

evaluate whether the performance of

this technology will result in greater

removals than the performance of the

NSPS technology option being selected

today. Depending on these findings,

EPA will determine whether to propose

revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and,

if appropriate, flow reduction

technologies.

In addition to NSPS relating to the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, which is discussed

below in this section, EPA is also

promulgating alternative NSPS for

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

mills voluntarily choosing to use TCF

technologies. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(2).

For the conventional pollutants BOD5

and TSS, EPA is basing NSPS upon the

best available demonstrated

performance of a secondary wastewater

treatment system as characterized by the

average of the best 50 percent of the

existing mills in the subcategory. EPA

has determined that the performance of

the single best mill does not account for

all sources of process-related variability

in conventional pollutant generation

and treatability expected in the entire

subcategory, including raw materials

(i.e., furnish), process operations, and

final products. In selecting the final

NSPS technology basis for conventional

pollutants, EPA found it necessary to

consider the secondary wastewater

treatment performance of the best 50

percent of the existing mills in this

subcategory in order to ensure that the

resulting standards reflect the full range

of processes and raw materials to

produce the full range of products

covered by this subcategory. For further

discussion, see the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487, and DCN 14497, Vol. I and II.

EPA is not revising NSPS for pH for

subpart B; however, for the convenience

of the permit writer, EPA has recodified

the 1982 NSPS for pH as part of the

table of newly promulgated NSPS for

toxic, non-conventional, and other

conventional pollutants. See 40 CFR

430.25(b).

In selecting its model NSPS

technologies, EPA considered all of the

factors specified in CWA section 306,

including the cost of achieving effluent

reductions. The incremental capital cost

of complying with the selected NSPS for

all pollutants, as compared to the costs

of complying with standards based on

the next best technology, BAT Option A,

is only 0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total

capital cost of constructing either a new

source fiber line at an existing mill or

a new greenfield mill. Moreover, the

process technologies that form the basis

for NSPS result in lower pollutant

loadings requiring biological treatment.

Loadings of BOD5 from a bleach line

employing NSPS will be approximately

30 percent lower than loadings from a

conventional bleach line. Compared to

the cost of treating wastewater from a

conventional bleach line to meet current

BPT/BCT effluent limitations

guidelines, the cost of treating

wastewater from a NSPS bleach line to

meet NSPS for conventional pollutants

will be the same or lower. Finally, as of

mid-1995 there are 14 existing mills

representing approximately 16 percent

of the bleached papergrade kraft

production that employ the Option B

technology. For these reasons, EPA

concludes that the costs of complying

with NSPS for toxic, non-conventional

or conventional pollutants do not

present a barrier to entry. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487. See also Section

VIII and Chapter 6 of the Economic

Analysis, DCN 14649.

The Agency also considered energy

requirements and other non-water

quality environmental impacts for the

selected NSPS option. EPA concluded

that increased chemical recovery and

reduced energy consumption and

operating costs would occur for this

option. EPA also concluded that nonwater quality environmental impacts

were only marginally different than for

the selected BAT technology option and

are acceptable. Thus, EPA concluded

that none of the statutory factors

justified selecting a different NSPS

model technology than the one chosen.

See Section VII. See also the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

EPA is also promulgating NSPS as

part of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program with

standards set at the Tier II and Tier III

levels. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). For a

discussion of this program, see Section

IX. A new source may choose to enroll

in the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier

III NSPS level and therefore to commit

to achieve those standards at the time it

commences operation. Alternatively, a

new source may choose to commence

operation at the compulsory NSPS level

and then later enroll in the Incentives

Program at the Tier II or Tier III level as

an existing source, or enroll in the

Incentives Program once Tier II or Tier

III limitations are achieved.

Finally, EPA notes that the previously

promulgated NSPS for the biocides

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol
18554 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

continue to apply to all new sources.

See 40 CFR 430.25(d).

(4) Limitations and Point of

Compliance Monitoring. EPA is

promulgating NSPS for dioxin, furan,

chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants, and AOX for Subpart B at

the levels set forth in Tables VI–5 and

VI–6 for BAT Option B. See 40 CFR

430.25(b)(1). For a discussion of EPA’s

development of those standards

(presented in the context of possible

BAT limitations derived from Option B

technologies), see Section VI.B.5.a(4).

The numerical values of today’s NSPS

for BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

have been revised from those provided

in the July notice. For a discussion of

these changes, see the Statistical

Support Document, DCN 14496. The

final NSPS for BOD5, TSS and pH are

presented in Table VI–7 below.

TABLE VI–7.—NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS FOR THE BLEACHED

PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

NSPS

Pollutant or

pollutant property

Continuous

dischargers

Noncontinuous

dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day

(kg/kkg)

Monthly average (kg/kkg) Annual average (kg/kkg)

BOD5 ............................................................................................................................................ 4.52 2.41 1.73

TSS ............................................................................................................................................... 8.47 3.86 2.72

pH ................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate

compliance with the NSPS for dioxin,

furan, chloroform and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants inside

the discharger’s facility at the point

where the wastewater containing those

pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See

40 CFR 430.25(e). EPA bases this

decision on the reasons discussed in

Section VI.B.5.a(6) for BAT limitations.

EPA is not specifying a point of

compliance monitoring for AOX, BOD5,

TSS, pH, or the biocides.

c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment

Standards for New Sources (PSNS). (1)

Background. EPA proposed the same

technology option for PSES as it did for

BAT. This proposed option would have

set PSES for the same pollutants

controlled by BAT. For new indirect

discharging facilities, EPA proposed

that PSNS be set equal to NSPS for the

toxic and nonconventional pollutants.

At proposal, EPA also discussed three

options for implementing the

pretreatment standards. See 58 FR at

66123–25. EPA also solicited comment

on whether pretreatment standards for

BOD5 and TSS were warranted to ensure

that pass-through of these and other

pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur.

(2) Pass-through Analysis for PSES

and PSNS. EPA promulgates

pretreatment standards for pollutants

that pass through or interfere with

POTWs. EPA performed a pass-through

analysis as part of this rulemaking,

which is summarized below. See also

the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA has determined for subpart B mills

that dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and

AOX pass through POTWs. Therefore,

the Agency is promulgating PSES and

PSNS for these pollutants. See 40 CFR

430.26(a)(1) and 430.27(a)(1).

EPA’s record shows that both direct

discharging mills and POTWs accepting

wastewaters from pulp and paper mills

in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory operate secondary

biological treatment systems. The

indirect discharging mills in this

subcategory contribute the majority of

the pollutant loading and up to 90

percent of the flow to these POTWs.

(EPA refers to these POTWs as

‘‘industrial POTWs.’’) EPA has reviewed

data available in the record for BOD5

and TSS, among other pollutants, and

has determined that the biological

treatment systems at these POTWs are

comparable to the biological treatment

systems operated by direct discharging

mills in subpart B. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

EPA reviewed all available data in the

record to conduct a pass-through

analysis. EPA compared the percent of

removals achieved by subpart B mills

implementing the BAT technologies to

the percent of the same pollutants

removed by the industrial POTWs

receiving effluent from subpart B mills.

EPA’s record shows that dioxin and

furan are not removed by biological

treatment systems and so are not

removed by the POTW. Therefore, these

pollutants pass through untreated and

are discharged to receiving streams,

where dioxin and furan bioaccumulate

in aquatic organisms. EPA bases this

conclusion on data reported in the ‘‘104-

Mill Study,’’ which EPA undertook in

cooperation with industry in 1988/89.

That study shows that direct

discharging bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mills operating secondary

biological treatment systems (without

the addition of bleach plant process

controls) discharge dioxin and furan in

detectable quantities. When mills in that

subcategory later implemented bleach

plant process changes and controls

comparable to the model BAT

technologies considered in

promulgating today’s BAT effluent

limitations guidelines, the data show

that dioxin and furan discharges

dropped below the minimum level at

which those pollutants can be reliably

measured. This was the case even where

there was no concurrent change to the

secondary biological treatment systems.

(Indeed, EPA’s candidate BAT

technologies assume secondary

biological treatment systems operating

at the 1989 level). Because, as discussed

above, the industrial POTWs receiving

effluent from bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mills operate biological

treatment systems that are comparable

to those operated by direct discharging

mills in the ‘‘104-Mill Study,’’ EPA

concluded that subpart B mills

implementing the selected in-plant BAT

model technology achieve substantially

greater reductions of dioxin and furan

than industrial POTWs can achieve

from effluent not subject to BAT-level

process controls. EPA finds that in the

absence of PSES equivalent to BAT

levels of control, dioxin and furan

would pass through POTWs. EPA also

believes that the presence of these

pollutants in the POTWs’ secondary
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18555

sludge could possibly interfere with

their sludge disposal options.

For chloroform, EPA also evaluated

the removal efficiencies achieved by

POTWs by comparing the removals

achieved by direct discharging mills

using BAT process technologies to the

removals achieved by POTWs receiving

effluent from subpart B mills. The

record shows that, without the BAT

process changes, a very high percentage

of chloroform volatilizes from

collection, conveyance, and aeration

systems. EPA has consistently refused

in these circumstances to regard such

transfers of pollutants from wastewater

to air as treatment. See, e.g., 59 FR

50638, 50665 (Sept. 28, 1993)

(pesticides chemicals guidelines); 58 FR

36872, 36886–88 (July 9, 1993)(organic

chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers

guidelines). Therefore, because of this

volatilization of chloroform in the

absence of bleach plant process changes,

the quantity of chloroform actually

available to be removed by the POTWs’

secondary treatment works is less than

the quantity of that pollutant removed

by the direct discharger employing BAT.

Accordingly, EPA concludes that there

is pass-through of chloroform in the

absence of pretreatment standards for

this pollutant, as well as unacceptable

non-water quality environmental

impacts from air emissions. For a

detailed discussion of chloroform

volatilization, see Section 8.8 of the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487, and the Air

Docket, No. A–92–40, Item IV–A–8.

EPA’s determination that the

chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass

through the POTW is based on data in

the record showing that the selected

BAT process technology option (Option

A) reduces all 12 of the chlorinated

phenolic pollutants to concentrations

less than minimum levels for these

pollutants in bleach plant wastewaters,

prior to end-of-pipe biological

wastewater treatment systems. While

biological wastewater treatment systems

comparable to POTW treatment systems

have been found to remove a portion of

these chlorinated phenolic pollutants,

the removals achieved are less than the

removals achieved by the BAT process

changes alone. Therefore, because

overall chlorinated phenolic pollutant

removals with implementation of the

model BAT technologies are

substantially greater than removals

achieved by POTWs, chlorinated

phenolic pollutants pass through

POTWs.

EPA has also determined that AOX

passes through. EPA bases this

conclusion on its review of all available

data regarding removals of AOX

achieved by industrial POTWs that

receive a majority of their flow or a

majority of their BOD5 or TSS loadings

from indirect dischargers covered by

subpart B. Although the data show that

the performance of these POTWs in

removing AOX is comparable to the

performance of end-of-pipe biological

treatment systems operated by direct

dischargers in this subcategory, the data

also show that direct dischargers

meeting limitations based on the model

BAT technology consistently achieve far

greater AOX removals than biological

treatment alone can achieve (e.g., at a

POTW). (See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.) Therefore, in the absence of

pretreatment standards analogous to

BAT, the affected POTWs receiving

pulp and paper wastewaters cannot

achieve the same overall removals of

AOX as achieved by direct dischargers

complying with the BAT limitations for

AOX. The same is also true when

considering removals achieved by new

sources complying with NSPS.

Therefore, contrary to the preliminary

finding in the July 1996 Notice, EPA

concludes that AOX passes through

POTWs and is setting pretreatment

standards for AOX for new and existing

indirect discharging mills. See 40 CFR

430.26(a) and 430.27(a).

The pretreatment standards

promulgated today for AOX are

equivalent to the AOX loadings present

in the bleach plant wastewaters of mills

employing the BAT/NSPS technologies

prior to biological treatment systems at

direct discharging mills. EPA expects

that removals achieved by indirect

dischargers employing the PSES or

PSNS model technology, in combination

with removals achieved by biological

treatment systems at POTWs, will be

comparable to the removals achieved by

direct dischargers complying with BAT

limitations or NSPS.

In reviewing the information available

in the record for the pollutants BOD5

and TSS, EPA concluded that pollutant

reductions attained by direct

dischargers’ biological wastewater

treatment systems and by POTWs

accepting similar wastewaters are

comparable and that pass-through of

these pollutants does not occur. As a

result, EPA is not promulgating national

PSES or PSNS for BOD5 and TSS for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. Other regulatory

authorities may determine, based on a

site-specific review of treatment system

performance, that locally imposed limits

are necessary to prevent the POTW from

violating its NPDES permit. See 40 CFR

403.5.

(3) Options Considered. In this final

rule, EPA considered the same process

technology options and best

management practices for PSES and

PSNS as it did for BAT and NSPS. In a

change from the proposal, EPA did not

consider for PSES/PSNS the biological

treatment technology that forms part of

the candidate BAT and NSPS

technologies. Since proposal, EPA has

made new findings with respect to the

pass-through of BOD5 and TSS. EPA has

also received comments indicating that

the lack of sufficient land for the

installation of biological treatment at

some indirect dischargers makes such

systems infeasible and unavailable. This

finding, combined with EPA’s finding

that biological wastewater treatment

systems at POTWs treating pulp and

paper wastewaters are comparable to the

biological wastewater treatment systems

operated by direct discharging mills in

subpart B, has lead EPA to conclude

that biological wastewater treatment

should not be included as part of the

PSES or PSNS candidate technologies.

(4) Effluent Reductions. As discussed

in Section VI.B.5.a.(3) above, after

proposal EPA recalculated the effluent

reductions attributable to its PSES

technology options using a new baseline

of mid-1995. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.

Table VI–8 shows the estimated

baseline and the reduction from

baseline expected if the presented

options were implemented by all the

existing indirect discharging mills in the

subcategory (i.e., those mills to which

PSES will apply).

TABLE VI–8.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT

AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDEREDa

Pollutant parameter Units Baseline

discharge

Estimated

reductions:

Option A

Estimated

reductions:

Option B

Estimated

Reductions:

TCF

2,3,7,8–TCDD ............................................................................ g/yr ................... 1.25 0.92 1.00 1.25
18556 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI–8.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT

AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDEREDa—Continued

Pollutant parameter Units Baseline

discharge

Estimated

reductions:

Option A

Estimated

reductions:

Option B

Estimated

Reductions:

TCF

2,3,7,8–TCDF ............................................................................ g/yr ................... 9.47 8.94 9.04 9.47

Chloroform ................................................................................. kkg/yr ................ 4.89 4.28 4.28 4.89

12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants ............................................ kkg/yr ................ 3.58 2.81 2.97 3.58

AOX ........................................................................................... kkg/yr ................ 3,010 2,100 2,600 3,010

aThe TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA assumed that pollutants reported

as ‘‘not detected’’ were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half the minimum level of the analytical method.

(5) PSES/PSNS Option Selection. EPA

is promulgating PSES and PSNS for

dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and

AOX based on the process technologies

that form the bases for BAT and NSPS,

respectively.

The Agency considered the age, size,

processes, other engineering factors, and

non-water quality environmental

impacts pertinent to Subpart B mills in

developing PSES/PSNS. None of these

factors provided any basis for

establishing different PSES/PSNS. EPA

has no data to suggest that the

combination of technologies upon

which today’s PSES/PSNS are based

results in unacceptable non-water

quality environmental impacts.

Because the costs of the selected BAT

and PSES model technologies are

attributable solely to process changes,

the costs for an existing indirectdischarging bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mill to comply with PSES are

comparable to a similar directdischarging bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mill. See Section VI.B.5.a(2).

As discussed in Section VI.B.5.a(5), EPA

found PSES based on BAT Option A to

be economically achievable. Similarly,

EPA considered the cost of the PSNS

technology for new mills (based on BAT

Option B) and determined that such

costs do not present a barrier to entry,

as reflected in the barrier to entry

discussion for NSPS in Section

VI.B.5.b(3).

The rationale for choosing BAT

Option A as the basis for PSES is set

forth in Section VI.B.5.a(5). The

rationale for selecting NSPS Option B as

PSNS is the same as that provided in

Section VI.B.5.b for selecting that model

technology as the basis for NSPS for this

subcategory. Although for the reasons

set forth in those sections EPA is not

selecting TCF bleaching processes as the

model technology for PSES or PSNS,

EPA nevertheless is promulgating

voluntary alternative pretreatment

standards based on TCF bleaching

processes in order to encourage mills to

use those processes when possible. See

40 CFR 430.26(a)(2) and 430.27(a)(2).

The pretreatment standards for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory also include best

management practices. See 40 CFR

430.03. These regulations are described

in Section VI.B.7. For a discussion of

the pass through of pollutants

controlled by BMPs, see Section VI.B.7.

In addition, the previously promulgated

PSES and PSNS for former subparts G,

H, I and P for the biocides

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

continue to apply unless the discharger

certifies that it does not use those

compounds as biocides. See 40 CFR

430.26(b) and 430.27(b).

(6) Limitations. With the exception of

AOX, the limitations promulgated as

PSES for Subpart B are identical to

those promulgated as BAT limitations

for this subpart. See 40 CFR

430.26(a)(1). For a discussion of the

development of those pretreatment

standards see Section VI.B.5.a(4).

EPA found that while end-of-pipe

biological treatment systems at

industrial POTWs and at direct

dischargers achieve comparable

removals of AOX, the total AOX

removals achieved by direct discharging

mills are greater because of the process

changes that are part of the model BAT/

PSES technologies. Therefore, EPA has

established AOX pretreatment standards

based on the performance of process

changes alone (biological treatment is

not a component of PSES/PSNS). EPA

has developed AOX limits for PSES

based on bleach plant data for eight

mills that employ the process

technologies incorporated in Option A.

These pretreatment standards are

presented in Table VI–9.

TABLE VI–9.—BLEACHED PAPERGRADE

KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

PSES AOX LIMITATIONS

Pollutant parameter

Daily

maximum

limitation

(kg/kkg)

Monthly

average

limitation

(kg/kkg)

AOX ........................... 2.64 1.41

Similarly, with the exception of AOX,

the PSNS promulgated for Subpart B for

toxic and nonconventional pollutants

are identical to the NSPS promulgated

for this subpart. See 40 CFR

430.27(a)(1). For a discussion of the

development of those pretreatment

standards, see Section VI.B.5.a(4). EPA

has developed AOX limits for PSNS

based on bleach plant data for six mills

that employ the process technologies

incorporated in Option B. These

pretreatment standards are presented in

Table VI–10.

TABLE VI–10.—BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY PSNS AOX LIMITATIONS

Pollutant parameter

Daily

maximum

limitation

(kg/kkg)

Monthly

average

limitation

(kg/kkg)

AOX ........................... 1.16 0.814

(7) Point of Compliance Monitoring.

For many of the same reasons set forth

in Section VI.B.5.a(6) above in

connection with EPA’s decision to

specify an in-plant point of compliance

monitoring for many of the BAT

parameters, EPA is requiring indirect

discharging mills subject to Subpart B to

demonstrate compliance with

pretreatment standards for dioxin,

furan, chloroform, the chlorinated

phenolic pollutants, and AOX at the

bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.26(c) and

430.27(c). As is the case for direct

dischargers, data for indirect

discharging mills show that standards

imposed at the point of discharge to the

POTW would make it impractical for

the permitting authority to assure that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18557

the indirect discharger is achieving

removal of the pollutants as required by

the pretreatment standards. Moreover,

EPA is concerned that dioxin and furan,

even when present in nondetectable

amounts at the point of discharge to the

POTW, could pass through the POTW

and accumulate in the biosolids, thus

possibly interfering with the beneficial

reuse of that biosolids material. The

extent to which sludge can be

beneficially reused is the subject of a

separate ongoing rulemaking under

CWA Section 405. Finally, under EPA’s

regulations, indirect dischargers are

prohibited from substituting dilution for

treatment, except where dilution is

expressly authorized by the applicable

pretreatment standard. See 40 CFR

403.6(d). (That is not the case here.)

This prohibition theoretically could be

enforced on a pollutant-by-pollutant,

case-by-case basis. However, EPA is

concerned that such a solution to the

effluent’s detection and dilution

problems may impose an unnecessary

financial and technical burden on

POTWs.

At the time of proposal, EPA

proposed that compliance with PSES/

PSNS AOX limitations would be

demonstrated at the point of discharge

to the POTW. Since biological treatment

is no longer part of the model

technology for PSES/PSNS, AOX

limitations based upon the performance

of the PSES/PSNS technology are more

appropriately set, and compliance

demonstrated, at the bleach plant, prior

to mixing with other wastestreams. This

will reduce the burden on the

pretreatment authority in implementing

the PSES/PSNS limitations, as no

additional allowance will need to be

factored into the AOX limitations that

would apply due to sources of AOX

beyond the bleach plant. In this respect,

the decision to establish in-plant points

of compliance monitoring for all PSES/

PSNS regulated parameters also furthers

the goals of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act. For all of these reasons,

EPA is establishing in-plant points of

compliance monitoring for PSES/PSNS

on a nationwide level.

6. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

a. Segmentation of the Papergrade

Sulfite Subcategory. In this final rule,

EPA is dividing the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory into three segments to

better reflect product considerations, the

variation in manufacturing processes,

and the demonstration of pollution

prevention process changes within the

category for the purpose of establishing

BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. EPA’s

reasons for doing so are discussed in the

July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36844–45,

and in paragraphs b(1)–(2) below. EPA

is promulgating final effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

each segment. The three segments are:

(1) Production of pulp and paper at

papergrade sulfite mills that use an

acidic cooking liquor of calcium,

magnesium, or sodium sulfite, unless

those mills are specialty grade sulfite

mills. See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(1). Mills in

this segment are ‘‘calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite mills;’’

(2) Production of pulp and paper at

papergrade sulfite mills that use an

acidic cooking liquor of ammonium

sulfite, unless those mills are specialty

grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR

430.51(c)(2). Mills in this segment are

‘‘ammonium-based sulfite mills;’’ and

(3) Production of pulp and paper at

specialty grade sulfite mills, or

‘‘specialty grade sulfite mills.’’ Specialty

grade sulfite mills are those mills where

a significant portion of production is

characterized by pulp with a high

percentage of alpha cellulose and high

brightness sufficient to produce end

products such as plastic molding

compounds, saturating and laminating

products, and photographic papers. EPA

considers a significant portion of

production to be 25 percent or more.

The specialty grade segment also

includes those mills where a major

portion of production is 91 ISO

brightness and above. EPA considers a

major portion of production to be 50

percent or more.

See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(3). In order to

determine whether a sulfite mill belongs

in the specialty grade segment,

permitting authorities should consider

the expected production mix over the

full permit term. For mills that are

converting to production in the

specialty grade segment, EPA expects

these mills will be subject to these

limits prior to the time that these mills

achieve the production mixes described

above.

b. BAT. (1) Options Considered. EPA

had proposed BAT effluent limitations

for AOX and COD for the entire

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory based on

totally chlorine-free bleaching

processes. Totally chlorine-free (TCF)

bleaching processes are bleaching

operations that are performed without

the use of chlorine, sodium or calcium

hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine

monoxide, or any other chlorinecontaining compound. After concluding

that the proposed technology was not

demonstrated for the full range of

products produced by mills using

ammonium sulfite cooking liquor or for

specialty grade products, EPA

segmented the subcategory and

considered other BAT options as set

forth below. EPA also included for all

segments the performance of existing

secondary biological wastewater

treatment as part of the basis for

nonconventional and conventional

pollutant effluent limitations and NSPS.

For a more detailed discussion of these

options, see the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.

(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or SodiumBased Sulfite Mills. The technology

option considered for papergrade sulfite

products made by this segment was TCF

bleaching, as proposed. See 58 FR at

66114–15. Existing TCF mills in this

segment produce the same products

they had been able to produce using

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching

processes, at up to 91 ISO brightness.

Therefore, EPA did not consider ECF

bleaching as a technology option for this

segment, because, while technically

available and economically achievable,

it was not the best such technology for

this segment.

(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills.

The technology options considered for

this segment were TCF bleaching and

ECF bleaching. ECF bleaching is any

process for bleaching pulps that does

not employ elemental chlorine or

hypochlorite. There are numerous

variations of ECF bleaching processes.

The ECF process considered for the

ammonium-based segment includes

peroxide-enhanced extraction.

(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. The

technology bases considered for this

segment were TCF bleaching and ECF

bleaching. The ECF process considered

for the specialty grade segment includes

oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced

extraction.

(2) Selection of BAT Technologies. In

evaluating and selecting BAT

technologies for the segments in this

subcategory, EPA considered the age,

size, processes, other engineering

factors, and non-water quality

environmental impacts pertinent to

Subpart E mills. None of these factors

provided a basis for selecting different

BAT technologies. For each segment,

EPA selected the best technology

available to produce the products in

each segment. Each of the selected BAT

technologies is economically achievable

and has no unacceptable adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts.

See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

The reasons discussed below also

support EPA’s decision to select the

BAT model technology for each segment

as the basis for PSES for that segment.

(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or SodiumBased Sulfite Mills. As proposed, EPA

has concluded that TCF bleaching is the
18558 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

appropriate technology basis for BAT

limitations for the calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based segment

of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

(The following discussion also applies

to PSES.) For this segment, TCF

technology consists of oxygen- and

peroxide-enhanced extraction, followed

by peroxide bleaching, and with all

chlorine-containing compounds

eliminated (e.g., elemental chlorine,

hypochlorite, chlorine monoxide, etc.).

Although still TCF, the bleaching

sequence is a change from proposal,

when TCF bleaching was based on an

oxygen stage with peroxide addition,

followed by a peroxide bleaching stage.

This change to the TCF bleaching

sequence reflects the more common

approach to TCF bleaching within this

segment of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory and also reflects the

technology basis of the mill from which

TCF performance data have been

collected. EPA also included pulp

cleaning to ensure that existing product

quality specifications would continue to

be achieved. EPA has selected this

technology because it is technically

available and economically achievable

for mills in this segment.

In evaluating the technical availability

of TCF processes for this segment, EPA

developed a database of mills in the

United States and Europe that produce

pulp using TCF bleaching technology.

There is at least one mill in the United

States and 13 in Europe using acid

cooking liquors of calcium, magnesium,

or sodium sulfite that are using TCF

bleaching processes. Among them, these

mills produce a full range of paper

products at up to 91 ISO brightness

using TCF bleaching. These mills are

able to produce the same products using

TCF technology that they produced

prior to converting to TCF, with no

negative impact on product quality. EPA

has incorporated pulp cleaners as an

element of TCF technology to ensure

that pulp quality requirements are

maintained. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487. For these reasons, EPA

concluded that TCF bleaching is

technically available for the calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based segment.

See the record at section 21.2.1. (As

noted above, EPA has established a

separate segment for specialty grade

sulfite mills using these cooking

liquors.)

In order to evaluate the economic

achievability of TCF bleaching for this

segment, EPA considered the costs that

existing mills would incur to convert to

TCF processes. However, costs for

secondary biological treatment systems

have not been included because these

systems already are in place at direct

discharging mills. (This is true for the

other papergrade sulfite segments as

well.) As part of that analysis, EPA also

included the costs of complying with

today’s BMP regulations. Because of the

small size of this segment, EPA is not

disclosing here the estimated capital

costs, operation and maintenance costs,

or post-tax annualized costs for this

segment in order to protect confidential

business information. However, EPA

has determined that no mills are

projected to close and no firms are

projected to fail as a result of today’s

BAT limitations and PSES for this

segment. This result obtains both when

the impacts of today’s BAT/PSES are

considered together with the impacts of

compliance with the MACT I costs, and

when they are considered alone.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that TCF

bleaching is economically achievable for

the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodiumbased sulfite pulp segment. See DCN

14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI).

For these reasons, EPA has selected

the model TCF bleaching processes

described above as the basis for BAT

limitations and PSES for the calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite

pulp segment.

(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills.

EPA had proposed BAT based on TCF

bleaching technology for all mills in the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory,

including those mills using ammoniumbased acidic cooking liquor. EPA

received comments and data

challenging the applicability of TCF

bleaching to ammonium-based sulfite

mills. After reviewing these comments

and data, EPA concluded that TCF

bleaching is not demonstrated and may

not be feasible for the full range of

products produced by ammonium-based

sulfite mills in the United States. See

DCN 14497, Vol. I. (The following

discussion also applies to PSES for this

segment.)

This conclusion is based primarily on

the greater difficulty in bleaching

ammonium-based sulfite pulps

(especially those pulps derived from

softwood) without the use of chlorinecontaining compounds compared to

other sulfite pulps, and the inability to

maintain product specifications for

certain products within this segment

using TCF bleaching. TCF bleaching has

not been demonstrated for products

with a high percentage of ammoniumbased sulfite pulp that also require low

dirt count and high strength. Laboratory

scale data submitted by a firm

producing such products indicate that

such products can be produced with

elemental chlorine-free (ECF)

technologies. See DCN 14497, Vol. I,

DCN 14494, and DCN 14118 in the

record at Section 21.11.3.

Therefore, for papergrade sulfite mills

using an acidic cooking liquor of

ammonium sulfite, EPA is promulgating

BAT limitations and PSES based on an

ECF bleaching technology. The

technology basis for BAT limitations for

this segment is use of dioxin- and furanprecursor-free defoamers, complete (100

percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide

for elemental chlorine, peroxideenhanced extraction, and elimination of

hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also

includes high shear mixing to ensure

adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching

chemicals. This technology basis

reflects the results of laboratory trials

showing the ability to produce the full

range of products manufactured by mills

in the ammonium segment, with

acceptable final product characteristics.

See the record at section 30.11, DCN

14497, Vol. I, and DCN 14494. (The only

exception is specialty grade sulfite mills

using ammonium cooking liquors.)

EPA is also promulgating voluntary

alternative BAT limitations and PSES

based on TCF bleaching processes in

order to encourage mills to use this

technology whenever it is consistent

with their product mix. See 40 CFR

430.54(a)(2) and 430.56(a)(2).

Alternative TCF limitations are also

available for new sources in this

segment.

In addition to finding that the ECF

bleaching process described above is

technically available for the ammoniumbased segment, EPA has also

determined that it is economically

achievable. In order to evaluate the

economic achievability of ECF

bleaching for this segment, EPA

considered the costs that existing mills

would incur to convert to the ECF

process under consideration. As part of

that analysis, EPA also included the

costs of complying with today’s BMP

regulations. Because of the small size of

this segment, EPA is not disclosing here

the estimated capital costs, operation

and maintenance costs, or post-tax

annualized costs for this segment in

order to protect confidential business

information. However, EPA has

determined that no mills are projected

to close and no firms are projected to

fail as a result of today’s BAT

limitations and PSES for this segment.

This result obtains both when the

impacts of today’s BAT/PSES are

considered together with the impacts of

compliance with the MACT I costs, and

when they are considered alone.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that ECF

bleaching is economically achievable for

the ammonium-based segment. See DCN

14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18559

For the foregoing reasons, EPA has

selected the model ECF bleaching

processes described above as the basis

for BAT limitations and PSES for the

ammonium-based segment.

(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills

EPA received comments and data

indicating that key pulp and product

characteristics for specialty grade sulfite

pulps have not been achieved using TCF

bleaching technologies. Firms

producing specialty grade pulps

indicate that required product

characteristics are achievable using

certain ECF bleaching technologies. See

the record at sections 19.1 and 21.11.6;

DCN 25502; DCN 20071a8; DCN 14497,

Vol. I; and DCN 14494. As indicated in

the July 1996 Notice, EPA has continued

to monitor research efforts of specialty

grade pulp producers in the field of

pollution-preventing process changes.

These research efforts have progressed

to the point where data are available at

this time to promulgate limitations for

this segment for dioxin, furan, and

chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For

specialty grade sulfite mills, the

technology basis for limitations is use of

dioxin- and furan-precursor-free

defoamers, complete (100 percent)

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine, oxygen- and

peroxide-enhanced extraction, and

elimination of hypochlorite. ECF

bleaching also includes high shear

mixing to ensure adequate mixing of

pulp and bleaching chemicals. This

technology basis reflects the results of

laboratory trials showing the ability to

produce the full range of products

manufactured by specialty grade mills,

with acceptable final product

characteristics. (This discussion also

applies to PSES for this segment.)

EPA is also promulgating voluntary

alternative BAT limitations based on

TCF bleaching processes in order to

encourage mills to use this technology

whenever it is consistent with their

product mix. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(3)

and 430.56(a)(3). Alternative TCF

limitations are also available for new

sources in this segment.

In addition to finding that the ECF

bleaching process described above is

technically available for the specialty

grade segment, EPA has also determined

that it is economically achievable. In

order to evaluate the economic

achievability of ECF bleaching for this

segment, EPA considered the costs that

the one mill currently in this segment

would incur to convert to ECF

processes. As part of that analysis, EPA

also included the costs of complying

with today’s BMP regulations. Because

of the small size of this segment, EPA

is not disclosing here the estimated

capital costs, operation and

maintenance costs, or post-tax

annualized costs for this segment in

order to protect confidential business

information. However, EPA has

determined that the sole existing mill in

this segment is not projected to close,

nor is its firm projected to fail, as a

result of today’s BAT limitations and

PSES for this segment. This result

obtains both when the impacts of

today’s BAT/PSES are considered

together with the impacts of compliance

with the MACT I costs, and when they

are considered alone. Therefore, EPA

has concluded that ECF bleaching is

economically achievable for the

specialty grade segment. See DCN 14376

and DCN 14388 (both CBI).

For the foregoing reasons, EPA has

selected the model ECF bleaching

process described above as the basis for

BAT limitations and PSES for the

specialty grade segment.

(3) Pollutant Parameters Regulated for

Each Segment. (i) Calcium-,

Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite

Mills. Because the Agency is

promulgating BAT effluent limitations

for this segment based on TCF bleaching

technology, the maximum reduction in

the discharge of chlorinated pollutants

from bleaching operations will be

achieved. This is because no chlorine or

chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals

are used and, hence, no chlorinated

pollutants are generated during

bleaching. For this reason, EPA is not

setting effluent limitations for dioxin,

furan, chloroform, or the 12 specified

chlorinated phenolic pollutants for TCF

bleaching. However, EPA is setting

limitations on AOX (expressed as a level

below the Minimum Level identified in

today’s analytical method for AOX) for

mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-based sulfite pulp segment of

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory in

order to reflect the performance of TCF

bleaching processes. See 40 CFR

430.54(a)(1). EPA is reserving

promulgation of COD limitations for this

segment until such time that sufficient

performance data are available because

the performance of the BAT technology

basis on this parameter cannot be

accurately predicted from laboratoryscale data.

(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills.

EPA is promulgating effluent limitations

for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for the ammoniumbased segment. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2).

EPA is reserving promulgation of

chloroform limitations, AOX

limitations, and COD limitations for this

segment until such time that sufficient

performance data are available because

the performance of the BAT technology

basis on these parameters cannot be

accurately predicted from laboratoryscale data. One mill is currently

installing, on a full scale, the

promulgated BAT technology basis. EPA

expects to have data to develop

chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations

for this segment once this installation is

complete, the mill is operating the new

equipment in a routine manner, and

appropriate samples are collected and

analyzed.

(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills.

EPA is promulgating effluent limitations

for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for the specialty

grade segment, based on laboratory scale

data. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(3). EPA is

reserving promulgation of chloroform,

AOX, and COD limitations for this

segment until such time that sufficient

full scale performance data are available

because the performance of the BAT

technology basis on these parameters

cannot be accurately predicted from

laboratory scale data.

(4) Costs. As discussed in the July

1996 Notice, EPA revised its cost

estimates for mills in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory by using the revised

bleaching sequences outlined in

paragraph (2) above. EPA also updated

equipment cost curves and unit

operating costs. See 61 FR at 36845. The

detailed basis of these revised cost

estimates are provided in the record.

The following cost estimates reflect

the total costs that mills in the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are

likely to incur as a result of today’s BAT

limitations, PSES, and BMP regulations,

and are the bases for EPA’s economic

impact analyses discussed in paragraph

(2) above. For this subcategory, EPA’s

estimated capital costs are $73.8

million, operation and maintenance

costs are $7 million, and post-tax

annualized costs are $9.8 million. (The

general and administrative costs

discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c are

already included here.) See Section VIII

for additional discussion of costs and

economic impacts.

(5) Effluent Reductions. EPA has

updated the calculation of effluent

reductions for each papergrade sulfite

mill, adjusting the baseline to mid-1995.

EPA used methodology similar to that

used for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory. As a result of the

BAT limitations and PSES promulgated

today, EPA estimates that for the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory,

discharges of dioxin and furan will be

reduced by seven grams to less than one

gram per year. (EPA expects no

discharges of dioxin and furan from TCF

bleaching.) Total discharges of

chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be
18560 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240

kilograms per year. As a result of the

TCF limitations and PSES on mills in

the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodiumbased sulfite segment and as an

incidental result of implementing the

ECF model technology by direct and

indirect discharging mills in the other

two segments, discharges of AOX will

be reduced by 4,010 metric tons to 370

metric tons per year. For a discussion of

the environmental benefits resulting

from these reductions, see Section

VIII.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the Economic

Analysis, DCN 14649.

(6) Development of Limitations. All of

the limitations and standards

promulgated today for Subpart E are

expressed as ‘‘<ML.’’ ‘‘ML’’ is an

abbreviation for the Minimum Level

identified in § 430.01(i) for the

analytical methods that EPA uses to

measure pollutant levels. For a more

detailed discussion of ML limitations,

see section VI.B.5.a.(4)(c).

In addition to the new effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

each papergrade sulfite segment

promulgated today and discussed

immediately below, mills in the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory continue

to be subject to existing limitations for

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol.

See 40 CFR 430.54(b), 430.55(c),

430.56(b), 430.57(b). These mills

continue to have the opportunity to be

exempt from these limitations and

standards if they certify to the

permitting or pretreatment authority

that they are not using these chemicals

as biocides. Id. For a discussion of these

pollutants, see Section VI.B.3.f.

(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or SodiumBased Sulfite Mills. Limitations for this

segment were developed based on data

from sampling at a European papergrade

sulfite facility. (EPA did not set

limitations based on performance data

from the TCF U.S. mill in this segment

because that mill produces sulfite pulp

using hardwood furnish, which is easier

to bleach than softwood sulfite pulp.)

AOX was not measured at the end-ofpipe at the European facility so the AOX

limitation is based on the transfer of

data collected at the bleach plant

effluent within that facility. This

transfer is appropriate because the

technology basis for the limitations, TCF

bleaching, reduces AOX to

concentrations below the method

minimum level prior to any potential

biological wastewater treatment.

Therefore, since AOX is not detected

above the minimum analytical level in

bleach plant effluent, it should not be

detected in final treated effluent.

(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills.

EPA is promulgating limitations for

dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for this segment.

These limitations are expressed as

‘‘<ML.’’ EPA based these limitations on

industry-developed laboratory data for

ECF bleaching trials supplied by an

ammonium-based papergrade sulfite

mill and the results from full-scale

sampling at a magnesium-based sulfite

mill using ECF bleaching technology.

EPA was able to apply the data from the

magnesium-based sulfite mill to the

ammonium-based segment because ECF

bleaching at magnesium-based mills

will result in similar wastewater

characteristics as ECF bleaching at

ammonium-based mills because ECF

bleaching chemistry is comparable

between the two chemical bases. EPA is

reserving AOX, COD, and chloroform

limitations for this segment.

(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Pulps.

EPA is promulgating limitations for

dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants. These limitations

are expressed as ‘‘<ML.’’ The

chlorinated phenolic limitations for this

segment were developed from

laboratory data for an ECF bleaching

trial supplied by a specialty-grade

sulfite mill. Data for dioxin and furan

were not collected as part of this ECF

bleaching trial because the mill

researchers fully expected, based on the

body of previous ECF bleaching

research performed on sulfite pulp, that

dioxin and furan would not be detected

and therefore did not need analysis. For

the purpose of establishing limitations

for dioxin and furan in this segment,

EPA is transferring laboratory data for

ECF bleaching trials supplied by an

ammonium-based papergrade sulfite

mill. The transfer of limitations for

dioxin and furan to this segment is

supported by published reports that ECF

bleaching of sulfite pulp will result in

values of dioxin and furan in bleach

plant effluent at levels below the

minimum levels identified for the

appropriate analytical methods. The

transfer is further supported by the low

levels of AOX measured (0.253 kg/

ODMT) in the bleaching effluent from

the specialty grade, laboratory-scale ECF

bleaching trial. This AOX level suggests

minimal chlorinated organics are

formed during ECF bleaching of

specialty grade pulp. For these reasons,

EPA does not expect dioxin and furan

to be present at or above the minimum

level for these pollutants and is setting

the limitations accordingly. EPA is

reserving AOX, COD, and chloroform

limitations for this segment until it has

sufficient data upon which to base the

limitations, because the performance of

the BAT technology basis on these

parameters cannot be accurately

predicted from laboratory scale data.

(7) Point of Compliance Monitoring.

EPA is requiring mills in the

ammonium-based sulfite and specialty

grade sulfite segments to demonstrate

compliance with the BAT limitations on

dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants inside the

discharger’s facility at the point where

the wastewater containing those

pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See

40 CFR 430.54(c). EPA bases this

decision on the reasons discussed in

Section VI.B.5.a(6) for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.

Unless otherwise determined by the

permit writer, mills in the calcium-,

magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite

segment may demonstrate compliance

with the BAT limitations for AOX at the

end of the pipe.

c. NSPS. EPA is promulgating new

source performance standards for each

segment of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory. See 40 CFR 430.55. The

technology bases of NSPS for toxic and

nonconventional pollutants for the three

segments of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory are the same as the model

BAT technologies for those segments.

For calcium-, magnesium-, or sodiumbased sulfite mills, TCF bleaching

technology is the technology basis for

NSPS. ECF bleaching is the basis of

NSPS for mills in the ammonium and

specialty products segments because

TCF bleaching has not been

demonstrated for the full range of

products made by mills in these

segments. The toxic and

nonconventional pollutants regulated,

the limitations, and the points of

compliance monitoring for NSPS for

each segment are also the same as for

BAT for those segments.

EPA proposed NSPS for conventional

pollutants based on best demonstrated

end-of-pipe secondary wastewater

treatment. The treatment system with

the lowest long-term average BOD5

discharge was used to characterize the

best demonstrated performance. EPA

concluded that data in the record is not

representative of the performance that

can be achieved in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory as a whole. For this

reason, the new source performance

standards for conventional pollutants

promulgated today for each segment of

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are

the same as those promulgated in the

1982 NSPS regulation. See 47 FR 52006,

52036 (Nov. 18, 1982) (for former

Subpart O); 48 FR 13176, 13177 (Mar.

30, 1983) (for former Subpart J).

In selecting its NSPS technology, EPA

considered all of the factors specified in

CWA section 306, including the cost of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18561

achieving effluent reductions. The

selected NSPS technologies are

presently being employed at mills in

each segment of this subcategory.

Moreover, the cost of the NSPS

technology is an insignificant fraction of

the capital cost of a new mill (less than

one percent). Finally, EPA has

determined that the costs of including

the selected NSPS technologies at a new

source are substantially less on a per-ton

basis than the costs of retrofitting

existing mills. See Chapter 6 of the

Economic Analysis document (DCN

14649). Therefore, EPA has concluded

that such costs do not present a barrier

to entry. The Agency also considered

energy requirements and other nonwater quality environmental impacts for

the selected NSPS options and

concluded that these impacts were no

greater than for the selected BAT

technology options and are acceptable.

See the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS

technology bases selected for each

segment of the papergrade sulfite

segment constitutes the best available

demonstrated control technology for

that segment.

d. Pretreatment Standards. EPA is

promulgating pretreatment standards for

new and existing sources for three

segments of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory based on the BAT and

NSPS technologies selected for each

segment. In determining PSES, EPA

considered the age, size, processes,

other engineering factors, and non-water

quality environmental impacts pertinent

to Subpart E mills. None of these factors

provided a basis for selecting different

PSES technologies. For each segment,

EPA selected the best technology

available to produce the products in

each segment. Each of the selected PSES

technologies is economically achievable

and has no unacceptable adverse nonwater quality impacts. With respect to

PSNS for these segments, EPA

concluded that the selected technologies

represent the best available

demonstrated control technologies that

are capable of producing each segment’s

products. EPA also concluded that there

was no barrier to entry for the reasons

set forth in section VI.B.6.c. above for

NSPS for this subcategory.

In order to determine which

pollutants to regulate under PSES and

PSNS, EPA used the same pass-through

analysis it employed for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

described in section VI.B.5.c(2) above.

EPA concluded that dioxin, furan, and

the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants

pass through or interfere with POTW

operations for the ammonium and

specialty grade segments for the reasons

set forth in section VI.B.5.c(2) for

Subpart B. This reasoning applies

because the BAT/PSES model

technologies for Subparts B and E are

both based on ECF process technologies;

the same is also true for the NSPS/PSNS

technologies (although in neither

subpart does the model pretreatment

technology include secondary biological

wastewater treatment). Based on its

pass-through determination, EPA is

promulgating national pretreatment

standards for new and existing sources

for those pollutants for those segments.

These standards are expressed as

‘‘<ML.’’ See Section VI.B.5.a(4)(c). With

respect to chloroform, COD, and AOX in

the ammonium and specialty grade

segments of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory, EPA has insufficient data

at this time upon which to make passthrough determinations or to set

pretreatment standards. Therefore, EPA

will decide whether and how to regulate

these pollutants for those segments

when data become available.

For the calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-based segment, the best

available technology basis is TCF

bleaching. Because no chlorine or

chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals

are used, no chlorinated pollutants are

generated during bleaching. Therefore,

EPA is not establishing pretreatment

standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform,

and the 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants for this segment. With respect

to AOX in the calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-based segment, EPA finds that

TCF bleaching will reduce AOX

discharge loads from the 1 to 3 kg/

metric ton typically found at baseline to

less than minimum levels, even at

indirect discharging facilities with no

on-site biological treatment. This

reduction is greater than 99 percent,

which far exceeds the AOX reduction

that can be demonstrated by POTW

treatment. Therefore, EPA concludes

that AOX passes through for this

segment and is promulgating PSES and

PSNS for AOX, with the limitation

expressed as less than the minimum

level, or ‘‘<ML.’’ See 40 CFR

430.56(a)(1) and 430.57(a)(1).

With respect to COD in the

calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based

segment, EPA has insufficient data at

this time upon which to make a passthrough determination or to set

pretreatment standards. Therefore, EPA

will decide whether and how to regulate

COD for this segment when data become

available.

The pretreatment standards for all

segments of the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory also include best

management practices. See 40 CFR

430.03. These requirements are

described below in Section VI.B.7.

EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate

compliance with PSES and PSNS on

dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for the ammoniumbased sulfite and specialty grade sulfite

segments inside the discharger’s facility

at the point where the wastewater

containing those pollutants leaves the

bleach plant. EPA bases this decision on

the reasons discussed in Section

VI.B.5.a(6) for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory.

7. Best Management Practices

The regulations promulgated today

include provisions requiring mills with

pulp production in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

(Subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory (Subpart E) to implement

BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain

leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,

soap, and turpentine and to control

intentional diversions of those

materials. These BMPs apply to direct

and indirect discharging mills within

these subcategories and are intended to

reduce mill wastewater loadings of nonchlorinated toxic compounds and

hazardous substances. For direct

dischargers, EPA is authorized to

establish BMPs for those pollutants

under CWA section 304(e). The same

BMPs will also remove, as an incidental

matter, significant loadings of color and

certain oxygen-demanding substances in

pulping liquors that are not readily

degraded by biological treatment. EPA

also expects incidental reductions in

conventional water pollutants and

certain air pollutants as a result of the

BMPs. To the extent these pollutants are

present in the wastestreams subject to

section 304(e), EPA has authority under

that section to regulate them. In

addition, EPA has independent

authority under CWA sections 402(a)

and 501(a) and 40 CFR 122.44(k) to

require direct dischargers to implement

BMPs for pollutants not subject to

section 304(e). To impose these BMPs

on indirect dischargers, EPA relies on

section 307 (b) and (c). Finally, EPA is

authorized to impose the BMP

monitoring requirements under section

308(a).

EPA has determined that these BMPs

are necessary because the materials

controlled by these practices, if spilled

or otherwise lost, can interfere with

wastewater treatment operations and

lead to increased discharges of toxic,

nonconventional, and conventional

pollutants. The practices included in

this rule are known to reduce the

amount of spent pulping liquor

discharged to wastewater treatment
18562 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

systems and to reduce the cost of

process operation through increased

chemical recovery. The BMPs

summarized below are discussed in

detail in the Technical Support

Document for Best Management

Practices for Spent Pulping Liquor

Management, Spill Prevention and

Control, DCN 14489 (hereafter ‘‘BMP

Technical Support Document’’).

Under this regulation, mills must

implement the BMPs codified at section

430.03(c). BMP requirements for new

and existing direct dischargers apply

when incorporated as special conditions

in NPDES permits, consistent with CWA

sections 304(e) and 402(a). BMP

requirements for new and existing

indirect dischargers are pretreatment

standards; therefore, they are selfimplementing. The BMPs are:

(1) Return of spilled or diverted spent

pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine to

the pulping and recovery processes to

the maximum extent practicable as

determined by the mill; recovery of such

materials outside the process; or

discharge of spilled or diverted material

at a rate that does not disrupt the

receiving wastewater treatment system;

(2) Inspection and repair programs to

identify and repair leaking equipment

items;

(3) Operation of continuous,

automatic spill detection systems that

the mill determines are necessary to

detect and control leaks, spills, and

intentional diversions of spent pulping

liquor, soap, and turpentine. Examples

of such systems are high level monitors

and alarms on storage tanks; process

area conductivity (or pH) monitors and

alarms; and process area sewer, process

wastewater, and wastewater treatment

plant conductivity (or pH) monitors and

alarms;

(4) Employee training for those

personnel responsible for operating,

maintaining, or supervising the

operation and maintenance of

equipment items in spent pulping

liquor, soap, and turpentine service;

(5) Preparation of brief reports that

evaluate spills of spent pulping liquor,

soap, or turpentine that are not

contained at the immediate process area

and intentional diversions of spent

pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that

are not contained at the immediate

process area, (this requirement takes

effect on the date an OMB control

number is issued);

(6) A program to review any planned

modifications to the pulping and

chemical recovery facilities and any

construction activities in the pulping

and chemical recovery areas before

these activities commence to prevent

leaks and spills during construction;

(7) Secondary containment for spent

pulping liquor bulk storage tanks. As an

alternative, mills may substitute an

annual tank integrity testing program, if

coupled with other containment or

diversion structures, in place of

secondary containment;

(8) Secondary containment for

turpentine bulk storage tanks;

(9) Curbing, diking, or other means of

isolating soap and turpentine processing

and loading areas from the wastewater

treatment facilities; and

(10) Wastewater monitoring to detect

leaks and spills, to track the

effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect

trends in spent pulping liquor losses.

In addition, § 430.03(d) requires each

mill to prepare a BMP Plan, based on a

detailed engineering review of the mill’s

pulping and recovery operations, that

specifies: (1) The procedures and the

practices to be employed by the mill to

meet the BMP requirements listed

above, as tailored to recognize sitespecific conditions; (2) the construction

the mill determines is necessary to meet

the BMP requirements, including a

schedule for such construction; and (3)

the monitoring program that will be

used to meet the BMP requirements.

This requirement takes effect April 15,

1999 see 40 CFR 430.03(j)(1)(i), or the

date an OMB control number for this

requirement is issued, whichever is

later. See 40 CFR 430.03(a)(2).

Each mill must also certify to the

appropriate permitting or pretreatment

authority that it has prepared the Plan

in accordance with the BMP regulation.

See 40 CFR 430.03(f). The mill is not

required to obtain approval of the BMP

Plan by the permitting or pretreatment

authority. Id. The permitting or

pretreatment authority at its discretion,

however, may conduct a review of the

BMP Plan, BMP Plan amendments, and

BMP Plan implementation.

Finally, section 430.03(h) requires

mills to establish action levels (a

measure of daily pollutant loading) that,

when exceeded, trigger investigative

and corrective action (depending on the

action level exceeded) to reduce the

wastewater treatment system influent

mass loading. This requirement takes

effect April 15, 1999 see 40 CFR

430.03.(j)(1)(iii), or the date an OMB

control number for this requirement is

issued, whichever is later. The purpose

of the action levels is to provide a

framework for monitoring the

performance and effectiveness of BMPs

on a continuing basis and to establish an

early warning system so that mills can

detect trends in spent pulping liquor,

soap, and turpentine losses that might

not be obvious from other sources.

Under the regulation, a mill has

considerable flexibility to choose its

monitoring parameter. For more

discussion of action levels, see the BMP

Technical Support Document, DCN

14489. EPA had considered requiring all

mills to employ specific statistical

action levels. See 61 FR at 36847. EPA

rejected this approach because it was

concerned that such action levels might

fail to trigger appropriate investigative

and corrective actions for some mills,

while being too restrictive for other

mills. Instead, EPA determined that

authorizing mills to choose their own

monitoring parameters and to set their

own action levels better accounts for the

variability in organic loadings at

different mills and differences in

treatment plant effectiveness and

evaporator capacity, among other millspecific factors. This flexibility thus

ensures that the action levels reflect the

actual performance of mill-specific

BMPs and procedures. In this way, EPA

believes the action levels will better

achieve the spill and leak control

objectives of the BMP requirements.

Exceedances of the action levels will not

constitute violations of an NPDES

permit or pretreatment standard. See 40

CFR 430.03(i)(3). However, a mill that

fails to take corrective action as soon as

practicable in response to the

exceedances will be violating its NPDES

permit or pretreatment standard. Id.

As set forth in § 430.03(j), the

following deadlines apply: Existing

indirect dischargers are required to

prepare BMP Plans and implement all

BMPs that do not require the

construction of containment or

diversion structures or the installation

of monitoring and alarm systems no

later than April 15, 1999. Operation of

any new or upgraded continuous,

automatic monitoring systems that the

mill determines to be necessary (other

than those associated with construction

of new containment or diversion

structures) must commence no later

than April 17, 2000. The mill must

complete construction and commence

operation of any spent pulping liquor,

collection, containment, diversion, or

other facilities, including any associated

continuous monitoring systems,

necessary to fully implement BMPs by

April 16, 2001. Existing indirect

dischargers must establish the initial

action levels by April 15, 1999, and the

revised action levels as soon as possible

after fully implementing the BMPs, but

not later than January 15, 2002. The

requirements to develop the BMP Plan

and to perform other record-keeping and

reporting requirements do not apply

until OMB has approved the associated
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18563

information collection request. See 40

CFR 430.03(a)(2).

NPDES permits must require existing

direct discharging mills to meet the

same deadlines specified for existing

indirect dischargers which is calculated

from the date of publication. See 40 CFR

430.03(j)(1). If the applicable deadline

has passed at the time the NPDES

permit containing the BMP requirement

is issued, the NPDES permit must

require immediate compliance with the

BMP requirement. Id. EPA believes this

is appropriate because the record shows

that mills can implement the

substantive requirements of the BMPs—

which are well-known within the

industry today—without significant

uncertainty or difficulty. In addition,

timely implementation will avert the

adverse environmental effects of

uncontrolled leaks, spills, and

intentional diversions. Finally, the

affected mills have been on notice for

several years that these requirements

would likely be imposed and therefore

should not be prejudiced by prompt

compliance obligations. EPA expects

that the compliance date for full

implementation of the BMP

requirements will not extend beyond

five years from the effective date of the

final rule because EPA expects NPDES

permits for those mills to be reissued on

a timely basis. With the exception of the

requirement to establish action levels,

which must occur not later than 12

months after commencing discharge,

new direct and indirect discharging

mills must prepare the BMP Plan and

implement all BMPs upon commencing

discharge. See 40 CFR 430.03(j)(2).

EPA believes it is reasonable to

require existing indirect dischargers to

establish revised action levels by

January 15, 2002 and to require all new

sources to establish action levels no

later than 12 months after commencing

discharge. These requirements apply

only after full implementation of the

required BMPs and reflect the amount of

time EPA believes is necessary for mills

to collect monitoring data regarding the

effectiveness of these newly

implemented practices and to perform

the statistical analysis to develop the

required action levels. Because the

required action levels are intended to

reflect normal mill operating conditions

using the BMPs, they cannot be

established prior to the implementation

of the BMPs or, in the case of new

sources, prior to commencing discharge.

For a discussion of EPA’s basis for the

other deadlines in this rule, see the BMP

Technical Support Document, DCN

14489.

The proposed regulations had

included provisions for leak and spill

prevention, containment, and control

through the use of BMPs. See 58 FR at

66078. The comments received by EPA

on the proposed rule and subsequent

Federal Register notices generally

supported the use of BMPs, but a

number of comments challenged EPA’s

compliance cost estimates and claimed

that certain requirements were too

prescriptive. In particular, industry

asserted:

• The requirement to develop BMPs

should be limited to spent pulping

liquor (e.g., kraft black liquor, sulfite red

liquors) and should exclude kraft green

and white liquors and fresh sulfite

pulping liquors;

• The proposed regulation was overly

prescriptive in general and, in

particular, the requirement for

secondary containment was

unnecessary to meet the objectives of

the proposed regulation;

• EPA underestimated the costs for

implementing BMPs;

• EPA lacks the authority to establish

BMPs to control pollutants that are not

identified as toxic under CWA section

307(a) or hazardous under CWA section

311; and

• EPA lacks the authority to impose

BMPs on indirect dischargers.

In response to comments, EPA

undertook several initiatives to

understand industry’s concerns about

the proposed BMP requirements; to

better understand the status of the

industry with respect to pulping liquor

management and spill prevention and

control; and to better assess the BMP

compliance costs. To supplement its

understanding of industry’s spent

pulping liquor management and spill

prevention and control practices, EPA

visited more than 25 chemical pulp

mills in the United States and 15 mills

in Canada and Europe following its

1993 proposal. These mills included

bleached and unbleached kraft mills

and papergrade sulfite mills (see Docket

Sections 21.5.1 and 21.5.3). EPA also

reviewed the results of the NCASI BMP

questionnaire distributed to the

industry. Questionnaire responses were

received from approximately 70

bleached and unbleached kraft, soda,

and sulfite mills. Through this NCASI

questionnaire EPA received a

substantial amount of additional

information about mill practices and

costs for equipment, monitoring

systems, and facility modifications (see

Docket Section 21.1.3). In addition, EPA

held detailed discussions with

stakeholders regarding options for BMPs

and associated costs. Much of this

information was included in the Docket

and made available to the public in

conjunction with the Notice of Data

Availability published in the Federal

Register on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938).

Additional information related to

development of the BMP requirements,

including changes in the wording and

organization of the proposed rule, was

discussed in the July 1996 Notice. See

61 FR at 36835.

Based on the information and data

received since proposal, EPA revised

the scope of the BMP requirements to

focus on control of spent pulping liquor,

turpentine, and soap. The BMP

requirements were restructured to allow

greater flexibility in how BMPs are

implemented to address site-specific

circumstances in achieving meaningful

prevention and control of leaks and

spills. EPA also reorganized the

regulatory text from that presented in

the record for the July 1996 Notice to

provide greater ease of use by mill

operators and permit writers, and to

clarify the intent of particular BMP

requirements. The most significant

changes since proposal are discussed

below.

In December 1993, EPA proposed

BMPs for seven subcategories of the

pulp, paper, and paperboard industry

(58 FR at 66078), all of which

chemically pulp wood and non-wood

fibers. EPA still believes BMPs are

appropriate for each of these chemical

pulping subcategories; however, to be

consistent with the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

in this final rule, the BMPs promulgated

today are applicable only to the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories.

EPA expects to promulgate BMPs for the

remaining five chemical pulping

subcategories [(Subparts A (Dissolving

Kraft), C (Unbleached Kraft), D

(Dissolving Sulfite), F (Semi-chemical),

and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)] as it

promulgates new effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for these

subcategories. Until new regulations for

Subparts A, C, D, F, and H are

promulgated, permit writers may wish

to use the BMP regulations in this rule

as a guide to issuing permits containing

BMPs based on best professional

judgment for mills with production

covered by these other subparts. See

CWA Section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR

122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose

BMPs as local limits to facilities in these

subcategories. See 40 CFR 403.5.

The BMP provisions in the proposed

rule were structured to apply to all

pulping liquors. In response to

comments, EPA has revised the scope of

the BMPs and for the final rule is

limiting the BMP applicability to spent

pulping liquors, turpentine, and soap.

EPA has determined that spent pulping
18564 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

liquors contain toxic components and

that these materials, if uncontrolled,

pass through or interfere with the

operation of POTWs and may interfere

with industrial wastewater treatment

systems at mills that discharge directly

to surface waters. EPA has excluded

green, white and other intermediate

pulping liquors (e.g., fresh sulfite

pulping liquors) from this BMP rule

because the data in the record does not

indicate that these materials pass

through wastewater treatment systems.

Turpentine and soap are included in the

BMP rule because, if spilled or lost,

these materials can interfere with

wastewater treatment operations and

lead to increased discharges of toxic,

nonconventional, and conventional

pollutants.

In December 1993, EPA proposed to

require mills to provide secondary

containment for all pulping liquor bulk

storage tanks. EPA has since determined

that spill prevention can be adequately

achieved for spent pulping liquor bulk

storage tanks by substituting annual

tank integrity testing and other

containment or diversion structures

(e.g., curbs and berms) in place of

secondary containment. The final rule

provides flexibility for mills to choose

either secondary containment or annual

tank integrity testing, coupled with

other containment or diversion

structures, to comply with this

requirement for spent pulping liquor

bulk storage tanks. See 40 CFR

430.03(c)(7). EPA determined that

secondary containment should be

required at all times for turpentine bulk

storage tanks because of the extreme

toxic effects a turpentine spill would

have on the biological treatment system,

and because the size of turpentine bulk

storage tanks is such that secondary

containment is easily achieved. In fact,

EPA has found that most mills already

provide secondary containment for their

turpentine bulk storage tanks. No

secondary containment is required for

soap bulk storage tanks.

As discussed in the July 1996 Notice,

EPA also proposed adding a

requirement to the BMP regulation that

would require mills to implement a

monitoring program for the purpose of

detecting leaks and spills, tracking the

effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting

trends in spent pulping liquor losses.

EPA proposed requiring mills to

monitor wastewater treatment system

influent for a short-term measure of

organic content that can be completed

on a daily basis (e.g., Chemical Oxygen

Demand (COD) or Total Organic Carbon

(TOC)). EPA has promulgated this

requirement (see 40 CFR 430.03 (h) and

(i)), but in response to comments, EPA

is also allowing mills to use an

alternative parameter related to spent

pulping liquor losses that can be

measured continuously and averaged

over 24 hours (e.g., specific conductivity

or color). See 40 CFR 430.03(h)(2)(i). In

conjunction with this monitoring, mills

are required by today’s regulation to

establish action levels (using the

measure of daily pollutant loading) that,

when exceeded, trigger investigative

and corrective action, as appropriate, to

reduce the wastewater treatment system

influent mass loading. See 40 CFR

430.03(h).

The proposed rule would have

required certification of the BMP plan

by a registered professional engineer

(P.E.) and approval by the mill manager.

The intent of the proposed P.E.

certification was to assure preparation

of a comprehensive BMP Plan that is

tailored to the site-specific

circumstances at the mill. Industry

commented that many mills have no

registered professional engineers on site.

For mills without a P.E. onsite, the

proposed requirement would result in

the plan being certified by someone not

involved with the mill on a daily basis,

and someone not responsible for its

operation. EPA has determined that

requiring certification by a P.E. is

unnecessarily prescriptive and may

have unintended results. The final

regulation deletes the requirement for

certification by a registered P.E. and

now requires the BMP Plan to be

reviewed by the senior technical

manager at the mill and approved and

signed by the mill manager. See 40 CFR

430.03(f).

The regulation was proposed to be

self-implementing for both direct and

indirect dischargers. EPA has revised

the regulation to make it clear that

BMPs imposed on direct dischargers are

not self-implementing, but rather apply

only when incorporated into NPDES

permits. See 40 CFR 430.03(j). This is

consistent with CWA sections 304(e)

and 402. The final regulation remains

self-implementing for indirect

dischargers. Id.

The final regulation extends

compliance schedules for plan

preparation and plan implementation to

grant more time for the preparation of

the initial BMP Plan and installation of

monitoring and alarm systems. Based on

information supplied by industry

regarding the time required in past

efforts to develop spill prevention

programs, EPA determined that 12

months was reasonable to complete the

development of the BMP Plan and

includes that deadline in the regulation.

Similarly, EPA determined that it is

reasonable to require mills to commence

operation of any new monitoring

systems no later than 24 months

following publication of the final rule.

This compliance date provides

sufficient time between BMP Plan

preparation and operation of new

monitoring systems (i.e., 12 months) to

allow implementation of BMPs in a

rational and effective manner.

The final BMP regulation is less

prescriptive than proposed with regard

to inspection, repair and log-keeping

requirements. While many of the

elements included in the proposed rule

remain, EPA determined that the

specificity of the language in the

proposed regulation could be redundant

to existing practices in place at some

mills and be unnecessarily burdensome.

EPA believes the language in the final

rule will achieve the same results as it

intended in the proposed rule while

allowing mills to use existing

maintenance and repair tracking

systems to fulfill the requirement. See

40 CFR 430.03(c).

As discussed in the July 1996 Notice,

EPA used the information obtained

since proposal to revise its cost

estimates for BMPs. See 61 FR at 36840.

At proposal, EPA’s estimated costs were

based on the reported total project costs

for two older bleached kraft mills to

install spill prevention and control

systems. After adjusting the costs to

reflect the size of a ‘‘typical’’ mill, EPA

then assumed that these costs reflected

the average cost incurred by bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills to install BMPs.

EPA then imputed to some mills

compliance costs less than that average

cost depending on the extent EPA

judged they had implemented BMPs

(see Technical Support Document for

Proposed Best Management Practices

Programs: Pulping Liquor Management,

Spill Prevention and Control, November

1993. Docket Section 17.4, DCN 08307).

EPA improved its estimates of

industry-wide costs for compliance with

the BMP requirements in the final rule,

compared to the cost methodology used

for the proposed regulation. These

changes were discussed in the July 1996

Notice and in the accompanying Draft

Technical Support Document for Best

Management Practices Programs: Spent

Pulping Liquor Management, Spill

Prevention and Control, May 1996 (DCN

13894). EPA’s supplemental mill visits

and the NCASI survey responses have

resulted in a more accurate status of the

existing BMP infrastructure and

programs at mills. This information was

used to create model BMP mill

requirements for each level of mill

complexity and to classify mills by

complexity level. EPA then used data
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18565

provided by the industry in comments

and the NCASI survey to develop unit

costs for major equipment items, facility

modifications, monitoring systems and

BMP Plan preparation, rather than using

the total project costs reported by two

mills as was done at proposal. Finally,

EPA incorporated the estimates of net

operating and maintenance costs of

BMPs into the BAT/PSES cost model.

The cost model tracked the impacts of

increased pulping liquor recovery on

the evaporators and chemical recovery

system and determined the need for

equipment upgrades resulting from the

combined effect of BAT/PSES process

changes and BMPs. The savings from

reduced load on the wastewater

treatment system and increased

recovery of fiber, chemicals and energy

were subtracted from the BMP operating

costs (i.e., increased evaporation energy,

tank integrity testing, operator training,

and O&M costs for new equipment).

EPA disagrees with comments

asserting that EPA lacks authority to

establish BMPs for pollutants that are

not identified as toxic under CWA

section 307(a) or hazardous under CWA

section 311. First, the non-toxic and

non-hazardous pollutants controlled by

these BMPs are found in the same

wastestreams bearing pollutants

specifically identified as toxic

pollutants or hazardous substances

under sections 307(a) and 311 and

implementing regulations. Although

reductions of these pollutants are

significant in environmental effect, their

control is incidental to the control of all

the pollutants subject to section 304(e).

Second, EPA has independent authority

under section 402(a)(1) to establish

NPDES permit conditions, including

BMPs, for any pollutant when such

conditions are necessary to carry out the

provisions of the statute. See 40 CFR

122.44(k). This authority operates

independently of section 304(e). Indeed,

when Congress enacted section 304(e)

specifically for toxic pollutants and

hazardous substances, it acknowledged

that section 402(a)(1) already provided

authority for imposing BMPs in NPDES

permits. See Statement of Sen. Muskie

(Dec. 15, 1977), reprinted in Legislative

History of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

at 453. EPA’s authority to establish

permit conditions under section

402(a)(1) is very broad. See NRDC v.

Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir.

1977). EPA has determined that mills

without an adequate BMP program,

such as that codified today, may

experience undetected and uncontrolled

leaks and spills that could disrupt the

efficiency of their treatment systems,

thus resulting in exceedances of the

BAT limitations and NSPS promulgated

today for subparts B and E. Moreover,

the BMPs control pollutants that are not

explicitly regulated under BAT and

NSPS. Therefore, EPA determined that

BMPs applicable to all pollutants in a

mill’s spent pulping liquor, turpentine,

and soap were necessary in order to

carry out the purposes of the Clean

Water Act and hence are authorized

under section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR

122.44(k). Similarly, as discussed

below, BMPs are authorized as

pretreatment standards for pollutants in

the spent pulping liquor, turpentine,

and soap when they pass through or

interfere with POTW operations.

Some commenters also objected to

EPA’s decision to establish the BMP

program by regulation rather than

deferring to the case-by-case

determinations of permit writers. EPA

agrees that a requirement to establish

and implement BMPs of the type

required by this rule could be imposed

on a case-by-case basis under CWA

section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 122.44(k).

However, EPA rejected this approach for

a number of reasons. First, section

304(e) expressly authorizes EPA to

promulgate BMPs by regulation on a

categorical basis. The spent pulping

liquors, soap, and turpentine covered by

these BMPs contain numerous toxic

pollutants and hazardous substances

subject to section 304(e) and hence may

be controlled by regulation. Moreover,

EPA determined that implementing the

BMP program by regulation is necessary

to ensure that each pulp and paper mill

with pulp production in subparts B or

E implements the type of BMPs that

EPA has determined are fundamental to

an effective BMP program for this

industry. While the BMP regulation is

intended to provide considerable

flexibility to mills in designing their

BMP programs, EPA has also

determined that the various BMPs

specified in the regulation are necessary

to assure uniform and fair application of

the requirements. Finally, EPA believes

that the regulation represents an

appropriate and efficient use of its

technical expertise and resources that,

when exercised at the national level,

will relieve permit writers of the burden

of implementing this aspect of the Clean

Water Act on a case-by-case basis.

EPA also disagrees with comments

asserting that EPA lacks authority to

impose BMPs on indirect discharges.

These BMPs are pretreatment standards

under section 307(b) and (c).

Pretreatment standards for new and

existing sources under section 307 are

designed to prevent the discharge of

pollutants that pass through POTWs or

that interfere with or are otherwise

incompatible with treatment processes

or sludge disposal methods at POTWs.

To determine whether pollutants

associated with spent kraft and sulfite

pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine

that are indirectly discharged by mills

with pulp production in subparts B or

E interfere with POTW operations or

pass through untreated, EPA reviewed

data collected from 1988 through 1992

at a POTW that receives effluent from a

bleached papergrade kraft mill. Prior to

1990–91, the mill had virtually no

facilities for control and collection of

spent pulping liquor leaks and spills.

POTW discharge monitoring records

show the fully treated effluent exhibited

consistent chronic toxicity to Daphnia

from April 1988 until June 1991. The

data further show that the toxic effects

of the POTW’s effluent have been

reduced since implementation by the

mill of effective spent pulping liquor

management and spill prevention and

control. These effluent toxicity effects

can be related to the wood extractive

components that are measurable by COD

and are found in leaks and spills of

spent kraft and sulfite pulping liquors

that interfere with the performance of

biological treatment systems and allow

toxic pollutants to pass through

inadequately treated. Indeed, evidence

of such interference and pass-through

was found in data from this mill and the

POTW, which showed higher mass

effluent loadings for COD, TSS and

BOD5 before the mill implemented a

BMP program. After the BMP program

was implemented, mass effluent

loadings of these pollutants were

reduced. Data for COD, in particular,

indicated that short-term interference of

POTW operations previously observed

at higher COD levels was being

mitigated. EPA also bases its passthrough finding on an incident

occurring in 1993 at a different mill

where an intentional diversion of spent

pulping liquor debilitated the mill’s

secondary treatment system and killed

fish in the receiving waters. These data

led EPA to conclude that inadequate

management and control of leaks and

spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine interfered with POTW

operations and caused pass-through of

pollutants. Because direct discharging

mills using these BMPs achieve very

high removals and because POTWs

cannot achieve similar removals in the

absence of BMPs employed by the

indirect discharger, EPA has determined

that pollutants in spent pulping liquor,

soap, and turpentine, in the absence of

controls on leaks, spills, and intentional

diversions, can cause disruption and

interference and do indeed pass through
18566 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

at POTWs. For this reason, EPA is

including as part of its pretreatment

standards the requirement that indirect

discharging mills implement BMPs in

accordance with this regulation.

8. Regulatory Implementation for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

a. Applicability of Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards.

Effluent limitations act as a primary

mechanism to control discharges of

pollutants to waters of the United

States. These limitations are applied to

individual mills through NPDES

permits issued by EPA or authorized

States under section 402 of the CWA. In

addition, the pretreatment standards are

directly applicable to indirect

dischargers. Once today’s regulations

become effective, the effluent

limitations and standards for the

appropriate subcategory must be

applied in all Federal and State NPDES

permits issued to direct dischargers

affected by this rule. See Section

301(b)(2), 402(a). This section describes

the applicability of these limitations and

standards to process and other

wastewaters generated by the mills in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories,

defines new sources subject to today’s

NSPS and PSNS, defines noncontinuous dischargers and the

applicable limitations, and describes the

retention of the previously promulgated

limitations and standards.

(1) Applicability of Limitations to

Process and Other Wastewaters. The

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the pulp and paper

industry apply to discharges of process

wastewaters directly associated with the

manufacturing of pulp and paper. See

40 CFR 430.00. EPA proposed a

definition of process wastewater as any

water that, during manufacturing or

processing, comes into direct contact

with or results from the production or

use of any raw material, intermediate

product, finished product, byproduct, or

waste product. The proposed definition

specifically included boiler blowdown;

wastewaters from water treatment and

other utility operations; blowdown from

high rate (e.g., greater than 98 percent)

recycled non-contact cooling water

systems to the extent they are mixed

and co-treated with other process

wastewaters; and stormwaters from the

immediate process areas to the extent

they are mixed and co-treated with

other process wastewaters. The

proposed definition specifically

provided that contaminated

groundwaters from on-site or off-site

groundwater remediation projects

would not be process wastewaters. EPA

proposed to require separate permitting

for the discharge of such groundwaters.

The proposed definition also

specifically excluded certain process

materials from the definition of process

wastewater. These process materials

included: Green liquor at any liquor

solids level; white liquor at any liquor

solids level; black liquor at any liquor

solids level resulting from processing

knots and screen rejects; black liquor

after any degree of concentration in the

kraft or soda chemical recovery process;

reconstituted sulfite and semi-chemical

pulping liquors prior to use; any

pulping liquor at any liquor solids level

resulting from spills or intentional

diversions from the process; lime mud

and magnesium oxide; pulp stock;

bleach chemical solutions prior to use;

and papermaking additives prior to use

(e.g., alum, starch and size, clays and

coatings). The proposed regulation then

would have prohibited the discharge of

these materials into POTWs or waters of

the United States without an NPDES

permit or other authorization.

In this final rule, EPA is promulgating

a definition of process wastewater

applicable to subparts B and E. In

response to the comments opposing the

exclusion of these process materials,

EPA revised the proposed definition of

process wastewaters to eliminate the

exclusion of the named process

materials. See 40 CFR 430.01(m). The

proposed language would have

effectively required ‘‘closed cycle’’

mills, which was not EPA’s intent. The

exclusion of contaminated groundwater

has been retained. Because the quantity

and quality of such groundwaters are

likely to be highly variable on a sitespecific basis, the Agency concluded

that their discharge to surface waters

should be regulated separately from, or

in addition to, process wastewaters on

a case-by-case basis. EPA also has

included leachate wastewaters from

landfills owned and operated by mills

generating wastes associated with

manufacturing or processing subject to

subparts B and E, where these leachate

wastewaters are commingled with other

process wastewaters. These leachate

wastewaters typically comprise a very

small proportion of the total volume

received in end-of-pipe wastewater

treatment facilities. In cases where the

volumes or pollutants found in leachate

wastewaters are of concern, permit

writers may develop individual permit

limitations on a case-by-case basis.

EPA’s definition continues to define

process wastewater in terms of

manufacturing or processing. EPA has

promulgated a subcategory-specific

definition of process wastewater in

order to clarify the applicability of

subparts B and E and to assist permit

writers and pretreatment authorities in

developing limitations and standards.

The effluent limitations guidelines and

standards promulgated today do not

apply to discharges that are not

associated with manufacturing or

processing. Any mill wishing to

discharge such wastewaters would need

to obtain authorization in an NPDES

permit or individual control mechanism

administered by a POTW.

EPA’s use of the term ‘‘during

manufacturing or processing’’ should

not be taken to exclude wastewaters

generated during routine maintenance,

including maintenance occurring during

a scheduled temporary mill shut-down.

Maintenance wastewaters were not

explicitly excluded from the definition

of process wastewater at proposal, nor

are they excluded from the definition

promulgated today. Wastewaters

generated during routine maintenance

are a result of pulp manufacturing

processes and as such are included in

the definition of process wastewater.

(2) Definition of New Source. In

today’s rule, EPA is promulgating a

definition of ‘‘new source’’ applicable to

Part 430, subparts B and E. See 40 CFR

430.01(j). This definition restates the

definition set forth in 40 CFR

122.29(b)(1), but with the additional

reference to certain process changes

that, in and of themselves, would not

cause a mill to become a new source.

See 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA intends

that permit writers will consult the

specific ‘‘new source’’ criteria in Part

430, rather than the more general

criteria set forth in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)

and 403 when determining whether

pulp and paper mills subject to subparts

B or E are new sources. The other

provisions of 40 CFR 122.29 continue to

apply to these subparts, as do 40 CFR

122.2 and 40 CFR 403.3(k). The

definition of ‘‘new source’’ in Part 430

does not affect the definition of ‘‘new

source’’ for purposes of the NESHAP

portion of these integrated rules.

EPA is aware that application of the

definitions in Part 122 to pulp and

paper mills in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories has sometimes caused

controversy, leading to disagreement

between the permitting authority and

the facility whether a particular change

at the mill triggers NSPS or PSNS. EPA

is promulgating a definition of ‘‘new

source’’ specifically for subparts B and

E in order to set forth the specific factors

relevant to a new source determination

for covered mills and thus, EPA hopes,

to end the disputes regarding a mill’s
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18567

new source status. Indeed, the decision

to promulgate subcategory-specific

criteria in this rule is specifically

contemplated by the general criteria

codified at 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1). EPA

believes this tailored definition is

particularly important in view of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program EPA is also

promulgating today for subpart B mills.

Through the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program, EPA is

encouraging mills to install new process

technologies and even to redesign

bleach plant operations in order to

achieve effluent reductions beyond

those required at the baseline BAT level.

EPA does not want existing mills that

voluntarily choose to participate in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program to be required to

meet NSPS simply as a consequence of

that election. Therefore, by

promulgating a definition of ‘‘new

source’’ specifically for subparts B and

E, EPA hopes not only to clarify

application of the Part 122 definitions

but also to provide certainty to subpart

B mills choosing to participate in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program that they will not

inadvertently become a new source,

which would subject them to

compulsory NSPS.

For the convenience of the permit

writer, the definition of new source

being codified in part 430 restates the

three criteria already codified in

§ 122.29(b)(1). The first criterion

provides that a source is a new source

if it is constructed at a site at which no

other source is located. Section 430.01

(j)(1)(i); see 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)(i). As

applied to part 430, this criterion is

intended to ensure that a greenfield mill

is characterized as a new source and

hence is subject to NSPS or PSNS.

The second criterion specified in

today’s definition of new source

incorporates the language of 40 CFR

122.29(b)(1)(ii) with two additions.

First, it provides that a fiber line that

totally replaces an existing fiber line is

a new source (unless that fiber line is

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program).

Second, it includes a list of

modifications that would not trigger the

new source definition if made by

subpart B or E mills. See 40 CFR

430.01(j)(1)(ii) and (2). This criterion

provides essentially that a fiber line that

is modified to comply with baseline

BAT effluent limitations or that is

totally rebuilt to comply with Advanced

Technology BAT limitations is not a

new source. (A fiber line is a series of

operations employed to convert wood or

other fibrous raw material into pulp. If

the final product is bleached pulp, the

fiber line encompasses pulping, deknotting, brownstock washing, pulp

screening, centrifugal cleaning, and

multiple bleaching and washing stages.)

Among the changes specified in the

regulation that alone do not cause an

existing fiber line at a mill to be

considered a new source are: Upgrades

of existing pulping operations; upgrades

or replacement of pulp screening and

washing operations; installation of

extended cooking and/or oxygen

delignification systems or other postdigester, pre-bleaching delignification

systems; and bleach plant modifications

including changes in methods or

amounts of chemical applications, new

chemical applications, installation of

new bleaching towers to facilitate

replacement of sodium or calcium

hypochlorite, and installation of new

pulp washing systems. 40 CFR

430.01(j)(2)(i)–(iv). By expressly

excluding these process modifications

from the new source definition, EPA

thus allows a mill to implement the

baseline BAT/PSES technologies

without triggering NSPS or PSNS. EPA

believes that interpreting process

modifications that are designed to

achieve compliance with baseline BAT/

PSES limitations as an existing source

modification is consistent with

Congress’ intentions in the Clean Water

Act concerning the respective roles of

standards for existing and new sources.

As discussed in more detail below in

connection with the third new source

criterion, EPA believes it is appropriate

to define a new fiber line as a new

source because the construction of the

new fiber line (whether to supplement

or replace an existing fiber line)

presents the type of pollution

prevention opportunities customarily

represented by NSPS. However, EPA

believes it is also appropriate to treat the

replacement fiber line as an existing

source if that fiber line is enrolled in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. See 40 CFR

430.01(j)(2)(v). EPA has decided to do

this because requiring the new fiber line

to meet baseline NSPS requirements

would defeat the purpose of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program by undercutting the

more environmentally protective

pollution prevention opportunities and

limitations associated with that

program. In the first place, Advanced

Technology BAT limitations at the Tier

II and Tier III levels are more stringent

than the baseline NSPS requirements;

EPA’s definition of new source thus is

intended to allow mills to commit to

greater pollutant reductions than EPA

could otherwise compel and to do so

incrementally while maintaining use of

the existing fiber line in the interim.

Similarly, the Advanced Technology

BAT limitations at the Tier I level

promote pollution prevention

opportunities not necessarily assured by

NSPS, even though the technology bases

for NSPS and Tier I are similar. EPA has

established different limitations for Tier

I than for NSPS because the regulations

are intended to achieve different

objectives. The new source performance

standards for AOX are more stringent

because, as a statistical matter, EPA

determined that this performance level

reflects the best demonstrated

performance by mills using the NSPS

technology. The Tier I limitations for

AOX, in contrast, are intended to reflect

a more inclusive performance level that

EPA believes existing mills employing

extended delignification can achieve, in

order to encourage more mills to

implement extended delignification

technologies. The Tier I limitations also

require the recycle of filtrates to the

recovery systems and impose

limitations on the lignin content of

unbleached pulp, which EPA hopes will

promote the use of particular pollution

prevention technologies and, in turn,

encourage mills to look beyond Tier I to

the Tier II and Tier III levels. This goal

contrasts with the objective of NSPS,

which simply is to compel mills to

achieve certain discharge levels by any

combination of technologies the mill

selects, and would be defeated if the

definition of new source would have the

effect of moving Tier I mills into NSPS.

Therefore, EPA has decided that, on

balance, imposing NSPS on mills that

replace fiber lines for the purpose of

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program would

discourage rather than encourage the

long-term goal of achieving even greater

environmental performance.

The third criterion appearing in the

definition of new source in

§ 430.01(j)(1)(iii) is identical to the third

criterion at § 122.29(b)(1)(iii), and

provides that a source is a new source

if its processes are substantially

independent of an existing source at the

same site. In determining whether

processes are substantially independent,

the permitting or pretreatment authority

is directed to consider such factors as

the extent to which the new facility is

integrated with the existing plant, and

the extent to which the new facility is

engaged in the same general type of

activity as the existing source. For

example, if a mill operating in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory builds and operates an

entirely new fiber line that permanently
18568 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

supplements the capacity of an existing

fiber line (and also, incidentally,

increases the total quantity of pollutants

discharged by the mill), the new fiber

line would be considered a new source

subject to NSPS.

EPA believes it is appropriate to

subject a new fiber line that is

substantially independent of an existing

fiber line to new source performance

standards because a mill designing that

new fiber line has pollution prevention

opportunities akin to those available to

greenfield mills. For example, a mill

would have the opportunity to

incorporate pollution prevention

principles when designing a new fiber

line, including a new flow scheme and

water balance. This new fiber line

would provide the opportunity to take

advantage of pollution prevention

savings attributable to reduced chemical

needs (and costs), increased energy

recovery, the possibility of improving

yield, and other operation and

maintenance improvements.

EPA notes that a fiber line that is

substantially independent of an existing

fiber line is a new source even if the

new fiber line is enrolled in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. EPA believes that

this is appropriate because the

supplemental fiber line increases both

the mill’s production capacity and its

discharge of pollution to the

environment. However, the fiber line

could qualify for incentives if it is

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program for

NSPS at the Tier II or Tier III level.

As reflected in the July 1996 Notice,

61 FR at 36848, EPA had considered

excluding from the definition of new

source those mills that renovated

existing fiber lines but remained at

existing production levels. In response

to comments, EPA has decided not to

introduce production levels as a factor

in determining new source status. First,

taking production levels into account in

determining whether an existing source

becomes a new source would be a

departure from current practice that

EPA believes is not justified in this case.

EPA believes that the new source status

of a subpart B or E mill should be

determined by the degree of process and

production changes made at a mill’s

fiber lines—such as the replacement of

existing digesters and bleach plants

with new equipment—because those

changes, not production levels, present

the real opportunities for pollution

prevention represented by NSPS or

PSNS. Moreover, EPA agrees with

comments stating that mills subject to

subpart B or E frequently undergo

changes in various degrees to increase

production levels and that many of

these changes do not result in or from

substantially independent facilities or

the total replacement of existing

facilities. See DCN 25538 at 70–72.

Therefore, the mere fact that a mill

increases its production levels does not

mean that it concurrently has the

opportunity to install the type of

advanced pollution prevention

technologies represented by NSPS.

(3) Non-Continuous Discharger. EPA

is changing the regulatory language

defining non-continuous dischargers as

it applies to subparts B and E. See 40

CFR 430.01(k)(2). EPA is also

republishing, without change, the

current definition of non-continuous

dischargers because it continues to

apply to the other subparts in part 430

and to the determination of technologybased effluent limitations on

conventional pollutants for existing

dischargers subject to subpart B or E.

See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(1).

EPA had proposed a new definition

that would have defined as a noncontinuous discharger a mill that stored

wastewaters for periods of at least 24

hours and that released that wastewater

on a batch basis. In the final definition

applicable to subparts B and E, EPA is

retaining the storage component of the

proposed (and existing) regulation but is

not specifying a minimum 24-hour

storage period because EPA determined

that it had no particular significance for

these subparts. However, as indicated in

the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36842,

EPA is adding language defining as a

non-continuous discharger a discharger

that releases stored wastewater on a

variable flow or a pollutant loading rate

basis. Finally, in this new definition,

EPA is clarifying that it applies to

storage or release of wastewaters

required by the permitting authority for

the purpose of protecting receiving

water quality, among other purposes.

See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). For subparts B

and E only, EPA also is eliminating the

requirement in the existing regulation,

at 40 CFR 430.01(c) (1996 ed.), for the

NPDES authority to include maximum

day and maximum 30-day average

concentration limitations consistent

with BPT, BCT, or NSPS limitations as

appropriate. See 40 CFR 430.01(k). EPA

will defer to the NPDES authority to

establish maximum day and maximum

30-day average limitations that are

necessary to protect receiving water

quality. In later final rulemaking phases

(see section II, table II–2), EPA intends

to adopt for remaining subcategories the

same definition for non-continuous

dischargers as is being promulgated

today for subparts B and E.

(4) Retention of Previously

Promulgated Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards. As discussed

in more detail in Section VI.B.2, EPA is

not revising BPT or BCT effluent

limitations for conventional pollutants

for subparts B and E. Therefore, EPA is

retaining the previously promulgated

limitations for these pollutants and

subparts. See 40 CFR 430.22, 430.23,

430.52, 430.53.

EPA is also retaining previously

promulgated NSPS for subparts B and E

because new sources that commenced

operation prior to the effective date of

today’s NSPS remain subject to the

earlier standards for ten years beginning

on the date construction of the new

source was completed. CWA section

306(d); see 40 CFR 430.25(a), 430.55(a).

Finally, as discussed in more detail in

Section VI.B.3.f, subparts B and E

include previously promulgated end-ofpipe effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for pentachlorophenol and

trichlorophenol. EPA is also retaining

the accompanying provisions

authorizing mills that do not use those

chemicals as biocides to certify this fact

to the permitting or pretreatment

authority with the result that they

would not be subject to those

limitations or standards. Id.

In addition to today’s new regulations

for subparts B and E, EPA is recodifying

the previously promulgated BPT, BCT,

BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for the

other subparts of the pulp, paper, and

paperboard category. These limitations

regulate the discharges of BOD5, TSS,

zinc, and other analytes. Although EPA

is reorganizing the former subcategories

in accordance with the new subcategory

designations, EPA is not changing these

limitations and standards. See Section

VI.B.1.

b. Determination of Effluent

Limitations for Permits. (1) Definition of

Production and Production-Normalizing

Parameters. The Agency has based some

of the effluent limitations guidelines

and standards promulgated today on

pollutant concentrations. Others are

mass-based, that is, normalized on the

basis of an appropriate measure of

production. Limitations and standards

for AOX, chloroform, BOD5, and TSS

fall into this category.

This appropriate measure of

production is known as the

‘‘production-normalizing parameter.’’

The current definition of ‘‘productionnormalizing parameter’’ is annual offthe-machine production (including offthe-machine coating, where applicable)

of pulp, paper, and/or paperboard,

divided by the number of operating days

that year. Most paper and paperboard

production is measured at the off-the-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18569

machine moisture content, while market

pulp is measured as air-dry metric tons

(10 percent moisture). EPA is not

changing this definition of production

as it applies to the effluent limitations

and standards for any subcategory in

Part 430 other than subparts B and E.

EPA is also retaining the existing

definition of production for the NSPS

for conventional pollutants being

promulgated today for subpart B and

subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1).

However, EPA is codifying a new

definition of production for the AOX

and chloroform limitations being

promulgated today for subparts B and E.

See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(2). Under the new

specialized definition, the productionnormalizing parameter to be used by

permit writers in calculating mass-based

limitations for chloroform and AOX is

air-dried metric tons of brownstock pulp

(10 percent moisture) entering the

bleach plant at the stage during which

chlorine or chlorine-containing

compounds are first applied to the pulp.

In the case of bleach plants that use

totally chlorine-free bleaching, the

production-normalizing parameter used

to calculate mass-based limitations shall

be air-dried metric tons of brownstock

pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the

first stage of the bleach plant from

which wastewater is discharged. Id.

Production, in turn, is defined as the

annual unbleached pulp production that

enters the bleach plant (at ten percent

moisture) divided by the number of

operating days of the bleach plant. Id.

The Agency had proposed to change

the current definition of production in

part 430 by adding the following

statement: ‘‘Production in each of the

foregoing cases shall be determined for

each mill based upon the highest annual

production in the past five years

divided by the number of operating days

that year.’’ See 58 FR at 66189. EPA has

decided not to revise the definition to

include a new time basis because EPA

is not revising the current BPT and BCT

effluent limitations guidelines at this

time for subparts B and E. Codifying a

new time basis for determining

production of AOX and chloroform

would have required permit writers to

apply different time bases for

determining production for purposes of

calculating BAT limitations and

limitations for conventional pollutants.

In EPA’s view, this would have unduly

complicated the permitting process. In

addition, for NSPS, introducing a time

basis would be illogical because new

sources do not have five years of data

from which to determine the one

highest year.

(2) Determination of Permit

Limitations for Multiple Subcategory

Mills. For facilities with multiple point

source categories, subcategories, and

segments, the appropriate guidelines for

each category, subcategory (or subpart),

and segment are used to determine a

single permit limit for each pollutant.

Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES

Permit Writers’ Manual (EPA–833–B–

96–003, December 1996) provides

guidance in determining permit limits

in situations when the effluent

guidelines for one subcategory regulates

a different set of pollutants than the

effluent guidelines applicable to another

subcategory. For mill subject to today’s

rule, this situation may arise in setting

permit limits for AOX when the mill has

production in multiple subcategories.

For pollutants regulated today at the

bleach plant (i.e., dioxin, furan,

chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and

chloroform, and, for subpart B PSES/

PSNS, AOX), EPA does not believe that

multiple guidelines will be relevant.

The bleach plant is unlikely to be used

for more than one subcategory (or

segment in subpart E), and thus, the

permit limit will be determined by the

limitations and standards for a single

subcategory (or segment).

There may be instances where a

pollutant is regulated under the

limitations and standards promulgated

today and the permitting authority also

wishes to establish limits for that

particular pollutant have yet to be

established. For example, the permitting

authority might need to use best

professional judgment to determine endof-pipe limits for AOX for a mill with

production not only in subpart B or E

(for which AOX limitations are being

promulgated today) but also in another

subpart (for which no AOX limitations

have been promulgated) that generates

AOX. In these instances, the permitting

authority would use best professional

judgment to develop pollutant limits for

wastestreams and pollutants not

covered by today’s rulemaking and

apply those limits to determine a proper

permit limitation for the mill.

Following promulgation of today’s

rules, EPA will develop and publish

additional guidance for the pulp and

paper industry for determining permit

limitations for facilities with production

in multiple categories, subcategories,

and segments.

c. Compliance With Effluent

Limitations. (1) Compliance

Demonstration for In-Plant Limitations.

The effluent limitations and standards

that the Agency is promulgating today

for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants and

AOX will be applied (depending on the

subcategory and segment) to the total

discharge from each physical bleach

line operated at the mill. At most mills,

wastewaters from acid and alkaline

bleaching stages are discharged to

separate sewers. At some mills,

however, bleach plant wastewaters are

discharged to a combined sewer

containing both acid and alkaline

wastewaters.

For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated

phenolic compounds, compliance with

the effluent limitations and standards

can be demonstrated by collecting

separate samples of the acid and

alkaline discharges and preparing a

flow-proportioned composite of these

samples, resulting in one sample of

bleach plant effluent for analysis.

However, in determining the

limitations, EPA used data from acid

and alkaline bleach plant effluents that

had been analyzed separately. (EPA also

used data from combined sewers.) In a

comment on Method 1653 (DCN 20095

A8), the commenter reported problems

in achieving the Minimum Level in

Method 1653 for samples of composited

acid and alkaline filtrates. If necessary

to achieve the Minimum Level, EPA

recommends that the facility test the

effluents separately for reliable

determination of the chlorophenolics,

TCDD, and TCDF.

For chloroform, however, separate

samples and analyses of all bleach plant

filtrates discharged separately are

required to prevent the loss of

chloroform through air stripping as the

samples are collected, measured, and

composited or through chemical

reaction when the acid and alkaline

samples are combined. If separate acid

and alkaline sewers do not exist,

compliance samples must be collected

from the point closest to the bleach

plant that is or can be made physically

accessible.

(2) Compliance with ML Limitations.

In today’s rulemaking for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,

EPA is establishing limitations and

standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants and dioxin, and alternative

TCF limitations and standards for AOX,

that are expressed as less than the

Minimum Level (‘‘<ML’’). See 40 CFR

430.24, 430.25, 430.26, 430.27. For

various segments of the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory, EPA is establishing

limitations and standards for AOX,

chlorinated phenolic pollutants, dioxin,

and furan that are also expressed as

‘‘<ML.’’ See 40 CFR 430.54, 430.55,

430.56, 430.57. Henceforth, this

discussion refers to these limitations

and standards as ‘‘ML limitations’’. The

‘‘ML’’ is an abbreviation for the

Minimum Level identified today in

§ 430.01(i) for the analytical methods

that EPA used to determine the level of
18570 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

pollution reduction achievable for these

pollutants through the use of BAT,

NSPS, PSES and PSNS technologies for

these subparts. (Section VI.B.5.a(4)

provides a detailed discussion about ML

limitations.) EPA intends for mills

subject to ML limitations to have

pollutant discharges with

concentrations less than the Minimum

Levels of the analytical methods

specified today in § 430.01(i).

Compliance with the ML limitation

for an analyte can only be demonstrated

by using the method specified in

§ 430.01(i) for that analyte, or other

methods approved in 40 CFR Part 136

that have Minimum Levels equal to or

less than the minimum level specified

today in § 430.01(i). Mills are not

authorized under this rule to

demonstrate compliance with an ML

limitation codified today by using an

analytical method with a minimum

level above the Minimum Level

specified in § 430.01(i).

The Minimum Level specified for

each method is the lowest level at

which calibration is performed. See 40

CFR 430.01(i). Laboratories calibrate

their equipment by using standards (i.e.,

samples at several known

concentrations of each analyte).

Calibration is necessary because

laboratory equipment does not measure

concentrations directly. Rather, the

equipment generates signals or

responses from analytical instruments

that must be converted to concentration

values. The calibration process

establishes a relationship between the

signals and the known concentration

values of the standards. This

relationship is then used to convert

signals for samples with unknown

concentrations.

In the calibration process, one of the

standards will have a concentration

value at the Minimum Level for each

analyte. Because the minimum levels

are the lowest levels for which

laboratories calibrate their equipment,

measurements below the Minimum

Level are to be reported as being ‘‘less

than Minimum Level,’’ or ‘‘<ML’’.

Often, laboratories report values less

than minimum levels to be ‘‘not

detected’’ or ‘‘<ML.’’ In some cases,

however, the laboratories report these

values as if the values were quantified.

For example, if the Minimum Level

specified in § 430.01(i) is 10 ppq, the

laboratory might report a measurement

that is 4 ppq. Such reported values

might occur in two situations. In the

first situation, the laboratory could have

used the method specified in § 430.01(i),

but referred to the measurement as

‘‘detected’’ although it was less than the

Minimum Level. The second situation

could occur in the future as the

analytical methods become more

sensitive than the methods specified in

§ 430.01(i). Using such future methods

could conceivably allow laboratories to

reliably measure values less than

today’s minimum levels. Such

measurements resulting from either

situation would be considered to

demonstrate compliance with the ML

limitations, because these

measurements are less than the method

ML specified in § 430.01(i).

When monitoring for compliance with

this final rule, a sample-specific

Minimum Level greater than the method

Minimum Level will not demonstrate

compliance with an ML limitation. Such

sample-specific Minimum Levels may

result from sample volume shortages,

breakage or other problems in the

laboratory, or from failure to properly

remove analytical interferences from the

sample. EPA believes that all of these

situations can be avoided by careful

adherence to sample collection and

laboratory analysis procedures. For

example, in the Agency’s long-term

variability study, some of the one-liter

jars that were sent to laboratories for

analysis were not filled to capacity. In

this example, adjustments to the

Minimum Levels could have been

avoided if a sufficient volume of sample

had been collected by filling the oneliter jars to capacity, or by using larger

or extra jars. Mill personnel should

collect sufficient volume to allow for

analysis of the entire sample volume

specified in the method and for

dilutions, re-analyses, or other problems

that may occur. In addition, it is often

possible for the laboratory to adjust for

extraction of smaller sample volumes by

further concentrating the resulting

extracts prior to analysis.

Table VI–11 provides some examples

demonstrating compliance with the ML

limitations. In these examples, the

method ML specified in § 430.01 is 10

ppq.

TABLE VI–11.—EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH ML LIMITATIONS

Is concentration

reported as ‘‘detected’’ or ‘‘nondetected’’ in the

sample?

Value reported

by laboratory

(ML in these

examples is 10

ppq)

Does the

sample demonstrate compliance?Explanation for compliance

determination

Detected ........... 4 ppq ................ Yes ................... 4 ppq is less than the ML specified in § 430.01.

Detected ........... 10 ppq .............. No ..................... Compliance is demonstrated only with measurements less than the ML specified in

§ 430.01.

Detected ........... 11 ppq .............. No ..................... The measured value is greater than the ML specified in § 430.01.

Non-detected .... <5 ppq .............. Yes ................... <5 ppq is less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 430.01.

Non-detected .... <10 ppq ............ Yes ................... Compliance is demonstrated for all values less than the ML specified in § 430.01.

Non-detected .... <11 ppq ............ No ..................... The sample-specific ML must be less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 430.01.

(3) AOX at Calcium-, Magnesium-, or

Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. The AOX

limitation for calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-based papergrade sulfite mills is

expressed as less than the Minimum

Level (ML) of the analytical method. As

discussed in section VI.B.6, this AOX

limitation is based on transfer of data

collected at the bleach plant effluent to

the end-of-pipe for BAT. EPA received

comments asserting that this transfer of

data does not account for potential

sources of AOX other than the bleach

plant. Examples of these potential

sources of AOX include the release of

AOX from purchased pulp used in

papermaking, the use of chlorinated

compounds for control of biological

growth on paper machines, chlorine use

in water treatment, and bleaching

colored broke in the stock preparation

area. Hypochlorite is also used in

deinking processes to strip color from

post-consumer waste.

AOX contributions from deinking

operations are not covered by this rule

and would be addressed in developing

appropriate permit limitations as

described in VI.B.8.b(2) above. AOX

contributions due to chlorine use in

treating process water supplies are not

taken into account in the development

of limitations and standards for the

calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18571

sulfite pulp segment. In cases where

other sources of AOX, such as paper

machines, make the end-of-pipe AOX

limitations in this rule impractical or

infeasible for the purpose of assessing

the contribution of AOX from bleach

plant sources, the AOX limitation may

be imposed on internal waste streams

(i.e., bleach plant effluent) before

mixing with other waste streams

containing AOX. See 40 CFR 122.45(h).

(4) Minimum Monitoring Frequencies.

(a) Rationale for Establishing Minimum

Monitoring Frequencies. EPA proposed

specific minimum monitoring

frequencies for pollutants in bleach

plant and end-of-pipe effluent

discharges. See 58 FR at 66189.

Although EPA proposed minimum

monitoring requirements for BOD5 and

TSS limitations established as part of

NSPS, EPA is not specifying such

requirements in the final rule because

permit authorities have ample

experience regulating these pollutants

and can determine the appropriate

monitoring frequencies. See Section

VI.A.3 for a discussion of BOD5

monitoring requirements under today’s

air rule. See also Section VI.B.7 for a

discussion of monitoring requirements

associated with BMPs.

The final rule specifies minimum

monitoring frequencies for AOX, dioxin,

furan, chloroform, and chlorinated

phenolic pollutants for non-TCF mills

because of the nature and composition

of the discharges from non-TCF

bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR

430.02 (a) and (b). Wastewaters from

these mills have been found to contain

chlorinated organic compounds that are

highly toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g.,

dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic

pollutants). Process-related variability

in generating these pollutants is clearly

reflected in available data. Therefore,

given the environmental significance of

these pollutants, minimum monitoring

is both necessary and appropriate to

ensure that data are available to

permitting authorities to have an

adequate basis to verify compliance

with the technology-based effluent

limitations and standards. In contrast to

discharges of BOD5 and TSS, receiving

water effects from discharges of these

chlorinated pollutants are not as easily

detected, are not as well understood,

and do not manifest themselves in a

manner that enables a mill to quickly

become aware of and react to releases

that may be harmful to the environment.

The monitoring requirements

imposed in 40 CFR 430.02 will not take

effect until EPA has obtained approval

of these information collection

requirements from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq. For monitoring

requirements applicable to direct

dischargers, EPA will seek to amend the

NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report

ICR No. 229, OMB approval number

2040–0004, prior to its expiration on

May 31, 1998. For indirect dischargers,

EPA will seek to add specified

monitoring requirements for indirect

dischargers to the National Pretreatment

Program ICR No. 2, OMB approval

number 2040–0009, when it expires on

October 31, 1999. EPA will not seek to

amend this ICR prior to its expiration

date because the monitoring

requirements for indirect dischargers do

not become effective until April 16,

2001 for existing indirect dischargers,

and EPA anticipates no new indirect

dischargers commencing discharge prior

to the ICR expiration date.

(b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring

Frequency. The final rule includes

minimum monitoring frequency

requirements for demonstrating

compliance with limitations and

standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform,

the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants,

and AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR

430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment

authorities retain authority to specify

more frequent monitoring on a case-bycase basis and must specify AOX

monitoring frequency for TCF mills on

a best professional judgment basis. The

minimum monitoring frequencies are

applicable to mills in Subparts B and E

for a duration of five years after

inclusion in NPDES permits for direct

dischargers. See 40 CFR 430.02(b). For

existing indirect dischargers, the

minimum monitoring requirements

apply until April 17, 2006 which

reflects a five-year monitoring period

following the termination of the threeyear compliance period authorized by

CWA Section 307(b)(1). Id. For new

indirect dischargers, the five year

minimum monitoring period

commences upon operation. Id.

EPA has determined the minimum

monitoring frequencies established by

this rule are necessary to demonstrate

compliance with the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today, particularly considering the

degree of change that is expected to

occur to pulping and bleaching

processes as this rule is implemented. In

establishing the minimum monitoring

frequencies for the regulated pollutants,

the Agency has struck a balance

between the cost of the monitoring

regimen and the need to ensure that

sufficient data are consistently available

to permitting authorities to provide an

adequate basis to verify compliance

with the effluent limitations and

standards and to mills to quickly

become aware of and react to releases

that may be harmful to the environment.

The Agency has selected a minimum

monitoring frequency of once per month

for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated

phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR

430.02(a). These pollutants are the most

toxic and bioaccumulative among those

regulated yet also are the most costly to

analyze (total cost of approximately

$1,325 per sample; $825 per sample for

dioxin, furan, and $500 per sample for

all 12 chlorinated phenolic analytes).

EPA expects that 12 data points for each

pollutant per year, together with daily

end-of-pipe AOX data and information

on process conditions from detailed mill

logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa

numbers, bleach plant kappa factors,

bleached pulp brightness, etc.) that are

reviewable upon request, will yield a

meaningful basis for establishing

compliance with the promulgated

limitations through long-term trends

and short-term variability in dioxin,

furan, and chlorinated phenolic

pollutant discharge loading patterns.

The Agency has selected a minimum

monitoring frequency of once per week

for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a).

This minimum monitoring frequency

has been selected because data available

indicate there can be considerable

temporal variability of this pollutant in

bleach plant wastewaters. Therefore,

more data are required to adequately

assess compliance with the promulgated

limitations and standards on both a

long-term and short-term basis. While

the cost for laboratory analysis of

chloroform (approximately $270 per

sample) is much lower than for dioxin,

furan, and chlorinated phenolic

pollutants, chloroform sampling

requirements are more extensive and

rigorous (e.g., sampling of all bleach

plant filtrates using special equipment

and containers to prevent

volatilization). Weekly data (52 data

points) and information on process

conditions from detailed mill logs that

are reviewable upon request are

expected to yield an adequate basis for

establishing long-term compliance

trends in chloroform discharge loadings

and developing process control

strategies to ensure the short-term

compliance in chloroform discharge

loadings.

The Agency has selected a minimum

monitoring frequency of once every day

for AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR

430.02(a). This minimum monitoring

frequency has been selected because

there can be considerable daily

variability in chlorinated organic

discharge loadings to receiving streams
18572 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

reflecting both bleach plant discharge

patterns and secondary biological

treatment system performance that is

readily measured at reasonable cost. At

this time, AOX analysis costs $120 per

sample. This cost is likely to decrease

after this regulation is promulgated with

increased capacity at commercial

laboratories and analytical laboratories

on-site at many mills. While this bulk

parameter measures all chlorinated

organic constituents in wastewater and

not individual pollutants, daily

monitoring will provide an essentially

continuous data stream on a quick

turnaround basis to mill operating

personnel and permit compliance

authorities to assess and control process

technologies and manage the

performance of end-of-pipe biological

treatment systems.

The minimum monitoring frequencies

in this rule as described above will

provide sufficient information to

evaluate mill compliance with the

promulgated limitations over the long

term and allow permitting and

pretreatment authorities to judge

whether a different frequency of

monitoring is warranted after the initial

compulsory period of minimum

monitoring has been completed. These

data will prove useful to permitting

authorities and also to mill operators in

developing a robust mill-specific

compliance data base with which to

analyze the effects of mill processes on

effluent trends. The five-year duration

of the minimum monitoring

requirements is consistent with permit

issuance cycles, will ease administrative

burdens on operators and permitting

authorities, and will provide data useful

for establishing appropriate monitoring

requirements during future permit

renewals.

Following completion of the

compulsory five-year monitoring period

set forth by this rule, the permitting or

pretreatment authority has discretion to

adjust monitoring requirements as

deemed appropriate on a case-by-case

basis. For those mills consistently

demonstrating reductions superior to

those required merely to comply with

their permit requirements, EPA believes

that it may be appropriate to allow less

frequent monitoring to reduce the

regulatory burden. EPA expects the

permitting or pretreatment authority

also to consider the mill’s compliance

and enforcement history in determining

monitoring frequencies. This avenue for

relief provides incentives for voluntary

reductions of pollutant discharges

through such means as reuse and

recycling. EPA also expects permitting

and pretreatment authorities to consider

whether poor performance, compliance

or enforcement history, or other sitespecific factors indicate a need to

impose more frequent monitoring than

that specified in this rule.

EPA has issued interim guidance for

performance-based reductions of NPDES

permit monitoring frequencies, which

may be useful for permit writers and

pretreatment authorities in determining

alternative monitoring frequencies at the

close of the compulsory five-year period

imposed by this rule. (See Interim

Guidance for Performance-Based

Reductions of NPDES Permit

Monitoring Frequencies, April 1996,

EPA–833–B–96–001). This document

provides guidance to permit writers on

implementing EPA’s NPDES regulations

regarding appropriate monitoring in

permits and describes the conditions

under which reduced monitoring would

be justified. Pretreatment control

authorities also may find this guidance

useful in setting monitoring frequencies

for industrial users of POTWs. The

current guidance applicable to all

industrial point sources is dated April

19, 1996, and is subject to revision.

(c) Certification for TCF Bleaching.

Mills certifying in their permit

application process that all bleaching

processes are totally chlorine-free are

exempted from the minimum

monitoring frequencies established in

this rule, provided that analytical data

routinely submitted as part of the permit

application confirm the absence of

chlorinated compounds. See 40 CFR

430.02. EPA believes it is appropriate to

exclude TCF mills from the minimum

monitoring frequencies for chlorinated

compounds since any process change

that introduces chlorinated compounds

to the bleaching process requires

notification to the permitting authority

and would result in reopening the

permit for modification. See, e.g., 40

CFR 122.21(g)(3), 122.21(g)(7), and

122.41(l).

(d) ECF Certification in Lieu of

Monitoring. In response to comments,

EPA has considered whether

certification of ECF bleaching processes

can be used in lieu of monitoring.

Because of the effect that operation and

control of pulping and bleach plant

processes have on generation of

chlorinated pollutants, EPA has

determined that the information

available at this time does not

demonstrate that ECF certification alone

is sufficient to ensure compliance with

the regulations promulgated today.

Therefore, this rule does not allow

certification of ECF bleaching to replace

monitoring. (See DCN 14497, Vol. I, and

section VI.B.5 of this preamble for a

discussion of factors affecting

chlorinated pollutant generation.)

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

however, EPA is proposing to allow

mills to demonstrate compliance with

chloroform limitations by certifying that

they use ECF bleaching processes and

that these processes are operated in a

manner consistent with certain process

and related factors. In this notice, EPA

also is seeking additional chloroform

data, along with corresponding process

data, to determine whether an ECF

certification process for chloroform

should require certification of certain

process factors; for example, factors

relating to residual lignin content,

chemical application rates, and other

process variables.

d. Intake Credits, Upsets, and

Bypasses. An intake credit is an

adjustment made to an effluent

limitation to reflect the presence of a

pollutant in the discharger’s intake

water beyond what is removed by an

installed technology that would

otherwise meet the technology-based

effluent limitation or standard. EPA’s

regulations concerning intake credits are

set forth at 40 CFR 122.45 and 40 CFR

403.15.

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion

of waste streams from any portion of a

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an

exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional non-compliance with

technology-based permit effluent

limitations because of factors beyond

the reasonable control of the permittee.

EPA’s regulations concerning bypasses

and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR

122.41 (m) and (n).

e. Variances and Modifications to

Permits. (1) Variances. Dischargers

subject to the BAT and PSES limitations

promulgated in these final regulations

may apply for a Fundamentally

Different Factors (FDF) variance under

the provisions of section 301(n) of the

CWA. The FDF variance considers those

facility-specific factors that a permittee

believes to be uniquely different from

the factors considered by EPA in

developing an effluent guideline to

determine whether the effluent

guidelines limitations should be

inapplicable to the permittee’s facility.

An FDF variance is based only on

information submitted to EPA during

the rulemaking establishing the effluent

limitations, or on information the

applicant did not have a reasonable

opportunity to submit during the

rulemaking process. See CWA section

301(n)(1)(B). If fundamentally different

factors are determined to exist, the

alternative effluent limitations for the

petitioner must be no less stringent than

those justified by the fundamental

difference. See CWA section

301(n)(1)(C). The alternative effluent
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18573

limitation must not result in non-water

quality environmental impacts

significantly greater than those accepted

by EPA in promulgating the effluent

limitations guidelines or pretreatment

standards. See CWA section

301(n)(1)(D). FDF variance requests,

along with all supporting information

and data, must be received by the

permitting authority within 180 days

after publication of the final effluent

limitations guideline or standard. See

CWA section 301(n)(a). The specific

regulations covering FDF variance

requirements and administration are

found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1), 40 CFR

Part 125, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 403.13.

Dischargers may also apply for a

variance from the BAT limitations on

non-conventional pollutants in these

final regulations under CWA section

301(c) (for economic reasons) and 301(g)

(for water quality reasons). Regulations

for the administration of these variances

are specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2).

New sources subject to NSPS or PSNS

are not eligible for variances. See E.I.

DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977).

(2) Permit Modifications. It may be

necessary to modify a permit at some

point after it has been issued. In a

permit modification, only the

conditions subject to change are

reconsidered. All other permit

conditions remain in effect unchanged.

A permit modification may be triggered

in several ways, such as when the

regulatory agency inspects the facility

and finds a need for the modification, or

when information submitted by the

permittee suggests a need for a

modification. Any interested person

may request that a permit modification

be made. There are two classifications of

modifications: major and minor. From a

procedural standpoint, they differ

primarily with respect to the public

notice requirements. Major

modifications require public notice

while minor modifications do not. See

40 CFR 122.63. Virtually all

modifications that result in less

stringent conditions are treated as a

major modification, with provisions for

public notice and comment. Conditions

that would necessitate a major

modification of a permit are described

in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications

are generally non-substantive changes.

The conditions for minor modification

are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

VII. Environmental Impacts

This section of the preamble describes

the environmental impacts of the air

and water regulations being

promulgated today, and the

environmental impacts of the MACT II

regulations being proposed today. These

impacts are described in terms of

reductions in air pollution emissions

expected as a result of the final MACT

I and proposed MACT II rules, as well

as the reduction in water pollution

(effluent) discharges expected as a result

of today’s effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for Subparts B and E. (In

this section, all references to MACT I

include MACT III unless expressly

noted.) The emissions and effluent

reductions described in this section

generate the quantified and monetized

benefits described in Section VIII of this

preamble. This section also discusses

the non-water quality environmental

impacts of the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today, including air emissions, energy

requirements, solid waste generation,

water use, and wood consumption.

Sections II.B.2 and VII.A describe air

and water pollution control

technologies for each subcategory

regulated today: Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and

Semi-chemical mills that are subject to

MACT I and MACT III standards; and

bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills that are subject

to effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. EPA estimates that the

application of these technologies by the

155 mills regulated by today’s air rules,

including 96 of those mills also

regulated by today’s water rules, will

substantially reduce air emissions and

water pollution discharges, as described

in Section VII.B.

A. Summary of Sources and Level of

Control

Table VII–1 shows a summary of

sources and technology bases/level of

control for the final BAT/PSES effluent

limitations guidelines and standards,

and the final MACT I standards. The

summary of sources and level of control

for MACT II are discussed in the

preamble for the proposed MACT

standards elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register.
18574 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE VII–1.—FINAL CLUSTER RULES—SOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY BASES/LEVEL OF CONTROL

Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP

technology bases) by subcategory

Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III

levels of control) by subcategory

Bleached

papergrade

kraft and soda

Papergrade sulfite Best Management

Practices

(BMP), (Subparts B and

E)

Kraft

Soda and

semichemicalSulfite

Secondary

and nonwood

fiber, and

mechanical

wood fiber

Calcium,

magnesium,

and sodium

sulfite

Ammonium

sulfite

Specialty

grade

Selected BAT/PSES Spent

Pulping

Liquor Spill

Prevention

and Control.

Control LVHC System Vents See Bleach

Plant Block

Below

ECF: 100%

Substitution

of Chlorine

with Chlorine

Dioxide; effective

brownstock

washing;

elimination of

hypochlorite;

oxygen-and

peroxide-enhanced extraction;

closed

brown-stock

screening;

and other

processes

discussed at

Section

VI.B.5.a(1).

TCF:

Oxygenand peroxide-enhanced extraction;

peroxide

bleaching;

elimination

of all chlorine-containing

compounds;

and improved

pulp cleaning.

ECF: 100%

Substitution of

Chlorine

with Chlorine Dioxide; peroxide-enhanced extraction;

elimination

of hypochlorite;

and use of

dioxin-and

furan-precursor-free

defoamers.

ECF: 100%

Substitution of

Chlorine

with Chlorine Dioxide;

oxygenand peroxide-enhanced extraction;

elimination

of hypochlorite;

and use of

dioxin and

furan precursor-free

defoamers.

...................... Control Selected

HVLC

Vents and

Named

High HAP

Concentrated

Condensate

Streams.

Control Pulp

Washing

System

Vents at

New

Sources.

Control Pulp

Washing

System

Vents, and

Control

Liquor and

Acid Tank

Vents at

New

Sources.

Bleach Plant: Control Chlorinated HAP from Vents at Stages

That Use Chlorinated Bleaching Chemicals, and Control

Chloroform Emissions by Complying with BAT codified at

40 CFR 430.24(a) and (e) and 40 CFR 430.54(a) and (c) or

by 100% substitution of chlorine with chlorine dioxide and

elimination of hypochlorite.

B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent

Reductions

1. Air Emissions Reductions

The reductions described in this

section are derived from estimated air

emissions reductions at all 155 pulp and

paper mills in the CAA kraft, soda,

sulfite and semichemical subcategories

that are subject to MACT I and MACT

II standards. These mills include the 96

mills subject to the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today. All references in this section to

MACT I air emissions refer to the

expected effects of implementing both

the air and water portion of the final

Cluster Rules.

Implementation of the MACT portion

of the Cluster Rules is expected to

significantly decrease HAP emissions.

Table VII–2 presents the environmental

impacts of the Final Cluster Rules (BAT,

PSES, BMPs, and MACT I) and the Final

Cluster Rules in combination with the

MACT II proposed standards.

The air emission impacts presented in

Table VII–2 are calculated based on

mill-specific processes and emission

control information, emission factors,

and control levels summarized in Table

VII–1. A more detailed discussion of the

calculation of the environmental

impacts for the final MACT standards is

presented in Chapter 20 of the

Background Information Document

described in Section XI of this

preamble. A detailed discussion of the

environmental impacts of the proposed

MACT II is contained in the docket for

the proposed MACT II standard. As

shown in Table VII–2, these final

Cluster Rules not only reduce HAP

emissions from all CAA and CWA

subcategories regulated, but they also

result in decreases of volatile organic

compounds and total reduced sulfur

using industry data updated to 1996.

Emissions of particulate and carbon

monoxide are estimated to increase

under the final rules, but are expected

to decrease when combined with the

proposed MACT II standards. Emissions

of sulfur dioxides, and, to a lesser

degree, nitrogen oxides are estimated to

increase. Sulfur dioxide emissions are

generated primarily from the

combustion of sulfur-containing

compounds, such as TRS, in the vent

streams at kraft mills. The increases in

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and

particulate matter air emissions are

primarily from the combustion of air

vents in the pulping area and increased

energy to produce additional steam for

steam strippers and chlorine dioxide for

the bleaching system. However, these

emission increase estimates are likely

overstated because they do not account

for the fact that some mills in sensitive

areas for sulfur dioxide already have

sulfur dioxide controls in place or may

choose alternative controls available in

the final MACT rule that mitigate these
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18575

increases. The health effects and

benefits of these emission reductions

and increases are discussed in Section

VIII.G.1 of this notice.

TABLE VII–2.—AIR EMISSION IMPACTS OF PULP AND PAPER RULES (ALL CAA SUBCATEGORIES)

Air pollutants

Baseline air

emissions

(Mg/year)

Air emission reductions

(Mg/year)

Final cluster

rules

Final cluster

rules and proposed MACT II

Hazardous Air Pollutants .......................................................................................................... 240,000 139,000 142,000

Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................................................................... 900,000 409,000 440,000

Total Reduced Sulfur ............................................................................................................... 150,000 79,000 79,000

Particulate ................................................................................................................................. aNA b(83) 24,000

Carbon Monoxide ..................................................................................................................... NA (8,700) 49,000

Nitrogen Oxides ........................................................................................................................ NA (5,200) (5,700)

Sulfur Dioxides ......................................................................................................................... NA (94,500) (94,400)

a Industry process data was not collected to calculate emissions for these pollutants increases and decreases for these pollutants reflected in

columns to the right are increases or decreases of these pollutants caused by projected installation of MACT control equipment and secondary

air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs. bValues in ( ) are estimated emission increases over baseline air emissions.

2. Water Pollutant Reductions

Table VII–3 shows the estimated

baseline (as of mid-1995) and the

reductions from baseline expected from

the BMP requirements being

promulgated today for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Papergrade Sulfite subcategories.

(Hereafter, references to BAT/PSES

impacts include impacts associated with

today’s BMP requirements.) Calculation

of these pollutant reductions is

discussed in Sections VI.B.5.a(3) and

VI.B.6.b(5). For a discussion of the

estimated effluent reduction benefits

associated with the BAT limitations

promulgated for the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory, see Section

IX. A.6 and Table IX–1.

TABLE VII–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BASELINE FOR BAT/PSES

Pollutant parameter Units

Baseline

discharge

for BPK

mills

Estimated

reductions:

Final BAT/

PSES for

BPK mills

Baseline discharge for

PS mills

Estimated reductions:

Final BAT/

PSES for PS

mills

2,3,7,8-TCDD .......................................................................................... g/yr .......... 15 11 0.78 0.65

2,3,7,8-TCDF .......................................................................................... g/yr .......... 115 107 6.7 6.4

Chloroform .............................................................................................. kkg/yr ....... 48 40 5.4 5.2

Chlorinated Phenolics ............................................................................. kkg/yr ....... 55 45 2.0 1.8

AOX ........................................................................................................ kkg/yr ....... 36,300 24,200 4,380 4,010

BPK—Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.

PS—Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

g—grams.

kkg—metric ton (1,000 kilograms or 1 megagram (Mg)).

The air quality impacts shown in

Table VII–2 and the water pollutant

effluent reductions shown above are

used in the following section to estimate

reduced human health and

environmental risk attributable to

today’s rules. These estimates also form

the basis for estimating monetized

benefits in the following section.

C. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts of Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES,

and BMPs)

Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B)

of the Clean Water Act require EPA to

consider the non-water quality

environmental impacts of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards. To

address these statutory requirements,

EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy

requirements, solid waste generation

impacts, and other environmental

impacts of the compulsory BAT, PSES,

and BMPs being promulgated today for

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories.

The results of this analysis are

presented below. In performing the

analysis, EPA assumed that each mill in

the regulated subcategory would install

the model technologies upon which

today’s limitations and standards are

based.

1. Air Emissions

The air emissions reductions of BAT,

PSES, BMPs, and MACT I, in

combination, are presented in Section

VII.B.1 above. This section presents the

estimated air emission impacts of BAT,

PSES, and BMPs on the 86 mills with

production in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11

mills with production in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory. (One mill has colocated operations in both subcategories

that separately contribute to the number

of mills in each subcategory.)

The control technologies that form the

basis of effluent guidelines and

standards promulgated today involve

changes in the processes used to

produce bleached pulp. These changes

affect the rate at which air pollutants,

including HAPs, are emitted from the

pulping and bleaching processes that

are subsequently controlled by MACT I.

As shown in Table VII–4, the process

changes at bleached papergrade kraft
18576 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and soda and papergrade sulfite

facilities subject to BAT, PSES, and

BMPs decrease the emissions of some

HAPs but have little impact on others.

For example, the elimination of chlorine

and hypochlorite from bleaching

processes, part of the basis for BAT and

PSES, will reduce the emission of

chloroform in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory by 66

percent [but will have a much smaller

impact on the emission of methanol.]

The application of the BAT, PSES, and

BMPs promulgated today for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory will reduce the emission of

total HAPs from the sources controlled

by MACT I from 149,000 Mg/year to

139,000 Mg/yr (7 percent reduction)

without taking into account further

reductions achieved by MACT I

controls.

TABLE VII–4.—IMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE

MILLS AIR EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY MACT I

Air pollutants

Bleached papergrade kraft

and soda [Mg/year]

Papergrade sulfite (all

segments) [Mg/year]

Baseline

emissions

Emission

reductions

from BAT/

PSES/

BMPs

Baseline

emissions

Emission

reductions

from BAT/

PSES/

BMPs

Total Hazardous Air Pollutants ......................................................................................... 149,000 10,000 5,190 1,930

Chloroform ........................................................................................................................ 9,510 6,060 13 8

Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................................................ 569,000 11,000 6,020 2,270

Total Reduced Sulfur ........................................................................................................ 100,000 1,300 0 0

The process changes that form the

basis of BAT, PSES, and BMP’s increase

by approximately 1.5 percent the

amount of spent pulping liquor

combusted by bleached papergrade kraft

mills and papergrade sulfite mills. See

the Supplemental Technical

Development Document, DCN 14487.

HAPs and criteria air pollutants (volatile

organic compounds, particulate matter,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and

sulfur dioxides) are generated from

combustion of spent pulping liquor by

bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite

mills. As a result, as shown in Tables

VII–5a and VII–5b, the emission of total

HAPs from spent pulping liquor

combustion sources (i.e., recovery

boilers) will increase by 1.1 percent at

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

facilities and 1.9 percent at papergrade

sulfite facilities above the 1995 baseline.

However, the net increase in HAP

emissions from these combustion

sources (235 Mg/yr) represents 1.1

percent of the HAP emissions from all

sources subject to control by MACT I, II,

and III. Although BAT, PSES, and BMPs

result in a small increase in HAP

emissions from recovery boilers, the

combined effect of the Cluster Rules

(including proposed MACT II) is a net

decrease of 60 percent in total HAP

emissions from all controlled sources.

See Table VII–2.

TABLE VII–5A.—IMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AIR EMISSIONS FROM

RECOVERY BOILERS AT BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED MACT II [MG/YEAR]

1995

baseline

emission

Emission

increases

from BAT/

PSES/

BMPs

MACT II

emission

reductions

Net change

after MACT

IIa

Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................................ 19,900 220 25 195

Volatile Organic Compounds .......................................................................................... 19,500 213 0 213

Total Reduced Sulfur ...................................................................................................... 2,650 27 0 27

Particulate Matter ........................................................................................................... 31,400 360 12,900 (12,540)

Carbon Monoxide ........................................................................................................... 124,000 1,440 0 1,440

Nitrogen Oxides .............................................................................................................. 36,100 423 0 423

Sulfur Dioxides ............................................................................................................... 67,800 784 0 784

aParentheses indicate emissions decreases below baseline.

TABLE VII–5B.—IMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: AIR EMISSIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILERS AT PAPERGRADE

SULFITE MILLS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED MACT II [MG/YEAR]

1995

baseline

emission

Emission

increases

from BAT/

PSES/

BMPs

MACT II

emission

reductions

Net change

after MACT

II

Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................................ 2,110 40 N/S 40

N/S—Not Significant.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18577

Increases in the emission of criteria

pollutants are also listed in Table VII–

5a. The emission of total criteria air

pollutants from spent pulping liquor

combustion sources (i.e., recovery

boilers) at mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

will increase by 1.2 percent as a result

of BAT, PSES, and BMPs and will be

only slightly mitigated by MACT II

controls. The increases in nitrogen

oxides (423 Mg/yr), sulfur dioxides (784

Mg/yr), and carbon monoxide (1440 Mg/

yr) emissions are minor relative to

nationwide emissions, which are 19.8

million Mg/yr for nitrogen oxides, 16.6

million Mg/yr for sulfur dioxides, and

83.6 million Mg/yr for carbon monoxide

(OAQPS, 1995).

EPA concludes that the technologies

that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and

BMPs for bleached papergrade kraft and

soda and papergrade sulfite mills pose

no significant adverse impacts to and

indeed have some benefits for air

quality. EPA bases this determination

on the following:

—Total HAP emissions from the sources

subject to control by MACT I and

proposed MACT II from kraft and

sulfite pulping and bleaching

processes decrease as a result of BAT,

PSES, and BMPs;

—HAP emissions would increase by less

than one percent from bleached kraft

combustion sources and increase by

less than two percent from papergrade

sulfite combustion sources; and

—The increase in criteria air pollutants

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories is minor relative to

current national industrial emissions.

EPA examined the effect of BAT

combined with BMPs on the generation

of CO2 by considering the overall mill

carbon balance and the energy balance.

Anthropogenic generation of water

vapor is minuscule relative to

atmospheric recycling and is normally

ignored in greenhouse gas analysis.

Therefore, water vapor is ignored here.

EPA concluded that neither option

would have an impact on the total

emission of greenhouse gasses from

mills due to pulping processing. There,

EPA concludes that the increased CO2

emissions attributable to BAT pose no

significant adverse non-water quality

environmental impact.

2. Energy Impacts

The impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs

on the energy use of the 86 mills with

production in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11

mills with production in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory are summarized in

Table VII–6. The process changes that

form the basis of the regulations

promulgated today are estimated to

result in an increased energy

requirement of 3.70 trillion Btu/yr in oil

equivalent at the 96 affected pulp and

paper mills. This represents a 0.82

percent increase from the current total

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategories energy consumption

(papergrade sulfite total energy

consumption is minor relative to

bleached papergrade kraft) of 499.4

trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent (DCN

14510). The increased energy use is due

to the increased off-site chemical

manufacturing electrical demand (met

by off-site electric generating stations)

and on-site electrical demand (also met

by off-site electric generating stations,

and commonly referred to as

‘‘purchased energy’’). These increased

demands are partially offset by the

decreased steam demand (met by on-site

power boilers and recovery furnaces).

Oil equivalent is used to express the

combined effects of changes in thermal

energy and electric power. It is based on

the assumption that marginal changes in

electric power demand caused by the

regulation will be supplied by

conventional condensing-type oil-fired

power stations. See DCN 14487.

TABLE VII–6.—ENERGY IMPACTS OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AND

PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Energy impacts Units

Bleached

papergrade

Kraft

Papergrade

sulfite (all

segments)

Combined

total

On-Site Electricity Demand* .............................. Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ........................... (2.37) (0.0381) (2.41)

Off-Site Electricity Demand* .............................. Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ........................... 10.0 (1.05) 8.95

Steam Demand .................................................. Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ........................... (2.88) (0.010) (2.89)

Total Energy Demand** ..................................... Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ........................... 4.78 (1.08) 3.70

Total Energy Equivalent ..................................... Number of Households*** ................................. 46,100 (10,400) 35,700

Parentheses indicate energy savings.

*Assumes an overall electrical generating efficiency of 25 percent. (DCN 14797).

* * Totals do not equal the sum of each line item due to rounding. Refer to Section 11 of the Supplemental Technical Development Document

which presents detailed energy estimates.

* * * Assumes 103.6 million Btu/household/yr (Energy Information Administration (DOE) 1993).

The manufacture of sodium chlorate,

the raw material used at pulp mills to

manufacture chlorine dioxide, requires

much more electrical energy than the

manufacture of chlorine or other

commonly used bleaching chemicals.

As a result, off-site electrical demand

increases by 8.95 trillion Btu/yr (2.61

million MWhr/yr) because of the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards promulgated today. EPA

estimates of changes in energy demand

as mills install advanced technologies

can be found in DCN 14488.

The total increase in energy demand

resulting from this rule is equivalent to

the energy required for 35,700

households. Compared to the most

recent data for total national energy

consumption, the rule represents a

0.004 percent increase in energy

demand. EPA concludes that the

technologies that form the basis of BAT,

PSES, and BMPs for bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills do not pose

significant adverse impacts in nationwide energy demand.

3. Incidental BOD5 Removal and Sludge

The process changes that form the

basis for BAT, PSES, and BMP increase

by approximately 1.5 percent the

amount of spent pulping liquor

collected and combusted by bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills. Spent

pulping liquor is a significant source of

BOD5 loadings at these mills. The

collection and combustion of this spent

pulping liquor results in an

approximately 20 percent decrease in

BOD5 load into treatment. (EPA expects

that papergrade sulfite mills will have

similar trends, but lacks data to

calculate residuals.)

Sludge is generated as a byproduct of

the wastewater treatment systems used

at pulp and paper mills. Primary sludge
18578 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(i.e., solids removed during physical

wastewater treatment processes such as

sedimentation prior to biological

treatment) is high in wood fiber and

volatile solids. Secondary sludge is the

product of biological treatment in which

microorganisms consume organic matter

(BOD5) in the wastewater. Secondary

sludge is a gelatinous mixture of

bacterial and fungal organisms. Because

of the reduction in BOD5 load into

treatment, the combined application of

BAT limitations, PSES, and BMPs

promulgated today will decrease sludge

generation by 35,900 kkg/yr (39,600

short tons/yr), which represents a 2

percent reduction from the mid-1995

baseline for subpart B and E mills.

Sludge generated at bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills may contain

dioxin and furan if these pollutants

contaminate the wastewater treated at

these mills. At proposal, the Agency

estimated that the mills in these two

subcategories generated 177 g/yr TEQ

dioxin and furan in their wastewater

treatment sludge. Since the proposal,

industry has significantly reduced the

level of dioxin and furan in its

wastewater. The Agency estimates that

the dioxin and furan content of the

sludge has decreased similarly, to

approximately 50 g/yr TEQ. See the

Supplemental Technical Development

Document, DCN 14487.

The process changes that form the

basis of the BAT limitations and PSES

promulgated today limit the

concentration of dioxin and furan

allowed to be discharged to the

wastewater treatment system. As a

result, the Agency estimates that when

fully implemented, the combined

application of BAT limitations and

PSES will reduce the present sludge

loading of dioxin and furan TEQ by 43

g/yr, approximately an 85 percent

reduction from current levels. The

period of time before individual mills

have reached this level will vary

somewhat depending on the compliance

schedule incorporated in the permit and

the type of treatment system in place at

each mill. See the Supplemental

Technical Development Document, DCN

14487.

EPA concludes that the technologies

that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories are beneficial from the

standpoint of solid waste generation.

The technologies both reduce the

quantity of solid waste generated and

also improve its quality by reducing the

pollutant loading in the sludge

generated.

4. Other Environmental Impacts

Wood consumption at the bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills will be

reduced by up to 0.3 percent by the final

BAT limitations and PSES promulgated

today. The wood savings results from a

reduction in losses of useful fiber

associated with the recovery of liquor

spills and improvements in brownstock

washing and screening of pulp. EPA

estimates no change in wood

consumption at mills in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory.

The control technologies that form the

basis of the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards promulgated

today will reduce bleached papergrade

kraft and soda mill effluent wastewater

flows. The greatest reductions would be

realized in mills presently discharging

the highest flows. In 1995, the average

bleached kraft mill discharged

approximately 95 m3/metric ton effluent

(23,000 gallons/metric ton). For a 1,000

metric ton/day mill, the average effluent

flow is similar to that from a city of

250,000 people. The effluent limitations

guidelines and standards will reduce

total effluent flow in two ways: (1)

Closure of brownstock screening

systems, and (2) BMPs. At a mill with

open screening, closure could reduce

total effluent flow by 25 percent. BMP

implementation could result in further

effluent flow decreases of two percent.

EPA estimates a small reduction in

wastewater effluent flow from mills in

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

EPA concludes that the technologies

that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories are beneficial from the

standpoint of wood use and wastewater

generation, and will not produce

significant adverse non-water quality

environmental impacts.

D. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts of New Source Performance

Standards and Pretreatment Standards

for New Source (NSPS and PSNS)

EPA analyzed the projected non-water

quality environmental impacts of BAT

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory for BAT, PSES, and

BMPs based on complete substitution of

chlorine dioxide for chlorine and other

technology elements. This section

presents the non-water quality

environmental impacts of a second

technology configuration (NSPS and

PSNS) which is equivalent to BAT,

PSES, and BMPs with the addition of

extended delignification (oxygen

delignification or extended cooking) on

a new 1000 tpd bleached papergrade

kraft fiber line.

Table VII–7 presents the non-water

quality environmental impacts of the

selected technology basis for NSPS and

PSNS, compared to conventional

pulping and bleaching technology.

These estimates are based on the same

calculational methodology described

under BAT and PSES, applied to a 1000

tpd model mill. Based on these

estimates, EPA concludes that the

process technologies that form the basis

for NSPS and PSNS for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

pose no significant adverse non-water

quality environmental impacts.

TABLE VII–7.—NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE

KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

1000 tpd fiber line

Wood Consumption .................................................................................. No Difference.

Effluent Flow ............................................................................................. Moderate Decrease.1

BOD to Treatment .................................................................................... Decrease by 11,300 kg/day.

Sludge Generation .................................................................................... Decrease by 890 kg/day.

Carbon Dioxide ......................................................................................... Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year.

Energy Impacts:

Total Electricity Demand ................................................................... Decrease by 222,600 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.

Total Steam Demand ........................................................................ Increase by 60,180 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.

Total Energy Demand ....................................................................... Decrease by 162,400 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.

Air Emissions:

Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................... Increase by 407 Mg/year.

Chloroform ......................................................................................... No Difference.

Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................. Increase by 707 Mg/year.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18579

TABLE VII–7.—NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE

KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY—Continued

1000 tpd fiber line

Total Reduced Sulfur ......................................................................... Increase by 28 Mg/year.

Particulate Matter .............................................................................. Decrease by 12 kg/year.

Carbon Monoxide .............................................................................. Decrease by 3 Mg/year.

Nitrogen Oxides ................................................................................. Decrease by 28 Mg/year.

Sulfur Dioxides .................................................................................. Decrease by 56 Mg/year.

1See Section 11.4.1.3 of the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.

NSPS and PSNS that EPA is

promulgating today for the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory are equivalent to

BAT and PSES. Therefore, the NSPS

and PSNS present no additional nonwater quality environmental impacts.

VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic

Impacts, and Benefits

A. Summary of Costs and Economic

Impacts

This section presents a summary of

EPA’s evaluation of the costs, economic

impacts, and benefits of the Cluster

Rules. A more detailed analysis is

contained in the Economic Analysis for

the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Category: Pulp and Paper Production;

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards: Pulp,

Paper, and Paperboard Category—Phase

1 (DCN 14649; hereafter, the Economic

Analysis).

Today’s action is a significant

departure from prior EPA rulemakings

in that, for one industry, EPA is

considering the ramifications of

implementing two major environmental

statutes with respect to pollution

control, industrial technology and

operations, environmental impacts,

costs, and economic impacts. As noted

in Section II of this preamble, today’s

rulemaking establishes regulations that

implement elements of both the CAA

and CWA. The objective of this

economic analysis is to provide the

most accurate portrayal possible of the

aggregate costs that the industry will

face by implementing these regulations,

as well as the economic, financial, and

social impacts that EPA estimates will

result from these costs. The economic

impacts of the combined, or joint, costs

of the final CWA (BAT, NSPS, PSES,

PSNS, and BMP) requirements and the

final and proposed CAA requirements

(MACT I, MACT III, and proposed

MACT II) are different than the impacts

that would result from the costs of the

CWA or CAA requirements considered

separately. While EPA presents

separately the CWA and CAA

compliance costs and the economic

impacts of those costs in this section,

the Agency believes the most accurate

estimation of the economic impacts that

the pulp and paper industry will

experience is derived by considering

total (combined) compliance costs of

both the CAA and CWA rules. Under

the CWA, EPA considered the economic

impacts of each option by subcategory,

combining indirect and direct

dischargers. EPA combined these groups

because there are no differences

between direct and indirect dischargers

in each subcategory with respect to

characteristics of wastewater generated

or the model process technologies

considered.

The compliance costs described in

this section are EPA’s best estimates of

the actual costs facilities will incur to

comply with the promulgated and

proposed rules.

The total annualized and operation

and maintenance (O&M) costs differ

somewhat from the engineering cost

estimates shown in Section VI. The

annual O&M costs shown in this section

include a general and administrative

cost of four percent of capital costs,

which makes these O&M costs

significantly higher than the engineering

O&M cost estimates shown in Section

VI. The annualized costs shown in

Section VIII are both pre-tax and posttax. Pre-tax costs, because they capture

total economic losses to society, are

considered the social costs of the rule

and are used for examining costeffectiveness (Sections VIII.D.4 and

VIII.F.1) and for comparing the costs

and benefits of the rule (Section VIII.H).

Post-tax costs, which represent the

projected costs to a firm after tax shields

for depreciation and other factors are

accounted for, are used in the economic

achievability determination under the

Clean Water Act to evaluate facility

closures, firm failures, and related

impacts. Post-tax costs are used in

Sections VIII.A, VIII.B, VIII.C, VIII.E,

VIII.J, and most of Sections VIII.D and

VIII.F.

EPA’s financial and economic

analyses reflect as accurately as possible

the information that pulp and paper

industry managers will consider in

making financial decisions. The

economic impacts described in this

section (such as facility closures, job

losses, and reduced shipments) result

from the total costs that a facility will

bear (including environmental

compliance costs) compared to the

facility’s expected revenues. EPA also

evaluated the aggregate costs for all

facilities borne by each company to

determine if each company will be in

jeopardy of bankruptcy as a result of

aggregate compliance costs.

In this section, EPA also describes the

qualitative, quantitative, and monetized

benefits of environmental improvements

expected to result from compliance with

these rules, and compares these benefits

to the costs of the rules. EPA identified

158 mills at proposal with kraft, soda,

sulfite or semi-chemical pulping

processes. Of these, EPA now projects

that 155 mills will bear costs under the

final MACT I and 149 mills will bear

costs under the proposed MACT II (six

mills do not practice chemical

recovery). These numbers could change

over time as mills change processes or

close operations.

EPA separately evaluated the

compliance costs and economic impacts

of: (1) MACT I for the 155 mills that

pulp wood using kraft, soda, sulfite, or

semi-chemical pulping processes; (2)

combined final MACT I and proposed

MACT II for those mills; and (3)

proposed MACT II for combustion

sources at the 149 mills. Although all of

the regulatory options and alternatives

under consideration for MACT II are

evaluated in the EA, only the economic

impacts related to the proposed

regulatory alternative are presented

here. EPA estimates that there will be no

economic impacts associated with the

MACT III regulations, which are

promulgated for mills that practice

mechanical, secondary fiber, or nonwood pulping or that produce paper or

paperboard from purchased pulp,

because EPA believes that compliance

with MACT III requirements will

neither impose costs nor result in

additional emissions reductions. For

this reason, Section VIII presents no
18580 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

further analysis of the MACT III

regulations.

EPA separately evaluated the impacts

of the BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS, and

BMP requirements for the 86 mills

currently in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11

mills currently in three segments of the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (One

mill is in both CWA subcategories.)

Both direct and indirect discharging

mills are subject to BMPs. Hereafter,

EPA’s reference to BAT/PSES costs

includes the costs of complying with the

final BMP requirements.

EPA also evaluated the costs and

impacts for the combination of MACT I

and BAT/PSES for the 96 bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills that are affected

by both rules. EPA also provides an

estimate of the economic impacts when

the proposed MACT II costs are

combined with the MACT I and BAT/

PSES costs for these 96 mills. Finally,

the economic impacts and costs for all

155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and semichemical mills affected by air and/or

water regulations are reported.

EPA also evaluated the impacts of

NSPS or PSNS costs for new sources,

both singly and in combination with

MACT I and proposed MACT II costs.

EPA evaluated economic achievability

based on the relative magnitude of

compliance costs (in the form of total

annualized costs) and the resulting

potential facility closures, potential job

losses, firm failures (potential

bankruptcies), reduced value of

shipments, balance of trade effects, and

indirect effects (reduced regional and

national output and employment which

reflect the fact that impacts on the pulp

and paper industry will resonate

throughout the economy). Table VIII–1

presents a summary of annualized costs

and projected mill closures for the

various rules and rule combinations.

The level of detail for reporting results

in the preamble (and in the EA) is

sometimes constrained in order to

protect confidential business

information. For that reason facility

closures and job losses, for example, are

not identified for certain combinations

of rules. All of the results are contained

in the confidential portion of the

rulemaking record.

TABLE VIII–1.—SUMMARY: COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CAA AND CWA RULES

Costs and impacts

Rules

MACT I

(final) (all

mills)

MACT II

(proposed)

(all mills)

BAT/PSES

(final)

(BPK&PS) 1

MACT I and

BAT/PSES

(final)

(BPK&PS)

MACT I,

BAT/PSES

and MACT

II (BPK&PS)

MACT I,

BAT/PSES

and MACT

II (all mills)

Pre-Tax Annualized Costs ($ MM) 2 ................................. 125 32 263 351 366 420

Post-Tax Annualized Costs($ MM) ................................... 82 23 172 229 240 277

Mill Closures ..................................................................... 0 0 1 2 3 3

Firm Failures ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0

1BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

2Pre-Tax costs are not used in determining economic achievability.

MACT Costs: Total annualized MACT

I costs for 155 facilities in all

subcategories regulated today are $82

million (all annualized costs presented

in Section VIII are post-tax costs in 1995

dollars, except where noted). These

costs differ from the engineering MACT

control cost estimates presented in

Section VI, as noted above and in

Section VIII.B.1.c. Total annualized

proposed MACT II costs for all

subcategories that EPA proposes to

regulate are $23 million. No mill

closures, job losses, or firm failures are

projected when either MACT I or

proposed MACT II costs are analyzed

individually. When the costs for final

MACT I and proposed MACT II are

combined, the (post-tax) annualized

costs are $105 million and result in one

estimated mill closure and losses of up

to 700 jobs. No firm failures are

predicted as a result of the combined

costs of MACT I and MACT II.

BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated

economic impacts for three BAT/PSES

options (Option A, Option B, and TCF)

for all bleached papergrade kraft and

soda mills. Section VI.B.5.a(1) of this

preamble contains a description of each

option. The naming conventions of

Option A, Option B, and TCF, which

EPA introduced in that section, are also

used here. EPA selected Option A as the

technology basis for BAT/PSES for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory (see Section VI.B.5.a(5)).

For the 11 mills in three segments of the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, the

Agency estimated the economic impacts

of one technology for each segment.

EPA selected those technologies as the

bases for BAT/PSES for this subcategory

(see Sections VI.B.6.b and d). EPA

presents a summary of the economic

impacts of the selected BAT/PSES

technology bases immediately below. A

summary of the economic impacts for

the rejected BAT/PSES options in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory is presented in Section

VIII.F.

Total annualized costs for the selected

BAT/PSES for the 96 mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are

$172 million. One mill closure is

predicted for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory as a result

of compliance costs. Estimates of job

losses are not presented in order to

protect confidential business

information. EPA estimates no closures

for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as

a result of compliance costs. EPA

estimates that no firm failures will

result from BAT/PSES in these

subcategories. Based on current

information, EPA projects that there

may be some new sources, most likely

new fiber lines at existing pulp and

paper mills. EPA has identified the per

plant NSPS/PSNS costs for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA

did not have sufficient information to

reliably project the likely number of

new sources (see Section VIII.D). EPA

also expects that many replacement

fiber lines constructed at Subpart B

mills will be enrolled in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and will therefore be existing

sources rather than new sources. 40 CFR

430.01(j)(2). EPA also conducted a

barrier to entry analysis for new sources,

discussed below.

Combined Costs: The combined

annualized costs for MACT I and BAT/

PSES, affecting 96 bleached papergrade

kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite

mills, are $229 million. As a result of

these costs, two mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

are projected to close with an associated

loss of 900 jobs. See Table VIII–3. No
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18581

mills are projected to close in the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a

result of compliance costs. No firm

failures are predicted.

The combined annualized costs for

the proposed and final rules (MACT I,

BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II)

affecting the 96 bleached papergrade

kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite

mills are $240 million. With these

combined costs, three mills are

projected to close. The associated job

losses increase with the additional

projected closure, but the estimate is not

reported here in order to protect

confidential business information. No

firm failures are expected to result from

the combined costs of MACT I, BAT/

PSES, and proposed MACT II for these

mills.

The annualized costs for the proposed

and final rules (MACT I, BAT/PSES,

and MACT II) applicable to all 155 kraft,

soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical mills

are $277 million. With these combined

costs for all rules and all 155 mills, the

impacts are unchanged; i.e., three mills

are projected to close, job losses exceed

900, and no firm failures are expected.

B. Overview of Economic Analysis

1. Revisions in Analysis From Proposal

a. Subcategories. Based on the

subcategorization described in Sections

II.C.1, VI.A and VI.B.1, EPA estimated

impacts for four CAA subcategories—

Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical

Process—and two CWA subcategories—

Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda. The

economic analysis addresses 155 mills

in the CAA subcategories and 96 mills

in the CWA subcategories. The 96 CWA

mills are a subset of the 155 CAA mills.

b. Options. (1) Air Emissions

Standards. The selected technology

bases for the MACT I & III standards are

discussed fully in Section II.B.2 of this

preamble. Regulatory options and

alternatives for MACT II are discussed

in Section IV.F of the preamble to the

proposed MACT II standards, which

appears elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, and in the Economic Analysis

(DCN 14649). EPA’s economic analysis

presents results for eight regulatory

alternatives. The summary presented

here pertains only to the final MACT I

standard and proposed MACT II

standard.

(2) Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards. For the BAT/PSES

analyses for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA’s

economic analysis addresses three

technology options. The summary

presented in this section of the

preamble focuses on Option A, the

selected BAT/PSES option, but a brief

discussion of the impacts for the

rejected options appears below in

Section VIII.F. For the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory, EPA’s economic

analysis (and the summary presented

here) analyzes only the technologies

selected as the bases for the BAT/PSES

for each segment. This is because EPA

identified no technically available

options for the three papergrade sulfite

segments other than those considered

and selected.

NSPS/PSNS costs for new sources are

presented in Section VIII.D.

c. Methodology. The methodologies

used by EPA to evaluate economic

impacts at the time of proposal are fully

discussed in the Economic Impact and

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the

Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp,

Paper, and Paperboard Industry (EPA–

821–R–93–021, November, 1993).

Revisions to these methodologies are

discussed below and more fully in

Chapters 3 and 4 of the Economic

Analysis (DCN 14649).

As discussed or referenced in the July

15, 1996 Notice, EPA revised

components of the economic

methodology to account for recent

changes that have occurred in the pulp

and paper industry, including: (1)

revision of the discount rate; (2)

integration of market (price change)

effects into the financial closure model;

(3) incorporation of new industry cycle

data into the forecasting methodology;

(4) adjustment of the starting year for

the analysis to 1996; (5) incorporation of

updated mill ownership data in the firm

failure model; and (6) a revised method

for calculating annual costs. See 61 FR

at 36843–44. Each of these methodology

revisions is briefly discussed below.

At proposal, EPA used a facilityspecific cost of capital (an average of

nine percent real cost of capital) derived

from responses to a 1989 industry

survey) that reflected financing costs in

1989. Real (inflation-adjusted) financing

costs declined considerably between

1989 and 1995. For the final rule, EPA

primarily used an inflation-adjusted

seven percent cost of capital or discount

rate in the economic analysis because

this rate better reflects real industry

financing costs from 1995 to 1997, and

the Agency does not have accurate

information on current facility-specific

financing costs. Additionally, the Office

of Management and Budget

recommends a seven percent discount

rate to evaluate the social costs of

federal regulations. In Chapter 6 of the

Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), EPA

presents a sensitivity analysis of results

using alternative discount rates.

At proposal, EPA used both a

financial model and a comprehensive

market model to assess economic

effects. Much of the information in the

market model was derived from the

1989 survey. A number of substantial

changes have occurred in pulp and

paper markets since 1989 that the

market model does not reflect. EPA

decided not to update the market model

(which estimated price increases),

because an update would have required

a new survey of every mill and all

product lines, which would have been

unnecessarily costly and burdensome to

mill operators. EPA was also concerned

that the amount of time required for

conducting and analyzing a second

survey would unnecessarily delay the

final rule. This would further extend the

industry’s inability to plan and make

capital investments with certainty

regarding regulatory requirements.

Instead, EPA modified the financial

model to incorporate product supply

and demand elasticities, which are

estimates of changes in demand or

supply in response to price changes.

The summary of results presented in

this preamble does not reflect the effects

of price increases, because such changes

did not materially affect EPA decisions.

Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis

(DCN 14649) presents all of the results.

The last year of price information

available at proposal was 1988. Between

1988 and 1995, the pulp and paper

industry completed a full industry

revenue cycle, with revenues peaking in

1988, falling through 1992, and reaching

historic heights in 1995. For the final

rule, this newer information was

incorporated into the forecasting

methods for the financial closure model,

which assumes this seven-year cycle (a

six-year cycle was used at proposal) of

falling and rising prices will continue

into the future. Additionally, the

starting year for the analysis was

adjusted to 1996 (from 1989, which was

used at proposal).

To identify potential firm failures

(i.e., bankruptcies) using the Altman’s Z

financial ratio analysis, EPA obtained

updated financial information,

including mill ownership data, for

publicly held companies. Because

updated information for privately held

companies was not available from

public sources, EPA did not evaluate

possible failures among private firms.

To include these companies would have

required a new industry survey.

A facility-level financial analysis that

was conducted at proposal was

discontinued because EPA was also

unable to update facility-level financial

information without a new survey. The

facility-level analysis is not a
18582 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

component of the Altman’s Z analysis,

on which EPA has relied to identify firm

failures for this final rule. While

providing some useful information, the

facility financial analysis was not used

to identify firm-level bankruptcies at

proposal and did not provide the basis

at proposal for making determinations

of economic achievability.

As noted in Section VIII.A., EPA

considers general and administrative as

well as variable annual costs in the cost

annualization calculation. At proposal,

general and administrative costs (GAC)

had been calculated as 4 percent of

capital costs plus 60 percent of variable

annual costs. Subsequent analysis

indicated that the engineering estimates

for effluent control already included the

60 percent of variable annual costs. To

remove this double-counting, GAC is

now calculated as four percent of capital

costs for effluent control (see DCN

14086). GAC is added after the

engineering estimates prior to cost

annualization; this explains the

differences between engineering and

economic estimates of operating and

maintenance costs.

All of the previously discussed

revisions were made in an effort to

conduct an economic analysis of the air

and water regulations that is more

representative of current economic

conditions in the pulp and paper

industry and that provides more

accurate economic impact results.

C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air

Emissions Standards

Table VIII–2 presents the engineering

control cost estimates for MACT I and

for the regulatory alternative proposed

for MACT II: $755 million in total

capital costs and $172 million in

annualized costs. A more detailed

discussion of the control costs for the

final MACT standard, including

emission reductions and costeffectiveness, is provided in Chapter 20

of the Background Information

Document. Table VIII–2 also presents

the capital costs and pre-tax and posttax annualized costs used in the

economic analysis. EPA has determined

that the MACT III standards will impose

no costs; therefore, none is presented

here or in Table VIII–2.

As noted in Section VIII.A. and

Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis, the

engineering control cost estimates of the

cost of MACT regulations differ from the

costs used in EPA’s economic impact

analysis of those standards. The

economic analysis also differentiates

between pre-tax annualized costs and

post-tax annualized costs as discussed

in Section VIII.A.

TABLE VIII–2.—ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF AIR REGULATIONS

[Millions of dollars]

Regulation

MACT control cost

estimates

Economic analysis MACT cost estimates

Capital

costs

Annualized

cost

Capital cost

Annualized costs

Pre-tax Post-tax

MACT I ...................................................................................................... $496 $130 $501 $125 $82

MACT II ..................................................................................................... 259 42 258 32 23

Total Air .................................................................................................... 755 172 759 157 105

Based on the economic analysis, EPA

predicts no firm failures, mill closures,

or associated job losses as a result of the

costs of the MACT rules considered

individually. When the costs of the

MACT rules are combined, EPA projects

one mill closure with up to 700 job

losses. No firm failures are anticipated

for the combined MACT rules.

D. Costs and Economic Impacts for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

1. BPT and BCT

As explained in Section VI.B.2, EPA

is exercising its discretion not to revise

BPT limitations for conventional

pollutants at this time for Subparts B

and E. In addition, candidate BCT

technologies do not pass the two-part

BCT cost reasonableness test. Therefore,

EPA is not revising the current BCT

limitations for Subparts B and E mills;

as a result, these mills will incur no

incremental BPT or BCT costs.

2. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory

a. BAT/PSES. For the selected BAT/

PSES (Option A), capital costs are $966

million, O&M costs are $151 million,

and annualized costs are $162 million.

When considering these costs alone, the

economic analysis predicts closure of

one mill as a result of this rule and no

firm failures. Other economic impacts

(e.g., job losses) are reported in the CBI

portion of the rulemaking record.

b. NSPS and PSNS. EPA considered

the cost of NSPS and PSNS technology

for new source mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.

EPA expects few new source mills or

fiber lines to be constructed that will be

subject to NSPS/PSNS. Even if new

source mills or fiber lines are

constructed that are subject to NSPS/

PSNS, EPA estimates that the selected

NSPS/PSNS would not present a barrier

to entry. EPA estimated the average

incremental capital costs of NSPS/PSNS

compliance (compared to Option A

technology) to be approximately 0.50 to

2.0 percent of the capital cost of

constructing a new source mill or fiber

line and concluded that this cost was

not sufficient to present a barrier to

entry for proposed entrants, particularly

considering the lower operating costs of

Option B.

3. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

a. BAT/PSES. As explained in Section

VI.B.6.a, EPA is dividing the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory into three segments.

For BAT/PSES for all three segments

combined, capital costs are $73.8

million, O&M costs are $7 million, and

annualized costs are $9.8 million. No

mills are projected to close as a result

of these compliance costs, and no firms

are projected to fail. There is no

expected loss of jobs, shipments, or

exports.

b. NSPS/PSNS. EPA considered the

costs of NSPS/PSNS for new source

mills in the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory. Because NSPS/PSNS

equals BAT/PSES, EPA concluded that

such costs were not sufficient to present

a barrier to entry. First, the cost of the

NSPS/PSNS technology is an

insignificant fraction of the capital cost

of a new source mill or fiber line (less

than one percent). Also, the costs of

including the selected NSPS/PSNS

technology at a new source mill are

substantially less on a per ton basis than

the costs of retrofitting existing mills.

Moreover, the increased chemical

recovery and reduced operating costs for

the NSPS/PSNS option allow firms to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18583

recover the capital cost associated with

the NSPS/PSNS technology.

4. Cost-Effectiveness

EPA uses a cost-effectiveness ratio of

dollars per toxic pound equivalent

removed (see Economic Analysis (DCN

14649), Chapter 5) to evaluate the

relative efficiency of a technology

option in removing toxic pollutants. The

results reported below are expressed in

1981 dollars, as prescribed by EPA’s

cost-effectiveness methodology (DCN

14649). For the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory, the costeffectiveness ratio for both BAT and

PSES is $14 per toxic pound equivalent

removed. The cost-effectiveness ratios

for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory

are $13 per toxic pound equivalent

removed for BAT and $45 per toxic

pound equivalent for PSES. EPA

considers the selected technology bases

for the BAT/PSES limits for both

subcategories to be cost-effective.

E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated

Rules

EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda,

sulfite, and semi-chemical mills will

incur costs to comply with the CAA

rules; 96 bleached papergrade kraft and

soda and papergrade sulfite mills will

incur costs to comply with the CWA

rule, and the same 96 mills will incur

both CAA and CWA rule costs. Table

VIII–3 is a summary of the expected

costs and impacts for various

combinations of CAA and CWA rules.

The losses of jobs, shipments, exports,

and indirect effects reported in Table

VIII–3 are the impacts derived from mill

closures. Some results are not disclosed

where confidentiality might be

compromised.

TABLE VIII–3.—COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CAA AND CWA RULES

Costs and Impacts

Rules

MACT I

(final)

MACT II

(proposed)

BAT/PSES

(BPK&PS)1

MACT I &

BAT/PSES

(96 mills)

MACT I,

BAT/PSES

& MACT II

(BPK&PS)

(96 mills)

MACT I,

BAT/PSES

& MACT II

(155 mills)

Capital Costs ($MM) ......................................................... 501 258 1,039 1,394 1,524 1,799

Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM) ................................... 82 23 172 229 240 277

Mill Closures ..................................................................... 0 0 1 2 3 3

Firm Failures ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0

Job Losses (from mill closures) ........................................ 0 0 400 900 1,700 1,700

Decreased Shipments ($MM) ........................................... 0 0 150 273 479 479

Decreased Exports ($MM) ................................................ 0 0 19 19 22 22

Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM) ..................................... .................... .................... 430 795 1,393 1,393

1BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.

PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

While no mills are predicted to close

due to MACT I costs alone, and one mill

in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory is predicted to close

due to BAT/PSES costs alone, EPA

estimates that two mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

may close as a result of the combined

costs imposed by these rules. The two

predicted closures represent

approximately 2.3 percent of the 86

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills and 1.3 percent of all 155 kraft,

sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical mills

affected by this rulemaking. As a result

of these two closures, 900 jobs could be

lost. These jobs represent 0.9 percent of

the jobs in the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory. These costs

generate a maximum estimated price

increase of 1.5 percent for any product

(pulp, paper or paperboard). Estimated

losses in the value of shipments are

approximately $273 million, or 0.8

percent of bleached papergrade kraft

and soda shipments, while losses in the

value of bleached papergrade kraft and

soda exports are approximately $19

million, or 0.5 percent of subcategory

exports.

No mills are projected to close in the

CWA Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, or

the CAA soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical

subcategories as a result of either the

promulgated CAA or CWA regulations

or a combination of both.

EPA examined the indirect effects of

the final regulations (MACT I, MACT III

and BAT/PSES) on employment and

output using a national-level inputoutput model developed by the U.S.

Department of Commerce. The model

provides multipliers that enable EPA to

estimate national-level impacts based on

the loss of employment and output from

closing mills. Total projected effects on

the U.S. economy of the combined

MACT I and BAT/PSES are

approximately 5,700 jobs lost and $795

million in lost economic output. While

some local communities could

experience some economic dislocation

as a result of closures, overall national

impacts would be insignificant. For

comparison, the 1995 U.S. gross

domestic product was $7.3 trillion. The

loss is approximately one-tenth of 1

percent of the gross domestic product

for 1995. EPA also evaluated regional

(county-level) economic impacts when

determining the economic achievability

of the regulation. For the final MACT I

and BAT/PSES, in the two counties

where mills are projected to close, the

unemployment rate would increase by

0.4 percent and 0.7 percent respectively.

In response to public comments, EPA

also estimated the economic impacts

associated with the combined costs of

promulgated and proposed rules. When

the MACT I, BAT/PSES, and MACT II

costs are considered jointly, EPA

projects an additional mill closure with

800 additional jobs lost and further

decreases of $206 million in shipments

and $3 million in exports. The total

projected effects of the combined MACT

1, BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are

approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4

billion in lost economic output.

F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/

PSES Options for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

1. Summary of Results

Table VIII–4 presents costs and

impacts for two options (Option B and

TCF) that EPA evaluated, but did not

select, as the basis for BAT/PSES for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. EPA’s rationale for

selecting Option A for BAT/PSES for

this subcategory is presented in Section

VI.B.5.a(5). Table VIII–4 presents results

in three ways: considering CWA costs

and impacts alone; considering the costs

and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES

options and MACT I; and considering
18584 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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

II.

TABLE VIII–4.—COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE

KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

Costs & Impacts

Rules

Option B

(BAT/PSES)

TCF (BAT/

PSES)

Option B

(BAT/

PSES)+

MACT I

TCF +

(BAT/

PSES)

MACT I

Option B

(BAT/PSES)

MACT I &

MACT II

TCF, (BAT/

PSES)

MACT I &

MACT II

Capital Costs ($MM) ......................................................... 2,100 3,100 2,600 3,600 2,700 3,700

Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM) ................................... 216 688 292 764 300 772

Mill Closures ..................................................................... 2 7 4 9 ND1 9

Firm Failures ..................................................................... (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

Job Losses (from mill closures) ........................................ 900 7,100 4,800 10,200 ND 10,200

Decreased Shipments ($MM) ........................................... 273 2,300 1,300 3,200 ND 3,200

Decreased Exports ($MM) ................................................ 19 308 24 310 ND 310

Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM) ..................................... 795 NR 3,850 NR ND NR

1 ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information.

2 NR: not reported.

3 1 or more.

Option B: The BAT/PSES capital costs

for Option B for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

are estimated at $2.1 billion; O&M costs

are $87 million; and annualized costs

are $216 million. These costs result in

two projected mill closures, with direct

impacts of at least 900 jobs lost, $273

million in decreased shipments, $19

million in decreased exports, and one or

more potential firm failures. The firm

failures may also result in thousands of

additional jobs lost (see Section

VI.B.5.a(5) and Chapter 6 of the

Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).

Indirect and direct economic loss (i.e.,

losses throughout the economy as a

result of the closed mills) would be

approximately $795 million. The mill

closures are projected to increase county

unemployment rates for the affected

counties by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent,

respectively.

EPA also calculated cost-effectiveness

ratios for Option B for this subcategory

(for Option A results, see Section

VIII.D.4, above). For direct dischargers,

the average and incremental (compared

to Option A) cost-effectiveness ratios are

$15 per toxic pound-equivalent and $36

per toxic pound-equivalent, respectively

(1981 dollars). For indirect dischargers,

the incremental cost-effectiveness

(compared to Option A), is $115 per

toxic pound-equivalent.

Option B and MACT I: The combined

capital costs for Option B and MACT I

for mills in this subcategory are

estimated at $2.6 billion; O&M costs are

$154 million; and annualized costs are

$292 million. MACT I annualized costs

are greater under Option B than under

Option A due to the additions of MACT

controls for oxygen delignification

equipment installed to comply with

Option B. With the combined costs of

Option B and MACT I, the number of

projected mill closures increases to four,

and the estimated number of firm

failures remains unchanged at one or

more. The four closures cause losses of

approximately 4,800 jobs, $1.3 billion in

shipments, and $24 million of exports.

Direct and indirect losses would total

nearly $4 billion. The mill closures are

also projected to increase county

unemployment rates; the range of

increased unemployment for the

affected counties is from less than 0.5

percentage points to nearly 10

percentage points (as a hypothetical

example, from a baseline county

unemployment rate of 10 percent to 10.5

percent after a closure in County X and

from a baseline of 10 percent to 20

percent after a closure in County Y).

Option B, MACT I, and MACT II: The

combined capital costs for Option B,

MACT I, and proposed MACT II for

mills in this subcategory are estimated

at $2.7 billion; O&M costs are $153

million; and annualized costs are $300

million. With the combined costs of

Option B, MACT I, and MACT II, the

number of projected mill closures

increases (number not disclosed), and

the estimated number of firm failures

remains unchanged at one or more. The

analysis projects additional losses to

jobs, shipments, and exports from the

additional mill closures (amounts not

disclosed). Direct and indirect losses

would also increase, as would the

unemployment rates in the counties in

which the mill closures are located.

TCF: The capital costs for retrofitting

mills in this subcategory for TCF

technology are estimated at $3.1 billion

for TCF based on peroxide bleaching

and $5.6 billion for TCF based on ozone

and peroxide bleaching, respectively.

EPA evaluated mill closures for the TCF

option with the lower capital costs.

O&M costs for this option are $783

million, and annualized costs are $688

million. (TCF annualized costs appear

lower than annual O&M costs because of

tax shields.) EPA estimates that these

costs would result in seven mill

closures, which are associated with

approximately 7,100 job losses. EPA did

not conduct a firm failure analysis or

calculate combined direct and indirect

impacts for this option because the

closures and job losses alone are more

than sufficient indication that the

option is not economically achievable.

EPA estimates, however, that a greater

number of firms would be placed in

financial jeopardy with the costs of this

option, compared to Option B, which

EPA has already determined is not

economically achievable (See Section

VI.B.5.a(5)).

TCF and MACT I: The combined

capital costs for TCF and MACT I for

mills in this subcategory are estimated

at $3.6 billion; O&M costs are $851

million, and annualized costs are $764

million. EPA estimates that these costs

would result in nine mill closures and

an associated loss of 10,200 jobs, $3.2

billion in shipments, and $310 million

in exports. EPA conducted no

additional economic analysis for this

combination of costs.

TCF, MACT I, and MACT II: The

combined capital costs for TCF, MACT

I, and MACT II for mills in this

subcategory are estimated at $3.7

billion; O&M costs are $849 million; and

annualized costs are $772 million. With

the combined costs of TCF, MACT I,

and MACT II, EPA estimates that the

number of mill closures, job losses, and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18585

other impacts remain unchanged. EPA

conducted no additional economic

analysis for this combination of costs.

2. Implications of Results

The costs of either Option B or TCF

are projected to cause one or more firm

failures (bankruptcies). This is true even

when the BAT/PSES costs are

considered without the compliance

costs associated with MACT I and/or

MACT II. Although EPA cannot

determine the actual outcome of the

projected failures in terms of lost

production, closed facilities, and lost

jobs, the level of displacement would

almost certainly cause detrimental

impacts to the U.S. pulp and paper

industry. Section VI.B.5.a(5) discusses

EPA’s reaction to these projected

impacts in terms of regulatory decisions.

See also Chapter 6 of the Economic

Analysis, DCN 14649. That discussion

also includes the Agency’s findings that

the rejected BAT/PSES options are not

economically achievable.

G. Benefits

In addition to costs and impacts, EPA

also estimated the environmental and

human health benefits of implementing

the CAA and CWA requirements.

Section VII of this preamble describes

the estimated reductions in air

emissions and effluent discharges. The

incremental environmental

improvements noted in Section VII.B.

are derived compared to a baseline of

current emissions and discharges.

Because current emissions and

discharges are a function of current

technology, this is the same baseline

that was used to establish the costs of

complying with the rules. To the extent

the total benefits of the rule can be

measured, costs can be directly

compared to benefits.

EPA is confident that its estimation of

compliance costs is a full and accurate

account of such costs; EPA is less

confident that the estimation of benefits

is similarly complete. EPA is not

currently able to quantitatively evaluate

all human and ecosystem benefits

associated with air and water quality

improvements. EPA is even more

limited in its ability to assign monetary

values to these benefits and therefore to

be able to compare them to costs in a

standard cost-benefit framework. A

comparison of costs to only the limited

monetized subset of benefits severely

underestimates the true benefits of

environmental quality improvement and

compromises the validity of a costbenefit analysis. The economic benefit

values described below and in the

Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) should

be considered a limited subset of the

total benefits of these rules, and should

be evaluated along with descriptive

assessments of benefits and the

acknowledgment that even these may

fall short of the real-world benefits that

will result from the rule.

1. Air Quality Benefits

Section VII.B.1 of this preamble

describes the emissions reductions

expected as a result of implementing

MACT I and MACT II standards.

Implementation of the final MACT I

standard is expected to reduce

emissions of HAPs, VOCs, and TRS, but

increase emissions of PM, SO2, CO, and

NOX. The proposed alternative for

MACT II is expected to reduce

emissions for HAPs, VOCs, PM, TRS,

CO, and SO2, while it is expected to

create a slight increase in NOx

emissions. The technology bases for

BAT/PSES have secondary impacts on

the level of air emissions. The combined

effect of MACT I and MACT II for all

subcategories regulated under the CAA

is to decrease emissions for all of the

above mentioned pollutants except NOX

and SO2. See Table VIII–5 below. EPA

performed an evaluation of the benefits

associated with the air regulations based

on the emission reductions estimated in

Section VII.B.1. The net change in air

benefits expected to result from the

changes in emissions will be a change

in adverse health effects associated with

inhalation of the above pollutants as

well as changes in welfare effects such

as improved visibility and crop yields,

and reduced materials soiling and

corrosion. Chapter 4 of the EA presents

a detailed description of the

methodology used to monetize the

benefits.

a. Qualitative Description of Pollutant

Effects. The air rules are designed to

reduce the emission of HAPs as defined

in Section 112 of the CAA. Several of

these HAPs are classified as probable or

possible human carcinogens. Reducing

the emissions of these pollutants is

expected to reduce the cancer risk of the

exposed population. Other HAPs are not

classified as carcinogens; however, they

have been shown to cause other adverse

health effects such as damage to the eye,

central nervous system, liver, kidney,

and respiratory system when the

concentration of these emissions is

above the health reference benchmark

for human exposure.

Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions

cause the malodorous smell often

associated with areas near pulp and

paper mills. The MACT standards will

reduce these effects significantly.

Odorant stimulants of the nasal

receptors that are associated with TRS

emissions have been associated with

marked respiratory and cardiovascular

responses, however, the association is

not direct because the perception of the

odor does not necessarily cause toxic

effects. The threshold for odor

detections may occur before the onset of

toxic effects. However, the absence of

odor does not guarantee safety since

some components of TRS emissions can

cause fatigue of the olfactory senses, so

individuals may not perceive an odor on

some occasions when toxic effects can

occur. There are numerous anecdotal

reports of adverse reactions related to

odors associated with TRS, including

headaches, shortness of breath, nasal

irritation, and, in some cases, nausea

and sinus congestion.

VOC and NOX emissions interact in

the presence of sunlight to create

ground-level ozone. Recent scientific

evidence shows an association between

elevated ozone concentrations and

increases in hospital admissions for a

variety of respiratory illnesses and

indicates that ground-level ozone not

only affects people with impaired

respiratory systems (such as asthmatics),

but healthy adults and children as well.

Adverse welfare effects of ozone

exposure include damage to crops, tree

seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass,

etc.), and forested ecosystems. The

reactions between VOCs and NOX to

form ozone depend on the balance in

concentrations of each pollutant found

in the ambient air. For example, when

the concentration of NOX is high

relative to the concentration of VOCs,

VOC reductions are effective in limiting

ozone formation, while NOX reductions

in that situation are ineffective. The

integrated rule is expected to increase

NOX emissions, but decrease VOC

emissions. The increase in NOX is not

expected to cause significant adverse

health or environmental impacts

because the magnitude of this increase

is much less than the magnitude of the

VOC emission reduction. The VOC

reductions are expected to contribute to

the decrease in ozone concentrations.

The adverse human health effects

associated with PM include: premature

mortality; aggravation of respiratory and

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by

increased hospital admissions and

emergency room visits, school absences,

work loss days, and restricted activity

days); changes in lung function and

increased respiratory symptoms;

alterations in lung tissue and structure;

and altered respiratory tract defense

mechanisms. Populations at greater risk

from exposure are: individuals with

respiratory disease and cardiovascular

disease, individuals with infectious

disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic

individuals, and children. Reduced
18586 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

welfare is associated with elevated

concentrations of fine particles which

reduce visibility, damage materials, and

cause soiling. The integrated rule will

decrease the adverse effects of PM.

CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is

toxic to mammals. When inhaled, it

combines with hemoglobin, which

reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

blood and results in less oxygen being

transported to vital organs of the body.

This can have detrimental effects on the

cardiovascular, central nervous, and

pulmonary systems. The reduction of

CO emissions will diminish these

potential effects.

SO2 oxidizes in water to form both

sulfurous and sulfuric acids. When SO2

dissolves in the water of the respiratory

tract of humans, the resulting acidity is

irritating to the pulmonary tissues,

causing nasal irritation and breathing

difficulties (especially to individuals

with respiratory diseases such as

asthma). When SO2 dissolves in the

atmosphere in rain, fog, or snow, the

acidity of the deposition can corrode

various materials and cause damage to

both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

SO2 can also transform into PM2.5, the

effects of which are discussed above.

b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits.

Table VIII–5 below presents both the

health and welfare benefits described in

this section as well as the emission

reductions identified in Section VII.B.1

that are not monetized but are

considered in the evaluation of benefits.

The benefit transfer method is utilized

to value a subset of the pollutants

discussed above (VOC, SO2, and PM).

This method relies on previous benefit

studies that have been conducted for the

same pollutants that are impacted by the

pulp and paper rulemaking. These

studies provide useful data that can be

transferred across contexts in order to

approximate the benefits of the pulp

and paper emission reductions.

TABLE VIII–5.—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND ANNUAL AIR QUALITY BENEFITS

Pollutant

Standard

MACT I MACT II Combined

Decrease

(Mg)

Value

($MM)

Decrease

(Mg)

Value

($MM)

Decrease

(Mg)

Value

($MM)

HAPs ............................................................... 139,000 NE 2,600 NE 142,000 NE

TRS ................................................................. 79,000 NE — NE 79,000 NE

NOX ................................................................. (5,200) NE (500) NE (5,700) NE

VOC ................................................................ 409,000 24–1,055 32,600 2–84 441,000 26–1,139

PM ................................................................... (83) (1) 24,000 300 24,000 299

CO ................................................................... (8,700) NE 58,000 NE 49,000 NE

SO2 .................................................................. (94,500) (1,064)–0 30 0.1–0.3 (94,400) (1,064)–0.3

Total ................................................................ ...................... (1,040)–1,054 ...................... 302–384 ...................... (739)–1,438

NE = not estimated.

Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate emissions increases or negative benefits values.

Numbers in table rounded.

For VOCs, benefits are valued using

estimates of a range of the average

benefit per Megagram (Mg) derived from

a recent benefit analysis conducted by

EPA in the process of revising the ozone

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) (see docket no. A–95–58:

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the

Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS

and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July

1997). EPA values a range of VOC

benefits reflecting (1) an assumption

that the transfer of benefits must

correlate with the areas that violate the

ozone standard, and (2) an assumption

that recognizes that reductions outside

areas of violation of the ozone standard

can have a positive benefit. Therefore,

the range of values reflects the

application of a range of values for the

average benefit per Mg as they are

applied to (1) the subset of VOC

emission reductions in areas of

violation, and (2) to all VOC emission

reductions expected to be achieved by

the integrated rule. The true value is

likely to fall within this range. Using the

range of values of the average benefit

per Mg for ozone, monetized annual

VOC benefits of MACT I emission

reductions range from $24 million to

$1,055 million. The lower-end of this

range reflects an assumption of zero

mortality effects associated with ozone

exposure and assumes morbidity

benefits occur only in areas predicted to

violate the ozone standard, while the

upper-end includes mortality estimates

as are calculated for the upper-end of

the range of ozone benefits is included

in the NAAQS RIA and assumes

morbidity benefits occur in all areas. For

the proposed MACT II alternative, total

annual VOC benefits range in value

from approximately $2 million to $84

million. Therefore, total monetized VOC

benefits of the integrated rule are

approximately $26 million to $1,139

million.

For PM, a benefit transfer estimate is

obtained from a benefit analysis of PM10

that was prepared to support the

evaluation of the revised PM NAAQS

(see Appendix C of the Regulatory

Impact Analysis for the Particulate

Matter and Ozone NAAQS and

proposed Regional Haze Rule; July

1997). The average benefit per Mg

derived from this study is applied to all

changes in emissions of PM that result

from the integrated rule. Using this

value, the loss in total monetized annual

PM benefits associated with MACT I is

approximately $1 million. The proposed

MACT II alternative achieves a positive

benefit approximately equal to $300

million. Thus the combined value of PM

benefits for the final and proposed pulp

and paper air standards is $299 million.

For SO2, the EPA transfers a benefit

estimate from a national SO2 strategy

analysis conducted for the evaluation of

the revised PM NAAQS (see docket no.

A–95–54: Regulatory Impact Analysis

for the Particulate Matter and Ozone

NAAQS and proposed Regional Haze

Rule; July 1997). This analysis shows

that benefit values are higher in the

eastern regions of the country when

compared to the western regions.

Therefore, EPA derives a range of

benefit per Mg values for each segment

of the country. In addition, EPA takes

into consideration the uncertainty

inherent in the estimate of MACT I SO2

emission increases that may result from

the rulemaking. Therefore for MACT I,

EPA values all SO2 emission increases

to obtain a lower bound estimate of

(negative) benefits and assumes zero

emission increases due to the likely

effects of mitigating behavior to obtain

an upper bound estimate of zero
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18587

disbenefits. For MACT II, all emission

reductions are valued. Using the range

of values for the average benefit per Mg

for SO2 and the assumptions for the

changes in emissions, monetized annual

SO2 disbenefits of MACT I range from

$1,064 million down to $0. For the

proposed MACT II alternative, total

annual SO2 benefits are from

approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million.

Therefore, total monetized SO2 benefits

(disbenefits) of the integrated rule are

approximately ($1,064) million to $0.3

million.

Summing the monetized benefits and

disbenefits for VOC, PM, and SO2

emission changes provides a range of

total annual benefits (disbenefits) for

MACT I of approximately ($1,040)

million to $1,054 million. Aggregate

annual benefits attributed to MACT II

range in value from $302 million to

$384 million. Combining the benefits of

the final and proposed air standards

yields a range of total annual benefits

from approximately ($739) million to

$1,438 million.

These benefits are incomplete due to

EPA’s inability to quantify many benefit

and disbenefit categories including

individual health and welfare endpoints

as well as the benefits and disbenefits of

controlling entire pollutant categories.

Pollutant categories that are not

monetized are HAPs, TRS, CO, and

NOX.

c. Uncertainties Associated With Air

Quality Benefits. Benefit per Mg

estimates used to monetize PM and VOC

emission reductions are uncertain

because average benefit per Mg values

do not take into account locationspecific information such as the

population exposed. The locationspecific information is expected to have

a significant effect on the estimated

benefits associated with these emission

reductions. Also, lack of information for

several benefit categories precludes a

complete quantification of all benefit

categories (or disbenefits for pollutant

increases).

2. Water Quality Benefits

This section describes environmental

and human health benefits expected as

a result of implementing new BAT/

PSES limits at 92 of the 96 mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories.

(EPA estimated benefits for 92 mills

because it did not have effluent

discharge information from 3 mills and

did not have receiving stream flow data

for 1 mill). Because EPA was not able

to project the number of new sources,

EPA attributes no benefits to the final

NSPS or PSNS regulations. Discharge of

toxic, nonconventional, and

conventional pollutants into freshwater,

estuarine, and marine ecosystems may

alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life,

and adversely impact human health. See

Section VII.B.2. Chlorinated organic

compounds from chlorine bleaching,

particularly 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) are

human carcinogens and human

systemic toxicants and are toxic to

aquatic life. These pollutants are

persistent, resistant to biodegradation,

and bioaccumulative in aquatic

organisms. As of December 1995, states

have issued 19 dioxin/furan-related fish

consumption advisories near 18

papergrade sulfite and bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills (EPA,

National Listing of Fish Consumption

Advisories, June 1996).

EPA’s analysis of these environmental

and human health risk concerns and the

water-related benefits resulting from the

final effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for these two subcategories is

contained in the ‘‘Water Quality

Assessment of Final Effluent

Limitations Guidelines for the

Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard Industry’’ (WQA) (DCN

14650).

a. Qualitative Description of WaterRelated Benefits. The final BAT

limitations and PSES promulgated today

for Subparts B and E will benefit aquatic

life by reducing the pulp and paper

industry’s discharge of toxic and

nonconventional pollutants, including a

91 percent reduction in TCDD and

TCDF, a 69 percent reduction in AOX,

an 83 percent reduction in chloroform,

and an 82 percent reduction in

chlorinated phenolic pollutants

compared to mid-1995 discharge levels.

Toxic and nonconventional pollutants

will be reduced to levels below those

considered to impact biota in many

receiving waters. Pollution reduction

numbers are provided in Section

VII.B.2. Such impacts include acute and

chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on

metabolic and reproductive functions,

and loss of prey organisms. Chemical

contamination of aquatic biota may also

directly and indirectly impact local

pescivorous wildlife and birds.

b. Quantitative Estimates of WaterRelated Benefits. EPA has quantified

human health and aquatic life benefits

using a site-specific analysis for baseline

conditions and for the conditions that

would result from pollutant removals

under the rule. The final BAT

limitations and PSES for Subparts B and

E would result in a significant reduction

of dioxins and furans in fish tissues. As

a result, the largest quantifiable and

monetizable water benefit is a reduction

in number of potential excess cancer

cases from the consumption of

contaminated fish by recreational and

subsistence anglers. The next largest

category of monetized benefits includes

recreational fishing benefits derived

from lifting of all 19 existing dioxin/

furan-related fish consumption

advisories in waters downstream from

mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite

subcategories. Removing fish

consumption advisories would be

expected to increase the number of

recreational anglers at sites where

advisories are lifted and to increase

fishing enjoyment by existing anglers.

Three of the 19 receiving streams with

dioxin/furan-related fish consumption

advisories also have advisories in place

for other contaminants (from other

sources) that will not be affected by this

rule. No monetized benefits are

expected to accrue for these streams at

this time. Quantified, non-monetized

benefits include reduction in

exceedances of aquatic life and healthbased ambient water quality

concentrations.

(1) Fish Consumption Cancer Risks

and Non-cancer Hazards. Upper-bound

individual cancer risk, aggregate risk,

and non-cancer hazards from

consuming contaminated fish are

estimated for recreational, subsistence,

and Native American subsistence

anglers. At proposal, concentrations of

carcinogenic and systemic toxicants in

fish were estimated using two sitespecific models—a simple dilution

model and EPA’s draft Dioxin

Reassessment Evaluation model

(DRE)(DCN 14650). For the final rule,

EPA used only the DRE model to

estimate TCDD and TCDF levels in fish

below 92 mills discharging into 73

receiving streams, as well as individual

cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Of

these mills, two in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

discharge through the same pipe and

therefore were treated as a single

discharger. As a result, a total of 91

discharges from 92 mills were evaluated

for the water quality assessment. EPA

continues to use the simple dilution

model to evaluate other chlorinated

organics (i.e., three carcinogens and four

systemic toxicants). EPA believes the

DRE approach provides more reliable

estimates of dioxin and furan fate and

transport in the environment for use in

human health assessments. The reasons

for relying exclusively on the DRE for

assessing impacts due to dioxin and

furan are explained in greater detail in
18588 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Chapters 4 and 8 of the Economic

Analysis (DCN 14649).

EPA is also updating fish

consumption rates used to estimate

cancer and non-cancer hazards. At

proposal, EPA used 25 g/day for

recreational anglers, and 145 g/day for

subsistence anglers. The revised

estimates are 21 g/day for recreational

anglers and 48 g/day for subsistence

anglers, based on data provided by the

nationally based ‘‘Continuing Survey of

Food Intake by Individuals’’ (CSFII),

conducted by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. EPA is also using an

updated fish consumption rate for

Native American subsistence

populations of 70 g/day, based on two

studies (CRIFTC, 1994; Wolfe and

Walker, 1989, in rulemaking record).

This consumption rate represents an

average fish consumption rate for Native

Americans. (See Environmental Justice

Analysis in Chapter 8 of the Economic

Analysis, DCN 14649).

Projected individual cancer risks

differ among the evaluated mills and

among recreational, subsistence, and

Native American subsistence fishermen

due to the differences in consumption

rates. TCDD and TCDF contribute most

of the estimated cancer risks. The final

BAT/PSES for the papergrade sulfite

and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategories are projected to

reduce average baseline individual

cancer risks up to about one order of

magnitude for each affected group—

recreational, subsistence, and Native

American subsistence populations. At

both baseline and post-compliance,

Native American subsistence

populations are at about one order of

magnitude higher risk than recreational

anglers and less than one order of

magnitude higher risk than subsistence

fishermen in this assessment because of

their comparatively higher fish

consumption rates.

At proposal, EPA estimated exposed

recreational and subsistence fishermen

based on a comparison of creel survey

results to licensed anglers in counties

adjoining pulp mill streams. Based on

these surveys, EPA estimated that 29

percent of county fishermen would use

affected stream reaches and therefore

could be exposed to contaminated fish.

Since proposal, EPA has considered

additional recreational angler survey

information and has determined that a

range of 10 percent to 33 percent of

adjacent county-licensed anglers

provides effective upper and lower

bounds to the fishing effort expected on

most affected stream segments. EPA’s

benefit estimation methodology is

described in Chapter 4 of the Economic

Analysis (DCN 14649).

EPA estimated the reduced annual

cancer cases for combined recreational

and subsistence angler populations as a

result of the final BAT/PSES for the

Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategories. The projected number of

increased cancer cases for this

population under baseline conditions

due to pulp and paper discharges is 0.83

to 2.76 annual cancer cases. EPA

estimates this number would decline to

0.1 to 0.35 excess cancer cases per year

after implementation of the final BAT/

PSES, thus eliminating approximately

0.73 to 2.41 annual cancer cases.

For Native American subsistence

fishermen, EPA evaluated an upper

bound total risk at baseline and postcompliance with the selected BAT/

PSES. EPA assumed that the total

population of the tribes with treatyceded fishing rights near pulp and paper

mills consumed an average of 70 g/

person/day of TCDD/TCDF

contaminated fish. The projected

number of increased cancer cases for

this population under baseline

conditions due to pulp and paper

discharges is 0.14 annual cancer cases.

EPA estimates this number would

decline to 0.008 excess cancer cases per

year after implementation of the final

BAT/PSES.

With respect to non-cancer benefits,

EPA examined the current discharge of

four pollutants that have reference doses

(RfDs) contained in EPA’s Integrated

Risk Information System (IRIS). The

four pollutants are chloroform,

pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-

tetrachlorophenol, and 2,4,5-

trichlorophenol. The RfD represents an

estimate, with uncertainty spanning

perhaps an order of magnitude, of daily

exposure—expressed in milligrams per

kilogram of body weight per day (mg/

kg/day)—that is likely to be without an

appreciable risk of deleterious effects to

a given population during a lifetime.

(EPA notes that this analysis considers

only the contribution of Subpart B and

E pulp and paper current discharge

effluent to the RfD; the contribution

from other sources (background level of

exposure) is not evaluated.)

For the four pollutants with RfDs in

IRIS, EPA used the simple dilution

model to determine fish tissue

concentrations. EPA then estimated

whether human consumption of fish by

recreational, subsistence, and Native

American subsistence populations

exposed to the pollutants below pulp

and paper mills would exceed a

chemical-specific noncancer hazard

quotient of 1.0. Hazard quotients are

based on the relationship between fish

tissue concentrations, fish consumption,

and RfDs. If a hazard quotient exceeds

1.0, adverse effects might occur. None of

the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS is

estimated to exceed a non-cancer hazard

quotient of 1.0 under baseline or BAT/

PSES conditions for recreational,

subsistence, or Native American

subsistence anglers.

EPA did not use the reference dose

(RfD) approach to evaluate potential

noncancer effects associated with

dioxin/furan. The use of an RfD for

dioxin/furan presents special problems.

If EPA were to establish an RfD for

dioxin/furan using the standard

conventions of uncertainty, the RfD

value would likely be one to two orders

of magnitude below average background

population exposure. As stated above,

the RfD is a level that is likely to be

without an appreciable risk; it is not an

‘‘action level’’ or exposure level where

non-cancer effects are predicted. Where

the RfD is below background levels, and

where effects are not readily apparent at

background levels, it is not appropriate

to use the RfD for quantifying benefits.

As an alternative to using the RfD,

EPA evaluated potential noncancer

effects of dioxin/furan by comparing the

modeled incremental exposure of

dioxin/furan from fish consumption

(based on results from the DRE model)

to estimated ambient background levels

(i.e., 120 picograms of toxic equivalents/

day (pgTEQ/day)). EPA estimates that

adverse impacts associated with dioxin/

furan exposures may occur at or within

one order of magnitude of average

background exposures. As exposures

increase within and above this range,

the probability and severity of human

noncancer effects most likely increases.

EPA’s analysis shows that the estimated

dioxin/furan exposure from pulp and

paper effluent at baseline exceeded

estimated ambient background exposure

by an order of magnitude for two mills,

with the size of the exposed population

ranging from 4,910 to 16,205

recreational and subsistence anglers.

The selected BAT/PSES are projected to

reduce the incremental exposure from

fish consumption to a level that was not

significantly different from estimated

ambient background exposure. The size

of the recreational and subsistence

angler population exposed to dioxin/

furan doses exceeding one order of

magnitude greater than the background

level would be zero under the selected

BAT/PSES.

For Native American subsistence

populations with treaty-ceded fishing

rights, the maximum dioxin/furan

exposure under baseline conditions is

projected to be 803 pgTEQ/day. Under

the selected BAT/PSES, the maximum

exposure is reduced to 39 pgTEQ/day,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18589

which is less than estimated background

levels for the United States.

(2) Impact of BAT/PSES Controls on

Dioxin/Furan-Related Fish

Consumption Advisories. EPA estimates

that all 19 dioxin/furan-related fish

consumption advisories in place

downstream of papergrade sulfite and

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills as of December 1995 would be

lifted some time after the rule is

implemented. Recent evidence indicates

that dioxin/furan fish tissue

concentrations decline within several

years of removing dioxin/furan

discharges, which is more rapidly than

previously thought (see Chapter 9 of the

Economic Analysis, DCN 14649). EPA

accounts for potential latent dioxin/

furan contributions from sediment to

fish tissue by assuming a three-year lag

before cancers from fish tissue

consumption are reduced or dioxin/

furan-related fish tissue advisories are

lifted.

(3) Exceedances of Human HealthBased Ambient Water Quality

Concentrations (AWQCs). EPA also has

compared the modeled in-stream

pollutant concentrations to human

health water quality criteria or other

toxic effect values, which are referred to

as health-based AWQCs. Exceedances of

health-based AWQCs indicate existing

human health-based water quality

problems.

EPA has analyzed the health-based

AWQCs for the ingestion of organisms

and the ingestion of water and

organisms based on the simple dilution

model. EPA estimates that no mills

exceed the health-based AWQCs for

ingestion of organisms only under

baseline conditions or under the final

rule. With respect to the ingestion of

water and organisms, at baseline, three

mills exceed AWQCs for two pollutants,

chloroform and pentachlorophenol (a

total of four exceedances). Under the

rule, only one mill exceeds AWQCs (for

pentachlorophenol).

EPA did not estimate exceedances of

AWQCs for dioxin and furan because

the simple dilution model is not wellsuited for use in estimating human

health effects associated with water

column concentrations of hydrophobic

chemicals like dioxin and furan. EPA

did not use the DRE model for this

analysis for dioxin/furan because results

of the DRE model would not be

comparable with AWQCs.

(4) Aquatic Life Benefits. EPA used

the simple dilution approach to estimate

exceedances of aquatic life AWQCs.

This is a conservative approach that

assumes all pollutants (including dioxin

and furan) discharged to receiving

streams are available to the biota.

Although hydrophobic chemicals such

as dioxins and furans will be associated

primarily with suspended particulates

and sediments, some concentrations

will also be found in the water column

near the discharge point. This is

particularly true if discharges are

assumed to be continuous because even

though the pollutants might eventually

become associated with suspended

solids and sediment, they would also be

present in the water column in the

vicinity of the discharge on an ongoing

basis prior to partitioning. Therefore,

although it is conservative, EPA believes

that the simple dilution approach

provides a reasonable estimate of

impacts to aquatic life.

EPA compared modeled in-stream

concentrations of toxic discharges to

EPA’s aquatic life AWQCs. EPA’s

modeling results show that receiving

water concentrations for up to four

pollutants (of 15 pollutants with chronic

aquatic life AWQCs) at 19 mills exceed

aquatic life criteria at baseline discharge

levels (up to 25 total exceedances). The

final BAT/PSES for the papergrade

sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategories are projected to

reduce these exceedances to one

pollutant (TCDD) at six mills (six total

exceedances). On average, the selected

BAT/PSES will reduce color of effluent

by approximately 2.5 percent compared

to current discharges. This color

reduction may have some aquatic life or

recreational benefits depending on the

natural color of the receiving water, but

they are not quantifiable or monetizable

at this time.

c. Monetization of Water Quality

Benefits. Monetized benefits of the final

BAT/PSES for mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are

presented in Table VIII–6. EPA has

monetized the human health benefits

resulting from elimination of 0.73 to

2.41 cancer cases per year for the nation

as a whole (see Section VIII.F.2.b.(1)).

The projected benefits range from $2

million to $22 million.

EPA estimates the value to anglers of

contaminant-free fisheries as a result of

lifting 16 of the 19 dioxin/furan-related

fish consumption advisories to be $2

million to $19 million. (Because these

values are based on a benefits transfer

from a study of contamination of the

Great Lakes trout and salmon fishery,

which may differ greatly from some of

the areas affected by this rule, these

values provide only a general sense of

the magnitude of the benefits of the

rule.) Because non-dioxin/furan fish

consumption advisories (PCBs and

mercury) will remain in place on three

streams, EPA did not monetize the

benefits of removing the dioxin/furan

fish consumption advisories on these

streams. EPA also estimates that

recreational fishing would increase on

the 16 streams by 115,000 angling days

to 379,000 angling days postcompliance. However, the monetary

value of this increase is not estimated

because of the difficulty of determining

the extent to which this increased

participation reflects a net increase in

fishing activity or merely a shift from

other locations (see the Economic

Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 4).

Because of dioxin/furan removals due

to compliance with BAT limitations and

PSES, sludge from pulp and paper mills

may be disposed of through land

application, instead of more costly

landfilling or incineration. (Pursuant to

a January 1994 Memorandum of

Agreement between EPA and the

American Forest and Paper Association

(AF&PA), a maximum dioxin/furan

concentration of 50 ppt is allowed for

land application of sludge or a sludgederived product. See DCN 14399). Mill

sludge disposal costs could be expected

to decline by $8 million to $16 million.

EPA estimated these values based on the

reduced tonnage of expected dioxin/

furan-contaminated sludge, which in

turn was based on the proportional

reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent

(see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649,

Chapter 8).

Total monetized water-related

benefits for all the above categories

range from $12 million to $57 million.

As noted previously, the above

estimates do not include the benefits

that have been identified but not

monetized, such as health effects for

Native American subsistence fishermen,

reduction in AWQC exceedances,

reduction of projected non-cancer

effects and improvements in fish and

wildlife habitat.
18590 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE VIII–6.—MONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF FINAL BAT/PSES FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND

SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Benefit category Final BAT/PSES

(millions 1995$)

Water-related Benefits

Human health (recreational fish consumption) ..................................................................................................................... $2–$22

Recreational angling

‘‘Contaminant-free’’ fishery ............................................................................................................................................ $2–$19

Increased participation .................................................................................................................................................. ∂

Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs .......................................................................................................................................... $8–$16

Total Water-related Benefits ............................................................................................................................................. $12–$57

∂ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

This section provides the individual

and combined costs, economic impacts,

and benefits of the proposed and final

CAA and CWA pulp and paper

regulations described in earlier sections.

See Table VIII–7. The costs and benefits

of the CAA (MACT) rules apply to all

155 kraft, soda, sulfite and semichemical mills subject to final or

proposed MACT requirements, while

the costs and benefits for the final CWA

(BAT/PSES) regulations apply to the 96

mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategories.

Using the pre-tax annualized cost

estimates reported in Section VIII.C, net

monetized air-related benefits are

estimated to range between net costs of

$1,165 million to net benefits of $929

million per year for the final MACT I

rule considered in combination with the

pre-tax annualized cost estimates for the

final BAT/PSES. Pre-tax annualized cost

estimates are used as a proxy for the

social costs of the rules. Net benefits of

the proposed regulatory alternative for

MACT II are $270 million to $352

million. Thus, the range of net benefits

(disbenefits) of the final and proposed

air quality standards is ($896) million to

$1,281 million.

EPA did not estimate annual net

benefits for the final BAT/PSES for the

Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories

because so many categories of benefits

are unmonetized that the comparison

would be misleading.

TABLE VIII–7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS, ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS

MACT I MACT II Combined

air rules

Final BAT/

PSES

MACT I and

final BAT/

PSES (96

mills)

MACT I,

MACT II,

and final

BAT/PSES

(96 mills)

MACT I,

MACT II,

and final

BAT/PSES

(155 mills)

Capital Costs ............................................. $501 $258 $759 $1,039 $1,394 $1,524 $1,799

Pre-Tax Annualized Costs * ...................... $125 $32 $157 $263 $351 $366 $420

Monetized Annual Benefits ....................... ($1,040)–

$1,054

$302–$384 ($739)–

$1,438

$12–$57 ($1,028)–

$1,111

NE ($727)–

$1,495

Net Annual Benefits (Benefits-Costs) ....... ($1,165)–

$929

$270–$352 ($896)–

$1,281

NE NE NE NE

Projected Mill Closures ............................. 0 0 1 1 2 3 3

Potential Job Losses (due to mill closures) ..................................................... 0 0 ND ND 900 ND ND

Projected Firm Failures ............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Pre-tax costs are greater than the post-tax annualized costs shown in Tables VIII–1 and VIII–3.

Net costs (where costs exceed benefits) are shown in parentheses.

NE = not estimated.

ND = not disclosed to protect confidentiality.

Figures in table reflect rounding.

I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options

for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Subcategory—Option B and TCF

1. Air Benefits

As noted in Section VIII.F.1, the

oxygen delignification technology used

as a component of Option B and TCF

increases emissions of certain pollutants

and, hence compliance costs to meet

MACT I standards; the implementation

of additional MACT controls, however,

also increases MACT-related removals.

As a result, both MACT I costs and

benefits increase where oxygen

delignification is utilized. (As noted

above, only VOC, PM, and SO2 benefits

are monetized here.) However, because

the MACT I technologies control all of

the increased emissions associated with

oxygen delignification, there is no

increased net benefit of the CWA and

CAA technologies to ambient air

quality. Rather, the net monetized

benefits of MACT I in combination with

Option B or TCF are equivalent to the

monetized benefits of MACT I in

combination with the final BAT/PSES.

Thus, MACT I benefits associated with

reducing VOCs under either Option B or

TCF range from $29 million to $1,050

million. MACT II VOC reduction

benefits range from $2 million to $84

million. Therefore, total monetized VOC

benefits of the air quality standards

under either Option B or TCF are $31

million to $1,134 million. PM related

disbenefits for MACT I are $1 million,

while MACT II PM benefits are $300

million for a total PM benefit of

approximately $299 million, for either

Option B or TCF. SO2 related disbenefits

for MACT I are from $1,043 million

down to $0, while MACT II SO2 benefits

are from $0.1 to $0.3 million.

Total monetized benefits (disbenefits)

for MACT I are ($1,015) million to

$1,049 million under BAT/PSES Option
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18591

B or TCF (see the Economic Analysis,

DCN 14649, Chapter 8). Aggregate

annual benefits attributed to MACT II

range in value from $302 million to

$384 million. Combining the benefits of

the final and proposed air quality

standards yields a range of total annual

air quality benefits (damages) from

($713) million to $1,433 million.

2. Water Benefits

The water quality benefits described

in this section include benefits for

rejected BAT/PSES options for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory in combination with

benefits for the selected BAT/PSES for

the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

(Benefits for the two CWA subcategories

were also combined in Section VIII.G.2

for the selected BAT/PSES.) EPA

estimated the human health benefits

that could be expected if either of the

rejected BAT/PSES options for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory—Option B or TCF—were

implemented. For combined

recreational and (non-Native American)

subsistence angler populations using the

same fish consumption rates EPA used

for the selected BAT/PSES, Option B is

projected to eliminate approximately

0.75 to 2.50 annual cancer cases from

the baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 annual

cancer cases projected to result from the

mills’ discharges at [mid-1995] levels,

leaving a residual of 0.08 to 0.26 excess

cancer cases per year. Here, as in

Section VIII.G.2.b(1), excess cancer

cases refers to cancer cases attributable

solely to pulp and paper dioxin/furan

discharges. This represents a reduction

of 90 percent from baseline. The

monetized value of this reduction is $2

to $23 million. TCF is projected to result

in a reduction from the mid-1995

discharge baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 cases

to 0.0 cases, which increases the

benefits from TCF by $0.1 million to

$2.7 million, compared to Option B.

Because chlorine or chlorinated

compounds are not used for bleaching,

no dioxin formation was attributed to

the mills under this option. Although

some background dioxin cancer risk

would remain that is attributable to

sources other than current pulp and

paper discharges, no residual cancer

risk would remain from bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills.

For Native American subsistence

fishermen, EPA evaluated cancer risks

at baseline and under Option B. To

estimate the maximum potential risk,

EPA assumed that the entire population

of the tribes with treaty-ceded fishing

rights near pulp and paper mills would

consume an average of 70g/person/day

of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. With

this level of consumption, the projected

increased number of cancer cases for

this population at baseline would be

0.14 cancer cases/year. EPA estimates

that this number would decline to 0.007

cancer cases/year if BAT/PSES based on

Option B were promulgated and to 0.0

cases/year if BAT/PSES based on TCF

were promulgated.

Both Option B and TCF would result

in the removal of 19 dioxin/furanrelated fish consumption advisories on

streams downstream from bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills. EPA

estimates that non-dioxin advisories

will remain on three of those streams.

Therefore, here as in Section VIII.G.2.c,

EPA did not monetize the benefits of

removing the dioxin/furan fish

consumption advisories on these

streams. EPA estimates the value to

anglers of the 16 ‘‘contaminant-free’’

fisheries as a result of removing these

advisories to be $2 million to $19

million. EPA also estimates that

recreational fishing would increase on

these 16 streams by an estimated

115,000 angling days to 379,000 angling

days post-compliance. However, the

monetary value of this increase is not

estimated because of the difficulty of

determining the extent to which this

increased participation reflects a net

increase in fishing activity or merely a

shift from other locations. These results

are the same as those presented for the

selected BAT/PSES. Because of dioxin

removals, sludge disposal costs for both

Option B and TCF could be expected to

decline by $8 million to $16 million (see

the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649,

Chapter 8).

With respect to non-cancer human

health benefits, none of the four

pollutants with RfDs is estimated to

exceed a non-cancer hazard quotient of

1.0 under baseline or under conditions

associated with rejected Option B for

recreational, subsistence, or Native

American subsistence anglers. The same

is true for the selected BAT/PSES.

Similarly, Option B would reduce

projected health-based AWQC

exceedances to one facility for one

pollutant (pentachlorophenol). Under

TCF, EPA estimates that there would be

no exceedances of health-based AWQCs.

For dioxin, EPA estimates that Option B

would reduce incremental exposure

from fish consumption to a level that is

not significantly different from ambient

background exposure. Under TCF,

chlorine and chlorinated compounds

are not used for bleaching, and therefore

no dioxin was attributed to mills under

this option.

With respect to aquatic life benefits,

EPA’s modeling results show that, for

the four pollutants exceeding chronic

aquatic life criteria at 19 mills (up to 25

total exceedances), rejected Option B

would reduce these exceedences to one

pollutant (TCDD) at three mills (three

total exceedences). TCF would reduce

these exceedances to zero.

In addition to the benefits of reducing

dioxin in fish, EPA investigated other

potential benefits associated with

Option B and TCF, including color,

COD, AOX, and chronic sub-lethal

toxicity.

Increased color in a receiving water

can decrease light penetration there,

thus resulting in shifts of phytoplankton

community structure to undesirable

species, reduced primary productivity

(which can alter the trophic structure of

fish communities), and elevated

receiving stream temperatures.

However, the actual impact on the

receiving water of reducing color in mill

effluent is highly site-specific and

depends in particular on the natural

color of the receiving water and other

factors. Therefore, the monetized

benefits will also be site-specific, to the

extent that they can be determined at

all. EPA is not promulgating national

technology-based limitations or

standards for color, but rather has

determined that the potential aesthetic

or aquatic impacts are best addressed on

a site-specific basis by the permitting or

pretreatment authority where necessary.

See Section VI.B.3.e. Indeed, EPA notes

that about eight mills currently have

limitations for color in their NPDES

permits, and an additional two mills

have current color monitoring

requirements where stream water

quality requires such measures.

Lowering COD can protect the

receiving water against oxygen

depletion and is likely to reduce nonchlorinated organic compounds that

cause chronic sub-lethal effects on

aquatic life. Evidence indicates that this

toxicity is associated at least in part

with families of non-chlorinated organic

materials. Several studies indicate that,

as wastewater COD is reduced, indices

of these chronic toxicity effects also are

reduced. EPA is deferring regulation of

COD to the individual permitting

process for the time being, although

EPA intends to promulgate effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

COD for Subpart B mills in the future.

See Section VI.B.3.d.

Although a statistically significant

relationship between AOX and adverse

environmental effects has not been

established, EPA believes that reduction

of AOX (a valid measure of the total

chlorinated organic matter) will result

in water quality benefits. See Section

VI.B.3.c. However, these cannot be

quantified at this time.
18592 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Compared to current discharges, the

incremental benefits associated with OD

(Option B) include: reduction of color

(by 40 percent); COD (by 40 percent);

AOX (by 84 percent); and chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity. TCF would also

reduce color discharges (by 40 percent),

COD (by 40 percent), AOX (by 96

percent) and chronic sub-lethal aquatic

toxicity. The water quality benefits of

the rejected options are shown in Table

VIII–8.

TABLE VIII–8.—MONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE

KRAFT AND SODA & PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Benefit category

Option B

(millions

1995$)

TCF

(millions

1995$)

Water-related Benefits

Human health (Recreational fish consumption) $2–$23 $2–$25

Recreational angling

‘‘Contaminant-free’’ fishery ................................................................................................................................ $2–$19 $2–$19

Increased participation ....................................................................................................................................... ∂ ∂

Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs .............................................................................................................................. $8–$16 $8–$16

Total Monetized Water-related Benefits ................................................................................................................ $12–$58 $12–$60

∂ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

Combined annual air and water

benefits related to Option B for all 155

mills regulated by today’s rule,

including final MACT I, proposed

MACT II and BAT/PSES based on

Option B, would total ($701) million to

$1,491 million. Combined annual air

and water benefits related to TCF,

including final MACT I, proposed

MACT II and BAT/PSES based on TCF

would total ($701) million to $1,493

million.

J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case

Studies

Many benefits are highly site-specific.

At proposal, EPA estimated the costs

and benefits of the pulp and paper rule

at three sites using a case study

approach. EPA has expanded the case

study analysis to incorporate additional

sites. The case studies focus on water

quality benefits, resulting from

installation of BAT/PSES technologies,

with air quality benefits modeled for

case study mills as they are at the

national level (see Section VIII.G.1,

above). The three case studies at

proposal were (1) the Penobscot River in

Maine, (2) the Wisconsin River in

central Wisconsin, and (3) the lower

Columbia River in Washington and

Oregon. In addition, a qualitative

retrospective case study was conducted

of the Leaf River in Mississippi. These

case studies were selected to provide

geographic representation of the impacts

of the proposed rule, taking data

availability into consideration.

For the final rule, the three

quantitative case studies were updated

to reflect EPA’s revised analysis of costs,

loadings, and human health risks to

sport anglers. In consideration of

environmental justice, EPA also

evaluated health risks to Native

American anglers in the Penobscot and

Columbia River case study areas.

The four new case studies of

monetized benefits analyze: (4) the

Lower Tombigbee and Mobile River

watersheds in Alabama, (5) the Pigeon

River in North Carolina, (6) the Samoa

Peninsula in California, and (7) the

upper Columbia River in Washington

State and British Columbia, Canada.

These new case studies provide EPA

with the first real empirical evidence of

already-realized benefits that can be

expected from adoption of the final

BAT/PSES limits. Although a portion of

the water-related benefits estimates in

these newer case studies are based on

actual outcomes from installing

pollution control equipment (i.e., a

retrospective analysis), estimates of the

benefits of MACT standards in these

case studies are prospective, based on

expected future benefits.

The case studies compare costs and

benefits at specific bleached papergrade

kraft and soda mills in these seven areas

across the country, some of which have

not installed technologies comparable to

the bases for BAT/PSES and some of

which have installed such technologies,

thereby allowing the retrospective

assessment of BAT/PSES costs and

benefits. Where mills have installed

BAT-like technologies, capital

investments may include: 70 percent to

100 percent substitution; oxygen

delignification plus 100 percent

substitution; and/or totally chlorine-free

technologies.

EPA evaluated control cost estimates

and air benefits for emission controls

necessary to meet the MACT I and II

standards on a prospective basis,

assuming the level of controls currently

existing at mills in the case study areas

as a baseline.

As with the national-level analysis,

significant water-related benefits are

derived from removal of dioxin/furan

from fish, and air-related benefits from

improved agriculture and health from

reduced ozone emissions. However, the

case studies also address a wider range

of water-related benefits, including

some site-specific recreational benefits

such as surfing, boating, white water

rafting, non-consumptive uses and nonuse benefits that result from improved

color in the receiving water, improved

odor and removal of health advisories.

The case studies provide a more

complete picture of the range of waterrelated benefits that may be expected

from the rule, although a number of

identifiable benefits, including

improvements in ecological conditions

and reductions of non-cancer health

effects remain unquantified and

unmonetized.

Benefits and costs for the case studies

are summarized and compared in Table

VIII–9. The monetized benefits range

from two percent to 387 percent of BAT/

PSES compliance costs. The case study

results indicate that monetized benefits

may be of the same order of magnitude

as costs at individual sites.

From a water quality perspective, the

case studies provide a cross-section of

mills and receiving waters nationwide,

including fast- and slow-moving

streams, lakes and ocean waters.

Using receiving water and population

characteristics, EPA attributed benefits

from the case study sites to all bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite mills. As a sensitivity

analysis, EPA used the water quality

benefits from the case studies to

estimate the national level water quality

benefits of the integrated final and

proposed rule for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. Based

on the case studies, monetized benefits

from the water rules (Option A) would

be expected to range from $91 million

to $451 million per year, or from 35
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18593

percent to 170 percent of water-related

costs.

The case studies were not selected to

be, and are not necessarily,

representative of national benefits with

respect to air quality.

TABLE VIII–9.—COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL ANNUAL BENEFITS TO POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SEVEN CASE

STUDY SITES

[Millions of 1995 dollars]

Site Water-related

benefits

Air-related benefits b

Total monetized

benefits

Total compliance costs a

MACT I MACT II

ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES

Penobscot River ......................................................... $0.7–$2.3 ($9.5)–7.7 $0.1 ($8.7)–10.1 (c)

Wisconsin River .......................................................... $0.1–$1.5 ($16.9)–15.6 $2.1 ($14.7)–19.2 $9.3

Lower Columbia River ................................................ $1.5–$8.6 ($26.9)–56.2 $0.7 ($24.7)–65.5 $16.6

NEWER CASE STUDIES

Lower Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers ......................... $1.1–$12.0 ($136.8)–113.2 $81.7 ($54.0)–$206.9 $32.5

Pigeon River ............................................................... $2.7–$8.7 ($5.8)–$5.7 $2.1 ($1.0)–$16.5 c $7.1

Samoa Peninsula ........................................................ $0.1–$1.4 ($5.0)–10.1 $0.0 ($4.9)–$11.5 d $5.0

Upper Columbia River/Lake Roosevelt ...................... $1.5–$11.6 NA NA $1.5–$11.6 $3.0

aThe total compliance costs shown in this Table (for BAT/PSES, MACT I and proposed MACT II Option #1) differ from compliance costs used

to determine economic achievability. The cost estimates for the case studies were based on custom analysis of technology in-place corresponding to the case study timeframes. In contrast, estimates used to determine economic achievability used a standard mid-1995 baseline for technology in-place bBased on implementation of technologies consistent with Option A.

c Confidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this site.

dThis mill has indicated EPA’s cost estimate is too high because EPA did not fully account for technology in-place.

NA = Not applicable.

IX. Incentives for Further

Environmental Improvements

A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program

1. Introduction

EPA is promulgating BAT limitations

today that will achieve significant

pollutant reductions using technologies

within the economic capability of the

subcategory as a whole. At the same

time, EPA wants to encourage the

widespread use and perfection of

technologies such as extended

delignification and to promote the

development of even more advanced

technologies, such as those aimed at

reducing bleach plant flow. EPA also

wants to encourage the widespread use

and perfection of TCF processes. These

technologies and processes have the

ability to surpass the environmental

protection that would be provided by

compliance with the baseline BAT.

Indeed, EPA’s vision of long-term

environmental goals for the pulp and

paper industry includes continuing

research and progress toward such

environmental improvement. The

Agency believes that individual mills

can be encouraged to make substantial

environmental progress beyond the base

level compelled by law. This industry’s

participation in the 33/50 program, its

progress toward reducing toxic

discharges in advance of the proposed

BAT revisions, its joint initiative with

the U.S. Department of Energy to reduce

future energy demands, and its

development and implementation of the

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among

other voluntary environmental

undertakings, indicate that an

incentives program may be widely

accepted and utilized by individual

mills.

For this reason, EPA is establishing a

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program to encourage mills

in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory to move beyond

today’s baseline BAT technologies

toward the ‘‘mill of the future,’’ which

EPA believes will have a minimum

impact on the environment. EPA also

intends the program to serve as a pilot

program for determining the

effectiveness of regulatory incentives as

a means of stimulating development of

environmentally beneficial

technologies. As a result of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, EPA hopes to

achieve within sixteen years greater

pollutant reductions than it could

achieve solely by establishing a

technological floor. Indeed, the

development of increasingly more

advanced bleach plant process

technologies is a critical step toward the

Clean Water Act’s ultimate goal of

eliminating the discharge of pollutants

into the Nation’s waters. See CWA

Section 101(a)(1).

The BAT program under the Clean

Water Act is widely and justifiably

applauded as a critical tool in forcing

the development and installation of

environmentally beneficial

technologies. The statute demands

progress toward the goal of eliminating

the discharge of all pollutants, CWA

Section 301(b)(2)(A), but emphasizes

that that progress must be ‘‘reasonable.’’

Id. This Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program marries

the twin objectives embodied in Section

301(b)(2)(A): compelling the industry to

go as far as it reasonably can go, through

the achievement of limits that are

technically and economically

achievable, while holding out through

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program an array of

alternative effluent limits that EPA

believes will lead to zero discharge. The

baseline BAT limitations discharge

EPA’s statutory mandate: to promulgate

limitations based on the best available

technology economically achievable.

The Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, in turn, promotes

EPA’s statutory goal: to establish

limitations that act as a beacon to show

what is possible.

EPA is codifying three tiers of

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

effluent limitations and two tiers of

Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS,

which together form the backbone of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program for mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory. The three BAT tiers are
18594 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

labeled Tier I, Tier II and Tier III; the

two NSPS tiers are labeled Tier II and

Tier III. Tier III is the most stringent of

the tiers. Each BAT tier is made up of

an array of increasingly more stringent

enforceable effluent limitations,

culminating in the ultimate performance

requirements for that particular tier. The

NSPS tiers consist entirely of the

ultimate performance requirements for

each tier. In addition to the Voluntary

Advanced Technology effluent

limitations and NSPS codified today,

EPA has also assembled a number of

incentives relating to permitting and

enforcement matters and public

recognition. EPA hopes these incentives

will encourage many mills to develop

and install advanced and even

innovative technologies that will lead

the industry as a whole toward the

elimination of pollutant discharges.

EPA believes it is appropriate as a

matter of policy to offer mills incentives

to reach beyond the baseline BAT and

NSPS process technologies. Capital

costs associated with the Tier I

technology are substantially greater than

the capital costs of Option A, which is

the technology basis for the baseline

BAT limits. Although over ten years a

mill employing Tier I technologies will

likely save money in operating costs, the

capital outlay involved may discourage

mills from doing more than the

regulatory minimum. For Tiers II and

III, the costs and risks are even more

acute, when one considers the cost of

research, development, and full scale

commercial trials of technologies in the

early stages of development and

implementation, as well as the

associated uncertainties concerning

possible product impacts. EPA is

interested in encouraging research,

development and installation of

emerging technologies in order to

motivate the development of these

technologies for broader commercial

applications. As these technologies

become proven and their efficiencies

publicized, EPA hopes that they will

become—in effect if not as a matter of

law—the industry floor. Thus, EPA

believes it is in the public interest to

encourage mills today to develop

environmentally beneficial technology

and to reward mills that are innovative

and forward-looking in their use of new

and more environmentally effective

technology despite its greater cost.

EPA received suggestions for an

incentives program from a number of

stakeholders. From these and other

stakeholder suggestions, EPA has

developed a program, presented below,

that is intended to provide incentives

for further long term environmental

improvements. EPA is incorporating

several types of incentives in this

program. In addition, because millspecific factors, including product

specifications and existing equipment,

will affect the technical approach taken

and the environmental goal attainable

by an individual mill, EPA is

establishing several tiers of Advanced

Technology performance objectives,

each with limitations and standards

specific to the model technology EPA is

positing. In order to promote ambitious

use of Advanced Technologies, EPA is

offering greater incentives for greater

reductions in pollutant discharge.

EPA recognizes that some mills in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory have already installed or

have committed to install Advanced

Technologies that are achieving or have

the potential to achieve effluent

limitations equivalent to the ultimate

performance requirements of one or

more of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentive Tiers. If these

mills accept enforceable NPDES permit

limitations at one of the Tier levels, they

will qualify for the incentives program

at that level. In some instances,

therefore, the incentives will actually

serve as rewards for effluent reductions

already achieved.

2. Mechanics of the Incentives Program

The Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program for the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory

will supplement the otherwise

compulsory baseline BAT and NSPS

program. EPA emphasizes that the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program is entirely

voluntary; no mill in Subpart B is

required to participate. Rather, mills

subject to the baseline BAT limits and

NSPS contained in Subpart B may

enroll in the incentives program and

thus subject themselves to more

stringent technology-based limitations

corresponding to the Incentives Tier

they select. For example, a mill that

determines that it can achieve Tier II

limits may designate itself as a BAT Tier

II mill. A mill with more than one fiber

line subject to Subpart B may choose to

enroll all or some of its fiber lines in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. A mill wishing to

experiment with advanced or even

innovative bleaching technologies also

may choose different Tiers for different

fiber lines. After the mill enrolls in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, the permit writer

must place the corresponding BAT

limitations in the mill’s permit.

Achievement of the Advanced

Technology BAT limitations thereafter

would be compulsory for that mill. A

mill that chooses not to participate in

the program will receive the baseline

BAT limitations or NSPS; similarly, a

mill that chooses to enroll some but not

all of its Subpart B fiber lines in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program will receive baseline

BAT limitations or NSPS for its nonparticipating fiber lines.

EPA expects that an interested mill

would formally enroll in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program prior to issuance of its next

NPDES discharge permit. Enrollment

can be made by indicating the mill’s

intent on its permit application or

through separate correspondence to the

permitting authority as long as the

signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22

are met. However, as discussed in more

detail in Section IX.A.7 below, EPA

assumes that most mills, for practical

purposes, will decide whether to

participate in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program in the

next year in order to assure that they

will have the maximum amount of time

to achieve the various Tier limitations

and to receive the additional

compliance time for MACT, established

under these rules for mills enrolled in

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. Any mill can

voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate

to its individual circumstances. Further,

mills that enter either at Tier I or Tier

II may decide, after making such a

commitment in permits but before

termination of the appropriate

compliance period (i.e., not later than

six years after publication of these

rules—Tier I, or not later than 11 years

after publication of these rules—Tier II),

to commit to the requirements of a more

stringent tier (i.e., Tier II or Tier III).

Such mills will be subject to the

deadlines specified in the regulation for

the newly chosen tier.

Existing dischargers volunteering to

participate in the incentives program

would receive BAT limitations that

become progressively more stringent

over time. Although applied in stages,

the limitations represent a continuum of

progress that a participating mill

commits, and is required, to achieve. At

the first stage in the continuum are

limitations for the enrolled fiber line

that reflect either a mill’s existing

effluent quality or its current

technology-based permit limits for the

BAT parameters, whichever are more

stringent. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). For

the bleach plant parameters, such as

dioxin, existing effluent quality would

be determined at the bleach plant, while

existing effluent quality for AOX would

be determined at the end of the pipe

based on loadings attributable to that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18595

fiber line. Id. The next stage in the

continuum consists of enforceable

interim milestones. Under one set of

milestones, existing dischargers

enrolled in Tiers II or III are required to

meet interim BAT limitations equivalent

to the baseline BAT limitations by April

15, 2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (By that

date, dischargers enrolled are required

to meet the baseline BAT limitations for

all pollutants, except for Tier I; the AOX

limitation for mills enrolled in Tier I is

the ultimate performance requirement

for Tier I. Id.) Under the second set of

milestones, existing dischargers

enrolled in any tier are required to meet

enforceable requirements determined by

the permitting authority based on best

professional judgment; these milestones

would be expressed as narrative or

numeric conditions in the mill’s NPDES

permit. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). EPA

intends the milestones to reflect each

step in a mill’s progress toward

achievement of the Tier’s ultimate

performance requirements. Elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register, EPA is

proposing to require each participating

mill to submit to its permitting authority

a plan detailing the steps it plans to take

(with corresponding dates) in order to

meet its applicable BAT Tier

limitations. Under the proposed

regulation, permit writers would be

authorized to use the information in the

milestone plan as a basis for setting

milestone limitations. The final stage in

the BAT continuum represents the

ultimate Advanced Technology

performance levels for the Tier selected.

40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). As noted above,

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program is also available for

new sources that elect to exceed

baseline NSPS requirements. See 40

CFR 430.25(c). For new sources (as

defined at 430.01(j)), the incentives

program begins at Tier II. The ultimate

Tier II and Tier III performance

requirements constitute NSPS for such

mills, with the addition of standards for

conventional pollutants at the baseline

NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1) and

(2). The NSPS Tier II and Tier III

performance requirements are the same

as the ultimate BAT Tier II and Tier III

performance requirements for BAT. As

required by CWA Section 306, new

sources must comply with the

applicable NSPS upon commencing

operation; therefore, the incremental

approach of achieving progressively

more stringent performance levels

discussed above for existing sources

would not apply to new sources

enrolled in the incentives program.

In addition to Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations and NSPS,

the NPDES permit of a mill enrolled in

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program will need to contain

all other permit limitations and

conditions otherwise applicable to the

mill, including any conventional

pollutant limitations and standards, any

water quality-based effluent limitations

required under CWA Section

301(b)(1)(C), and best management

practices provisions, including those

promulgated today. Schedules for

complying with those requirements, if

any, are determined by the applicable

law; nothing in this incentives program

alters in any way those compliance

deadlines.

Because mills enrolling in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program are subject to more

stringent BAT limitations and NSPS

than EPA could otherwise compel

through national effluent limitations

guidelines, EPA has assembled a

package of rewards and incentives for

participating mills. The public

recognition incentive is available as

soon as a mill accepts Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

in its NPDES permit. The reduced

monitoring incentive applicable to

dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants is

available as soon as participating mills

achieve those limitations. See 40 CFR

430.02(c). The reduced monitoring

incentive applicable to AOX is available

only after the ultimate Advanced

Technology performance level for that

pollutant is achieved. See 40 CFR

430.02(d) and (e). The remaining

incentives, including greater permit

certainty, reduced inspections, and

reduced penalties, are available only

after the mill achieves all of the ultimate

Advanced Technology performance

levels.

EPA has decided not to make the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program available to indirect

discharges at this time because it would

be much more difficult to administer

than the baseline PSES program and

therefore would impose substantial

burden on local governments. Further,

EPA does not believe that commitments

by indirect dischargers to reduce AOX

or flow levels warrants any delay in

compliance with limitations on dioxin

and furan due to POTW pass-through

and biosolids contamination concerns.

Similarly, EPA has not identified

feasible technologies beyond BAT that

can significantly reduce pollutant

discharges from mills in the Papergrade

Sulfite subcategory at this time, and so

is not able to develop an incentives

program for this subcategory. Moreover,

stakeholders have offered no specific

suggestions or supporting information

and data upon which EPA reasonably

could develop a program for the

Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

However, EPA will consider developing

incentive programs for other

subcategories as BAT limitations are

promulgated for those subcategories.

3. The Technology Bases for the

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

Limitations and NSPS

In order to determine the appropriate

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations and NSPS, EPA first selected

a model technology for each Tier. For

Tier I, which applies only to BAT, EPA

determined that the most appropriate

technology was extended delignification

with complete substitution of chlorine

dioxide for elemental chlorine, closing

up wastewater discharges from the fiber

line prior to bleaching, and efficient

biological wastewater treatment. EPA

selected this technology basis because it

is available today (see discussion of

BAT Option B and NSPS technology in

Section VI.B.5.(a) and (b)), because it is

economically achievable for mills

voluntarily choosing to implement it

(see Section IX.A.6), and because it

represents an important step in the

direction of a minimum impact mill.

The model technology for Tier II

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations and NSPS consists of

extended delignification with complete

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine, supplemented with

increased use of water conservation

practices, water reuse practices, bleach

plant filtrate recycling practices, and

efficient biological wastewater

treatment. EPA anticipates that Tier II

mills will maximize the capability of

extended delignification technology,

thereby reducing the amount of chlorine

dioxide used in bleaching. The model

Tier II mill also will have highly

effective pulping liquor spill prevention

and control and will have evaporators

that minimize the amount of black

liquor carryover, to allow for extensive

condensate reuse. EPA expects that Tier

II mills also will employ a closed fiber

line prior to bleaching improved water

reuse within the bleach plant, and will

recycle a portion of bleach plant filtrate

back through the fiber line to the

recovery cycle. The Tier II Advanced

Technology BAT limitations and NSPS

represent the performance demonstrated

by mills that minimize effluent flow and

reduce the formation of chlorinated

organic compounds using these

technologies and practices. Three mills

in the United States are approaching the

reduced wastewater flow levels

equivalent to Tier II, which leads EPA
18596 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

to conclude that flow reduction

technologies are emerging. Although the

flow volume projected or reported by

these mills excludes pulping area or

evaporator condensates, which EPA

includes within its Tier II flow

limitation, EPA expects that over the

next ten or eleven years condensate

reuse strategies and discharge flow

reduction technologies will mature to

allow mills to achieve the pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate and

bleach plant wastewater flow level

being codified today as part of Tier II.

For further discussion of EPA’s rationale

for selecting this technology as the basis

for Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier II

level, see Section IX.A.6.

The model technology for the Tier III

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations and NSPS represents what

EPA believes can be achieved in 15 or

16 years by mills on the cutting edge of

minimum effluent technology. In EPA’s

view, such mills will fully reuse

pulping area and evaporator system

condensates, have a closed fiber line

prior to bleaching, and recycle the

majority of bleach plant filtrates back to

the recovery cycle. EPA expects that

these mills will also operate efficient

biological treatment systems. To achieve

this degree of mill closure, in addition

to the level of technology described

under Tier II, EPA expects the model

Tier III mill will have ‘‘kidney’’

technology to remove metals from

bleach filtrate and chloride from the

mill liquor cycle, and may perform

extensive steam stripping or other

treatment of condensates to allow for

full reuse. Mills that choose to use

ozone delignification may avoid the

need for a chloride removal system. EPA

also expects that the Tier III mills will

have advanced process control systems

and negligible losses of black liquor

through leaks and spills. Finally, the

model Tier III mill will likely have

extended liquid storage capacity as part

of its water recycle and liquor

management systems to help maintain

the good hydraulic balance required for

low discharge flow operation. While no

U.S. mill today is achieving these

limitations, EPA believes that the

continuing progress being made by mills

toward closed-loop processing will lead

to greater innovation regarding

technologies and practices necessary to

achieve the Tier III limitations. For

further discussion of EPA’s rationale for

selecting this technology as the basis for

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations and NSPS at the Tier III

level, see Section IX.A.6. For a more

detailed discussion of the technology

bases for the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS,

see Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program Technical Support

Document (DCN 14488).

4. Pollutants Regulated by Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT and NSPS

Limitations

Except for TCF-based processes, each

Advanced Technology tier consists of

limitations for dioxin, furan,

chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants monitored at the bleach

plant. EPA is not codifying limits for

these pollutants for TCF processes. As

discussed in more detail below, each

Tier also includes AOX limitations

monitored at the end of the pipe and,

depending on the Tier, limitations on

lignin content or wastewater flow. In

addition, each BAT Tier includes

limitations on pentachlorophenol and

trichlorophenol (when used as

biocides), see 40 CFR 430.24(d), and

each NSPS Tier includes limitations on

BOD5, TSS and pH, as well as biocides.

See 40 CFR 430.25(c) and (d).

EPA has chosen to use AOX as a

performance standard for each of the

three Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT tiers because AOX is a measure of

progress in reducing the total

chlorinated organic matter in

wastewaters resulting from the

bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use

of AOX rather than other measures of

organic matter (e.g., BOD5) will further

encourage a pollution prevention

approach instead of end-of-pipe

treatment technologies. The final rule

establishes minimum monitoring

frequencies for AOX for each of the

Tiers, except for TCF fiber lines. See 40

CFR 430.02(d) and (e). For TCF fiber

lines, permit writers should determine

the appropriate monitoring frequency to

assure continued compliance with the

AOX limitation.

In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA

is establishing BAT limitations

requirements for Tier I that include

kappa numbers measured prior to

bleaching and a narrative limitation

calling for recycling of all filtrates

generated prior to the point at which

that kappa number is measured. See 40

CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). The kappa number

is a measure of lignin content in

unbleached pulp, and is routinely

determined by mills. EPA is not

establishing minimum monitoring

requirements for kappa numbers in this

regulation. Permit writers maintain the

authority to establish monitoring

frequencies on a best professional

judgment basis.

By meeting the kappa number

limitations, Tier I mills will achieve

substantial reductions in precursors for

chlorinated organic pollutants found in

lignin beyond reductions achieved by

mills with conventional pulping

processes. See DCN 14488. Some

industry commenters suggested that

EPA simply specify qualifying

Advanced Technologies and require

participating mills to employ one or

more of those technologies in order to

receive incentives. EPA rejected this

approach because it would inhibit

development of equivalent technologies

that EPA cannot foresee today and is

inconsistent with the traditional

performance-based structure of

technology-based effluent limitations

under the Clean Water Act.

Nevertheless, EPA agrees with these

commenters that Tier I mills will in all

likelihood employ extended

delignification technologies or other

technologies that similarly reduce the

kappa number prior to bleaching; EPA,

therefore, is requiring Tier I mills to

achieve specified kappa numbers that

reflect the performance capabilities of

well-operated, extended delignification

systems. In addition, EPA’s Tier I limits

reflect EPA’s expectation that Tier I

mills will be bleaching pulps with less

lignin and, hence, will realize

significant reductions in the amount of

unrecoverable bleaching chemicals

required to achieve their target

brightness. By using less bleaching

chemical, Tier I mills will further

reduce the formation and discharge of

chlorinated organic pollutants generated

by bleaching pulps with chlorinecontaining compounds, including

chlorine dioxide. By recycling the

pulping area filtrates, Tier I mills also

will be implementing an important

building block for long-term flow

reduction goals, and eliminating an

important source of weak black liquor

discharge that would otherwise go to the

mill’s wastewater treatment plant. See

DCN 14488.

By defining Tier I with parameter

values (AOX, kappa numbers) and

recycle requirements as presented

above, EPA intends to provide

maximum encouragement to as many

mills as possible to achieve the

performance of at least the initial

threshold of the Advanced Technology

program. Adopting threshold

performance criteria that are too

stringent could discourage mills from

making additional capital investments

beyond those necessary to achieve the

baseline BAT. This could undermine

one goal of the incentives program,

which is to achieve the greatest

environmental results possible

consistent with mills’ capital
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18597

investment cycles. Conversely, setting

threshold criteria at levels that could be

met by some mills that comply only

with the baseline BAT limitations and

that do not employ Advanced

Technologies could serve as a

disincentive to invest in Advanced

Technologies that achieve dramatic

reductions in pollutant loadings and

flow. The kappa numbers defined above

for Tier I, while at the upper end of the

range of values achieved by extended

delignification technologies,

nonetheless appear to separate mills

that employ them from mills that would

use conventional pulping technologies

to achieve the BAT limitations. See DCN

14488.

EPA is setting the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based

on a different philosophy than for Tier

I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III

should reflect a movement toward the

long-term goal of minimizing impacts of

mills in all environmental media

through partially or fully closed loop

processes. For Tier II, EPA is setting an

AOX limit based on a long-term average

(0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being

achieved by some of the best mills in

the industry. See DCN 14488. See 40

CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). For

Tier III, EPA is setting an AOX limit

based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/

kkg) that is being achieved by only a

very few mills, including one ECF mill.

SeDCN 14488. Id. This ECF mill

achieved the AOX limit only with

hardwood furnish; moreover, it did so

without the level of flow reduction

anticipated for Tier III. See DCN 14488.

It is the Agency’s judgment, based on

trends in ECF technology development

to date, that with recycle of pulping and

evaporator condensates and bleach

plant filtrates necessary to achieve a

wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg, and

removal of chlorides from the liquor

cycle, commensurate reductions in the

mass of chlorinated organic pollutants

contained in wastewaters discharged

also are likely to occur. For this reason,

it is EPA’s judgment that the Tier III

AOX limit will be achievable by

advanced ECF mills for both hardwood

and softwood furnishes as well as

advanced TCF mills.

The Tier II and Tier III BAT

limitations and NSPS also include

restrictions on wastewater flow and a

requirement that all pulping-area

filtrates be recycled to chemical

recovery prior to bleaching. See 40 CFR

430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). As

discussed above for Tier I, the filtrates

recycle requirement is an important step

toward long-term flow reduction. Flow

reduction and progress toward closed

loop mill operations, in turn, are very

important long-term environmental

goals because pollutant releases to all

environmental media would be

minimized.

While mills currently measure end-ofpipe flow at the point of permitted

discharges, Tier II and Tier III mills will

be required to establish and maintain

flow measurement equipment to verify

compliance with the annual average

reduced flow limits for those tiers for

bleach plant and pulping area and

evaporator condensates. EPA is not

establishing minimum monitoring

frequencies for flow in this regulation.

Permit writers maintain the authority to

establish monitoring frequencies on a

best professional judgment basis. See 40

CFR 430.02.

Review of currently available data and

literature indicates that the numerical

values for flow set forth to define Tiers

II (10 m3/kkg) and III (5 m3/kkg) are

appropriately stringent reduced flow

targets by comparison to current

wastewater flow for mills with extended

delignification technologies. See DCN

14488. EPA believes it is appropriate to

include condensates as part of the

specified wastewater flow volume

because technologies are available today

that allow for their recycle and reuse;

use of these technologies therefore

ensures that the cumulative volume of

wastewater flow is reduced to the

greatest extent possible. See DCN 14488.

One technology in particular is the

‘‘clean condensate alternative,’’ which is

a viable MACT compliance alternative.

See 40 CFR 63.447. This alternative

facilitates the segregation, treatment,

and reuse of condensates and thus will

assist mills in achieving the wastewater

flow objectives. Inclusion of pulping

and evaporator condensates in these

reduced flow targets therefore is

consistent with the ‘‘clean condensate’’

MACT compliance alternative and will

promote flow reduction through recycle

and reuse of the greatest possible

volume of process wastewater.

EPA has the legal authority to

establish Advanced Technology effluent

limitations for non-chemical

parameters, such as lignin content

measurements and flow, and to do so

where appropriate in narrative form. For

Tier I, these limitations take the form of

kappa numbers to measure lignin

content in unbleached pulp and a

narrative requirement to recycle pulping

area filtrates; for Tiers II and III, they

take the form of numerical limitations

on process wastewater flows, as well as

the narrative requirement to recycle

pulping area filtrates. EPA has the

authority to establish limits for lignin

content in unbleached pulp, for recycle

of filtrates, and for reduced process

wastewater flows because each of these

parameters functions as a restriction on

the quantities, rates or concentrations of

chlorinated organic pollutants and other

pollutants in a mill’s wastestream. See

CWA Section 502(11). Restrictions on

lignin content of unbleached pulp,

measured as a kappa number, can be

used to reduce the presence of

precursors for chlorinated organic

pollutants in a mill’s wastewater. In

addition, lignin itself is a material that

includes polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons; a number of polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons are included in

EPA’s list of priority pollutants. See

Appendix A to Part 403 (reprinted after

40 CFR 423.17). Recycling pulping area

filtrates to the chemical recovery cycle

prevents the discharge of weak black

liquor, which includes inorganic

pulping chemicals and dissolved wood

substances. The dissolved wood

substances include polynuclear

aromatic materials, degraded

carbohydrates, low-molecular weight

organic acids, and wood extractives

(resins and fatty acids). The toxicity of

the materials contained in black liquor

is well documented; see the BMP

Technical Support Document (DCN

14489). Limits for process wastewater

flow, in this case pertaining to total

pulping area and evaporator condensate

and bleach plant wastewater, move

mills toward closed loop operations.

Reductions in flow will have the effect

of dramatically reducing mass

loadings—and discharges—of nonchlorinated organics such as lignin and

a variety of chlorinated organics in

addition to dioxin, furan and the

chlorinated phenolic pollutants

specifically regulated today. Because

those pollutants are far too numerous to

measure individually (and some have

not been specifically isolated and

identified), EPA determined that it was

impracticable to set mass-based limits

for all of those pollutants. See DCN

14488. EPA judged that establishing

flow levels for Tiers II and III would be

the best way to control the discharge of

these pollutants.

For the foregoing reasons, all of these

Advanced Technology performance

objectives qualify as effluent limitations

under CWA section 502(11). As noted

above, the filtrates recycle limitation is

a narrative limitation. Nothing in the

definition of effluent limitation in CWA

section 502(11) or elsewhere in the

CWA compels that restrictions on the

discharge of pollutants be expressed in

numeric form. See NRDC v. Costle, 568

F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In this

instance, EPA determined that the
18598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

restriction on filtrates (and hence the

prevention of discharge of toxic

materials) could not be expressed as a

numeric limitation and therefore

expressed that restriction in narrative

form instead.

For further discussion of the effluent

reductions and environmental benefits

associated with the Advanced

Technology BAT limitations and

standards promulgated for these

parameters, see DCN 14488.

5. Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT Limitations and NSPS

The Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT limitations consist of three

separate components, which together

comprise BAT for the particular Tier.

See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first and

third components consist of numeric

effluent limitations for the pollutants

regulated by the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. The

second component consists of

enforceable interim milestones. Under

one set of milestones, existing

dischargers enrolled in Tiers II or III are

required to meet interim BAT

limitations equivalent to the baseline

BAT limitations by April 15, 2004.

Under the second set of milestones,

existing dischargers enrolled in any tier

are required to meet enforceable

requirements that are developed on a

best professional judgment basis by the

permitting authority; these milestones

are expressed in either narrative or

numeric form. Taken together, these

three components constitute reasonable

further progress toward the national

goal of eliminating the discharge of all

pollutants and for this reason represent

BAT.

The Voluntary Advanced Technology

NSPS consist of only one stage—the

ultimate performance objectives for the

Tier in question, with the addition of

conventional limitations at the baseline

NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). This

is because new sources, unlike existing

sources subject to BAT, must design and

construct their facilities to achieve

NSPS upon commencing operation;

sequencing limitations to achieve

continuing progress would be

inconsistent with this statutory

mandate.

a. ‘‘Stage 1’’ BAT Limitations. In the

regulation, EPA has codified the first set

of numeric BAT effluent limitations as

‘‘stage 1’’ limitations to be applied in

the absence of more stringent WQBELs.

See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). Although

expressed in this regulation in narrative

form, EPA intends that the permitting

authority will express that limitation in

numeric form for each participating mill

on a case-by-case basis. The ‘‘stage 1’’

limitations thus will be numeric values

on dioxin, furan, chloroform, AOX, and

12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants that,

for each pollutant, are equivalent to the

more stringent of either the technologybased limit on that pollutant in the

mill’s last permit or the mill’s current

effluent quality with respect to that

pollutant. Id. Existing effluent quality

for AOX would be determined at the

end of the pipe based on loadings

attributable to that fiber line; for all

other pollutants covered by the

Advanced Technology BAT limitations,

such as dioxin, existing effluent quality

would be determined at the point where

the wastewater containing those

pollutants leaves the bleach plant. Id.

These ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT limits represent

the first step in the Advanced

Technology BAT continuum and are

enforceable against the participating

mill as soon as they are placed in the

mill’s NPDES permit.

The purpose of the ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT

limits is to ensure that, at a minimum,

existing effluent quality is maintained

while the mill moves toward achieving

the ultimate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT performance

requirements for the Tier selected by the

mill. As Advanced Technology permits

are reissued for Tier II or Tier III mills,

in particular, new ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations

must be established to reflect the

improving effluent quality of that mill.

Id. Allowing a mill to degrade its

effluent quality during development and

installation of Advanced Technologies

would be inconsistent with the statute’s

direction that BAT limitations achieve

reasonable further progress toward the

Clean Water Act’s national goals. EPA’s

‘‘stage 1’’ limitations, thus, are intended

to capture continuously improving

effluent quality.

EPA had considered, but rejected,

attempting to codify the ‘‘stage 1’’ limits

in numeric form. First, EPA has no way

on this record to quantify and hence

codify the existing effluent quality of

each mill that is potentially eligible to

participate in this program. Nor would

such an attempt be wise, because EPA

expects that mills considering

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program will

continue to improve their effluent

quality up to and beyond the

promulgation date of this regulation

and, most likely, up to and beyond the

dates that their existing effluent quality

is translated into enforceable permit

limits. Therefore, even if EPA could

codify such ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations today,

doing so would likely establish a less

stringent technological floor than the

permitting authority would be able to

establish each time an Advanced

Technology permit is issued prior to

achievement of the ultimate Advanced

Technology performance requirements.

Because the ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations

reflect a level of technology that the mill

is already employing or that was

previously determined to be BAT for

that mill, EPA has determined that the

technology bases for the ‘‘stage 1’’ limits

are both technically available and

economically achievable. EPA has also

determined that they would not impose

any adverse non-water quality

environmental impacts. EPA has

determined that these ‘‘stage 1’’

limitations are the ‘‘best’’ available

technology economically achievable for

mills participating in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program because they allow those mills

to focus their resources on the research,

development, testing, and installation of

the technologies ultimately needed to

achieve the Advanced Technology

performance levels. Thus, ‘‘stage 1’’

limitations reflect ‘‘reasonable further

progress toward the national goal of

eliminating the discharge of all

pollutants,’’ as called for by CWA

section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA also

considered all of the other statutory

factors specified in CWA section

304(b)(2)(B) and concluded that nothing

in EPA’s analysis of those factors

justifies selecting a different set of

‘‘stage 1’’ BAT limitations. For these

reasons, EPA determined that the ‘‘stage

1’’ BAT limitations promulgated today

represent the appropriate first rung of

the Advanced Technology BAT ladder

that participating mills will have

committed to ascend.

EPA did not set ‘‘stage 1’’ limits at the

baseline BAT level because baseline

BAT limits are not a logical first step to

meeting the ultimate Advanced

Technology BAT limitations for the

reasons set forth below. See DCN 14488.

First, as a technical matter, mills subject

to such interim limits most likely would

need to install more chlorine dioxide

generator capacity than they ultimately

would use to achieve the Advanced

Technology performance requirements.

(EPA believes most Advanced

Technology mills ultimately will

employ complete substitution of

chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,

preceded by extended delignification

processes—a sequence that calls for

approximately 30 to 75 percent less

chlorine dioxide than a mill would use

to achieve the baseline BAT

requirements depending on the degree

of extended delignification used.)

Second, as an economic matter, interim

limitations driving a mill to over-design

its chlorine dioxide generator would

cause the mill to divert capital away
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18599

from the processes needed to achieve

the ultimate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations. That

diversion of resources undercuts one of

EPA’s principal assumptions regarding

the economic achievability of the

ultimate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations: that mills

would be able to focus their capital and

other resources entirely on those

superior performance levels. Thus, EPA

was concerned that by compelling

achievement of baseline BAT

limitations as ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations, EPA

would unnecessarily inflate the overall

cost of achieving the ultimate Advanced

Technology limitations. This would

likely cause some mills to conclude that

they cannot sustain the overall costs of

achieving the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations in an

economically achievable manner. Other

mills, in turn, might decide to absorb

the additional costs by diverting

resources from other environmentally

beneficial projects that they might have

voluntarily undertaken. The Clean

Water Act authorizes EPA to consider

non-water quality environmental

impacts and other factors EPA deems

appropriate in setting BAT limitations.

See CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B). For these

reasons, EPA believes that compelling

achievement of the baseline BAT limits

in the first instance would have had the

contradictory and unintended effect of

discouraging participation in the

program, with the result that fewer mills

ultimately would be motivated to

achieve superior environmental

performance. Finally, as discussed in

more detail below, EPA is requiring

mills at the Tier II and Tier III levels to

achieve interim limitations equivalent

to baseline BAT by April 15, 2004. See

40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).

b. Interim Milestones. As the second

component of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT for the three Incentives

Tiers, EPA is requiring the

establishment of enforceable interim

milestones. See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (2)

and (3). EPA believes that interim

milestones would incrementally benefit

the environment during the period prior

to achievement of the ultimate

Advanced Technology performance

levels and will ensure that participating

mills make reasonable progress toward

achieving the superior performance

represented by the various Advanced

Technology BAT Tiers.

EPA is promulgating two sets of

enforceable interim milestones. The first

set requires mills enrolled at the Tier II

or the Tier III level to achieve

limitations equivalent to baseline BAT

limitations by April 15, 2004. 40 CFR

430.24(b)(3). (Mills enrolled at the Tier

I level are required to achieve those

limitations as well as the ultimate

Advanced Technology limitations by

that date. 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) and (4).)

EPA believes that this is a reasonable

requirement not only because it ensures

significant environmental progress

consistent with CWA section 301(b)(2),

but it also reflects the technology

performance Tier II and Tier III mills are

likely to be achieving by that date. Mills

enrolled in Tier II and Tier III are

expected to substantially modify

pulping and bleaching processes (e.g.,

install extended delignification, ECF, or

TCF bleaching) to comply with the

Advanced Technology limitations. EPA

expects that all Tier II or Tier III mills

will install extended delignification and

complete substitution (ECF) or TCF

bleaching processes well in advance of

achieving their wastewater flow

objectives in order to allow sufficient

time to design, install, test and adjust

their other flow-related processes. In

EPA’s judgment, process changes

sufficient to achieve baseline BAT

limitations will occur by April 15, 2004.

Once these processes are installed, the

mill will be achieving or exceeding the

baseline BAT limitations being required

by that date. See DCN 14488.

EPA notes that mills required to

achieve water quality-based or other

effluent limitations equivalent to one or

more of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations are still

eligible to enroll in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and to receive incentives for

achieving the remaining Voluntary

Advanced Technology limitations.

However, the time for complying with

water quality-based or other equivalent

effluent limitations would be

determined by applicable law, not by

this Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. Therefore, for

example, if a mill’s NPDES permit

compels immediate compliance with a

dioxin limitation equivalent to the

Voluntary Advanced (BAT) Technology

limitation on dioxin because of water

quality concerns or other requirements

of state or federal law, this six-year

milestone would not be available for

that dioxin limitation. See CWA section

301(b)(1)(C).

The second set of enforceable interim

milestones promulgated today applies to

all mills enrolled in the Advanced

Technology Incentives Program.

Although today’s rule leaves the type

and frequency of these milestones to the

permit writer’s best professional

judgment, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2),

milestones should include intermediate

pollutant load and wastewater flow

reductions (for Tier II and Tier III mills)

in addition to research schedules,

construction schedules, mill trial

schedules, or other milestones

appropriate to the advanced technology

and the participating mill. Interim

milestones should be tailored to

circumstances and process technologies

at individual mills.

In order to facilitate the development

of appropriate interim milestones on a

case-by-case basis, EPA proposes

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register to

require all mills enrolling in the

incentives program to submit plans

detailing the strategy the mill will

follow to develop and implement the

technology required to achieve the

chosen incentive tier, as well as the

interim numeric limitations for Tiers II

and III. The plan should describe each

envisioned new technology component

or process modification the mill will

need to achieve the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limits. A

master schedule should be included in

the plan showing the sequence of

implementing the new technologies and

process modifications and identifying

critical path relationships within the

sequence. For each individual

technology or process modification, a

schedule should be provided that lists

the anticipated date that associated

construction, installation, or process

changes will be initiated, the

anticipated date that those steps will be

completed, and the anticipated date that

the full Advanced Technology process

or individual component will be fully

operational. For those technologies or

process modifications that are not

commercially available or demonstrated

on a full scale basis at the time the plan

is developed, the plan should include a

schedule for research (if necessary),

process development, and mill trials.

The schedule for research, process

development, and mill trials should

show major milestone dates and the

anticipated date the technology or

process change will be available for mill

implementation. The plan also would

need to include contingency plans in

the event that any of the technologies or

processes specified in the Milestones

Plan need to be adjusted or alternative

approaches developed to ensure that the

ultimate tier limits are achieved by the

dates in the master schedule. EPA

expects the permitting authority to use

the information contained in those

plans, as well as its own best

professional judgment, to establish

enforceable interim milestones applying

all statutory factors. EPA also expects

permit writers to include reopener

clauses in the permits to adjust these

milestones including dates to reflect the
18600 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

results of research (if necessary), process

development, and mill trials.

Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act

authorizes permit writers to establish

permit conditions and limitations on the

basis of best professional judgment as

necessary to achieve the objectives of

the Act. Although EPA is promulgating

BAT limitations under CWA sections

301 and 304, EPA is not—nor could it

today—codify the particular process

development, construction, and testing

milestones that will lead each

participating mill to achieve the

ultimate Voluntary Advanced

Technology performance requirements.

Identifying those milestones is best left

to the judgment of the permit writer,

who will have access to far more millspecific information than EPA has

today.

c. ‘‘Stage 2’’ limitations. The third

component of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations consists of

the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations. See 40 CFR

430.24(b)(4)(i). These are the only

standards applicable to Voluntary

Advanced Technology NSPS and must

be achieved upon commencing

operation. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). Also

included in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology NSPS are standards for

dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12

chlorinated phenolic compounds, BOD5,

TSS, and pH at the baseline NSPS level.

See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1). In addition,

standards for pentachlorophenol and

trichlorophenol, when used as biocides,

are part of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology NSPS. See 40 CFR

430.25(d).

These limitations and standards

represent the ultimate performance

requirements for each Tier. The ‘‘stage

2’’ limitations are as follows:

(1) Tier I Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations (‘‘stage

2’’). For Tier I, the ultimate performance

requirement for AOX is a long-term

average (LTA) of 0.26 kg/kkg, measured

at the end of the pipe. 40 CFR

430.24(b)(4)(i). Under this Tier,

Advanced Technology fiber lines at

participating mills must also achieve

reduced lignin content in unbleached

pulps as measured by a kappa number

of 20 for softwoods and 13 for

hardwoods and reported as an annual

average. Id. Finally, Tier I Advanced

Technology fiber lines must recycle to

recovery systems all filtrates up to the

point at which the unbleached pulp

kappa numbers are measured (e.g.,

brownstock into bleaching). Tier I also

includes limitations for dioxin, furan,

chloroform and 12 chlorinated phenolic

pollutants, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).

Limitations on these parameters are

established at the baseline BAT levels

because application of Advanced

Technologies does not appear on this

record to justify more stringent

limitations.

(2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations (‘‘stage 2’’)

and NSPS. For Tier II, the ultimate

performance requirement for AOX is an

LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured

at the end of the pipe. 40 CFR

430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In

addition, Tier II Advanced Technology

fiber lines must recycle to chemical

recovery systems all pulping-area

filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,

Tier II Advanced Technology fiber lines

must also achieve total pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate, and

bleach plant wastewater flow of 10 m3/

kkg or less reported as an annual

average. Id. Tier II mills must also meet

(or, in the case of existing dischargers,

must continue to meet) limitations for

dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40

CFR 430.24(b)(3) and 430.25(c)(1).

Application of the Tier II Technologies

does not appear to justify more stringent

limitations for these parameters.

(3) Tier III Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations (‘‘stage 2’’)

and NSPS. For Tier III, the ultimate

performance requirement for AOX is an

LTA of less than 0.05 kg/kkg, measured

at the end of the pipe. See 40 CFR

430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In

addition, Tier III Advanced Technology

fiber lines must recycle to chemical

recovery systems all pulping-area

filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,

Tier III Advanced Technology fiber lines

must also achieve total pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate, and

bleach plant wastewater flow of 5 m3/

kkg or less reported as an annual

average. Id. Tier III mills must also meet

(or, in the case of existing dischargers,

must continue to meet) limitations for

dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40

CFR 430.24(b)(3) and 430.25(c)(1).

Application of the Tier III Technologies

does not appear to justify more stringent

limitations for these parameters.

d. Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT Limitations and NSPS for Mills

Employing TCF Processes. In order to

encourage mills to employ Advanced

Technologies founded on TCF

processes, EPA is opening today’s

incentives program to fiber lines that

employ or commit to employ such

processes. Existing dischargers that

choose to employ TCF processes are

subject to the ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations,

interim milestones (including the

baseline BAT limitations), and the

‘‘stage 2’’ limitations applicable to the

selected tier. 40 CFR 430.24(b) and

430.25(c). These limitations are

discussed above. However, recently

gathered data from TCF mills indicate

that all TCF mills will be able to achieve

the AOX performance requirements at

any Tier level because end-of-pipe AOX

levels are being reported at below

minimum level. See DCN 14488.

Consequently, the AOX limitations for

TCF fiber lines are expressed as ‘‘<ML.’’

See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) and (4) and

430.25(c)(2). In addition, unlike mills

using ECF processes to achieve Tier II

and III BAT limits, TCF fiber lines

would not receive limitations for the

presence of TCDD, TCDF, chloroform, or

the 12 chlorinated phenolics if they

certify as part of their permit

application (with appropriate

corroborating data) that the bleaching

process at those fiber lines does not

involve the use of chlorine-based

compounds. See 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3),

(13) and 40 CFR 122.22(d). Similarly, a

mill making the TCF certification is not

subject to the minimum monitoring

frequencies otherwise applicable to

AOX. See 40 CFR 430.02. (For fiber

lines that converted from ECF to TCF

processes, mills should submit up to six

months of AOX data—at the discretion

of the permit writer—in order to allow

the permit writer to determine an

appropriate monitoring frequency on a

best professional judgment basis.) EPA

has determined that limitations on

dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and

minimum monitoring requirements for

AOX are unnecessary for TCF processes

because a mill that does not use or

generate compounds containing

chlorine will not generate chlorinerelated pollutants as a result of its

bleaching processes. EPA hopes that

such substantially reduced requirements

for TCF mills will encourage more mills

to employ TCF bleaching processes.

6. Selection of Voluntary Advanced

Technologies as Bases for BAT

Limitations and NSPS

Achievement of these BAT

limitations, in particular the ‘‘stage 2’’

limitations for Tiers II and III, would

represent substantial progress toward

the national goal of eliminating the

discharge of all pollutants. The ‘‘stage

2’’ limitations include limitations on

AOX that are significantly more

stringent than the baseline BAT

limitations for AOX, as well as Tierspecific restrictions on the lignin

content of unbleached pulps, the

discharge of pulping area filtrates, and

the quantity of total pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate and

bleach plant wastewater flow. The latter

restrictions, which are unique to the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18601

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, call for

environmental performance far in

excess of the performance compelled by

the baseline BAT.

EPA chose the parameters and

limitations unique to the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program because they reflect the levels

of performance EPA believes can be

achieved over time by mills willing and

able to invest the resources to develop

and apply the corresponding Advanced

Technology processes and practices.

The Tier I technology is available today

and does not impose significant nonwater quality environmental impacts; it

was not selected as the baseline BAT

technology because it is not

economically achievable for the

subcategory as a whole or any segment

as is discernible from the record

available today. See Section VI.B.5.a(5).

However, for mills willing and able to

employ that technology, EPA believes

that limitations based on extended

delignification, complete substitution,

and other processes would be

economically achievable by the year

2003. EPA believes that the technology

bases for Tier II, in turn, could be

technically and economically

achievable for mills willing to

participate by the year 2008, and would

not impose significant non-water quality

environmental impacts. EPA bases its

view on the experience of at least three

U.S. mills that are moving in the

direction of reduced bleach plant flow.

See DCN 14488. None of these mills,

however, is presently achieving the

‘‘stage 2’’ flow limits for Tier II because

those limits include pulping area and

evaporator condensate as well as bleach

plant wastewater flow. Finally, with

respect to Tier III, EPA notes that one

mill in Finland today is achieving flow

levels close to 5 m3/kkg or less,

although this mill’s flow rates also

exclude condensates. This mill is able to

achieve its current level of performance

without imposing significant non-water

quality environmental impacts. In

addition, mills choosing Tier III will

have up to 16 years and considerable

flexibility to develop and implement

appropriate flow control strategies. (For

a discussion of the timeframes

associated with achieving the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT Limitations,

see Section IX.A.7.) While EPA

recognizes that achievement of the

‘‘stage 2’’ limits for Tier III may call for

considerable creativity and innovation

by industry participants, EPA believes

that such spurs to innovation are

consistent with the Clean Water Act’s

ultimate goal of eliminating the

discharge of pollutants. Finally, EPA

emphasizes that participation in the

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program is purely voluntary. No mill in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory is required to commit to

achieve the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations at any

level.

The voluntary nature of the Advanced

Technology Incentives Program also

supports EPA’s finding that the ‘‘stage

2’’ BAT limitations for the various

Incentives Tiers will be economically

achievable by the dates specified in the

rule for the mills choosing to achieve

them. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). The

‘‘stage 2’’ limitations apply only to mills

that designate themselves as Tier I, Tier

II or Tier III Advanced Technology

performers and that voluntarily accept

the corresponding ‘‘stage 2’’ limits in

their NPDES permits. In other words,

the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations are BAT for an

Advanced Technology mill only

because that mill announces, by

choosing to participate in the Program

and by its choice of Tier, that by the

date specified in the rule for the

applicable ‘‘stage 2’’ limits a technology

will be both available and economically

achievable for the purpose of achieving

those limitations. Based on the

experiences of mills that have

voluntarily pursued performance levels

comparable to the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations

of Tiers I and II, EPA believes that a mill

choosing to pursue those objectives can

do so within its economic capability.

Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable

to presume that a mill would not subject

itself to enforceable technology-based

limits if achievement of those limits

would exceed the mill’s economic

capability. Because the economic

achievability of the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations

ultimately is evaluated according to the

mill’s own choices, EPA concludes that

the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations are

economically achievable. In addition,

while implementation of these

Advanced Technologies today is beyond

the economic capabilities of many mills

because of the significant capital

investments that can be incurred at the

outset, EPA believes that a mill able to

plan for these investments over time

could reduce those investment costs to

some extent, if only by minimizing the

amount of capital the mill would need

to borrow. Moreover, with additional

time mills will inevitably find ways to

implement these technologies that

reduce costs. More importantly, it could

make these environmental

improvements in sequence with other

business decisions related to capital

investment, thus reducing the overall

cost of installing the Advanced

Technologies. Although on this record

EPA cannot state with confidence what

the cost of implementing these

Advanced Technologies would be if

spread over time (and hence cannot

make an economic achievability finding

for the subcategory as a whole or any

discernible segment relating to those

Advanced Technologies), EPA

nevertheless believes that each mill is

capable of making that judgment and

assuming the corresponding economic

risks. This Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program thus

establishes a structure by which mills

willing to predict their economic

fortunes over the next several years and

to commit to enforceable permit limits

based on that prediction can do so.

EPA has considerable discretion

under CWA section 304(b)(2) to

determine whether and when a

particular technology or process is BAT.

EPA also has broad authority to

interpret CWA section 301. In E.I. du

Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430

U.S. 112 (1977), the Supreme Court

accorded great deference to EPA in

promulgating effluent limitations

guidelines as regulations under section

301, noting that ‘‘[CWA Section] 101(d)

requires us to resolve any ambiguity on

this score in favor of the

Administrator.’’ Id. at 128. The Supreme

Court also found that section 501(a)

supports EPA’s broad use of its

regulatory authority to implement

section 301. Id. at 132. EPA believes that

its decision to promulgate Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

is authorized by sections 301 and 304.

Section 301(b)(2) in particular directs

EPA to promulgate BAT limitations that,

within the constraints of economic

achievability, ‘‘will result in reasonable

further progress toward the national

goal of eliminating the discharge of all

pollutants.’’ Section 301(b)(2)(A). In

addition, both case law and the

legislative history interpreting the BAT

program make it clear that the statute is

to be used to force technology, within

the constraints imposed by sections

301(b)(2) and 304(b)(2). Promulgation of

regulations to promote the use of

Advanced Technologies and, hence,

progress toward the elimination of

pollutant discharges thus is within the

scope of the Administrator’s 501(a)

authorities. See Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 603 F.2d 1, 6

(6th Cir. 1979) (‘‘The ultimate

justification for every regulation and

guideline pertaining to discharges is its

effectiveness in promoting the

achievement of the goals of Congress in

enacting the 1972 Amendments.’’)
18602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

As part of its BAT analysis, EPA

performed a case-study analysis to

determine the potential effluent

reduction benefits derived from the

incentives program. Effluent reductions

were calculated for a hypothetical casestudy mill complying with Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

at each incentive Tier. This case study

is discussed in more detail at DCN

14488. The 1000 metric ton-per-day

case-study mill operates a softwood and

a hardwood bleach line of equal size,

and uses a conventional three-stage

bleach sequence with chlorine on each

line. Table IX–1 presents effluent load

reductions from that case-study mill,

calculated for the baseline BAT (BAT

Option A) as well as each incentive

Tier.

TABLE IX–1.—EFFLUENT LOAD REDUCTIONS FOR CASE STUDY MILL

Pollutant Units

Baseline

BAT

Technology

Tier I Tier II Tier III

AOX .............................................................................................................. kkg/yr ..... 670 770 830 840

BOD5 ............................................................................................................ kkg/yr ..... 290 440 720 870

COD .............................................................................................................. kkg/yr ..... 6,000 11,000 13,000 18,000

Color ............................................................................................................. kkg/yr ..... 2,000 15,000 30,000 34,000

Chloroform .................................................................................................... kg/yr ....... 290 290 290 290

TCDD&TCDF ................................................................................................ g/yr ......... 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0

12 Chlorinated Phenolics ............................................................................. kkg/yr ..... 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,200

Note that for all levels, TCDD, TCDF, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolics will not be detected in the final effluent. The differences between the levels are the result of technologies employed to reduce discharge flow rates under the incentive Tiers.

In selecting the technology basis for

each of the Incentives Tiers, EPA also

evaluated the associated non-water

quality environmental impacts, changes

in energy requirements, the age of

facilities and equipment involved, the

process used, and the engineering

aspects of various types of control

techniques and process changes. See

DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA’s analysis

of these factors justified selecting

different BAT technologies than those

identified in section IX.a.3. EPA found

that the technologies that form the basis

of the Incentives Tiers provide a

significant degree of water conservation,

particularly at Voluntary Advanced

Technology Tiers II and III. EPA also

expects lower secondary sludge

generation rates at Incentives Tier mills

with activated sludge treatment because

of reduction in BOD5 loads associated

with the Advanced Technologies. The

technology basis of each of the

Incentives Tiers will lead to overall

decreases in energy consumption,

primarily because of replacement of

chlorine dioxide with oxygen-based

delignification and bleaching chemicals.

EPA expects a slight increase in air

emissions (<2 percent) due to increased

recovery of black liquor that will occur

under the Incentives Tiers. However,

these are offset by reductions in air

pollution that derive from the

reductions in overall energy

consumption.

EPA considered the potential for

cross-media transfer of pollutants

through implementation of the

Advanced Technologies that form the

basis of the Incentives Tiers. EPA found

no basis to conclude that cross-media

transfer of pollutants would occur. See

DCN 14488 and DCN 14492. However,

much of the Tier II and Tier III

technology bases focus on closing mill

process cycles, which has not yet been

fully demonstrated. As these

technologies are fully developed and

implemented, sufficient engineering

analyses and testing should be

performed to assess whether

unacceptable cross media transfer of

pollutants are occurring, and whether

modifications need to be made to avoid

any unacceptable transfers identified.

For NSPS, EPA has determined that

Tier II and Tier III technologies

constitute the best demonstrated control

technologies for mills enrolling in those

tiers. Although EPA cannot say today

that either of these technology

sequences is the best demonstrated

control technology for new sources in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory as a whole, EPA does

believe that new sources emerging

within the next 16 years may

characterize them as such based on their

own sense of their economic and

technical capabilities. Therefore, as with

existing sources, EPA is promulgating

this additional array of NSPS in order to

provide such mills the opportunity to

pursue voluntarily pollution prevention

technologies—and to accept

correspondingly more stringent effluent

limitations—if business circumstances

warrant. EPA notes that a mill

subjecting itself to the Advanced

Technology NSPS will be shielded from

more stringent technology-based

effluent limitations for ten years

beginning on the date that construction

is completed. See CWA section 306(d).

Because these standards are entirely

voluntary, their promulgation today

presents no barrier to entry. In addition,

EPA has determined that achievement

of these standards will not result in any

significant non-water quality

environmental impacts or significant

additional energy requirements. See

DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA’s analysis

of the other statutory factors applicable

to NSPS justified selecting different

NSPS technologies.

EPA also believes it is appropriate to

promulgate limitations for all three

Tiers at the same time it promulgates

the baseline BAT limitations. (The same

rationale applies for today’s Voluntary

Advanced Technology NSPS.) By

promulgating all three Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT Tiers today,

rather than in five-year increments, EPA

hopes to encourage as many mills as

possible to develop and install

Advanced Technologies. On this record,

EPA has determined that its customary

practice of promulgating a single BAT

for similarly situated mills—represented

here by the baseline BAT limitations—

would have the unintended effect of

impeding some mills’ progress toward

even greater environmental objectives

than EPA can compel at this time. Thus,

if EPA were to promulgate only baseline

BAT limitations today and not establish

a parallel track for mills converting to

Advanced Technologies, EPA is

concerned that mills might abandon

their voluntary long-term strategies of

superior environmental performance in

favor of compulsory short-term

compliance strategies focused on the

baseline BAT. Instead, by promulgating

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations at the same time as baseline

BAT limitations, EPA allows interested

mills to consider all technology options

at the outset before they make their

investment decisions and to design and

install precisely the technologies and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18603

processes they will need to meet their

long-term Advanced Technology

objectives. Therefore, EPA has decided

to promulgate all of the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

today in order to provide mills with an

opportunity to push their environmental

performance beyond the minimum

prescribed by the baseline BAT and on

toward the statutory goal of zero

discharge. Promulgating the various

Voluntary Advanced Technology Tiers

today rather than in five-year

increments also provides some

predictability regarding the progress

expected of Advanced Technology mills

over time. EPA hopes that this

predictability will encourage greater

participation in the program and thus

lead to superior effluent quality. Finally,

promulgating all three Tiers of

Advanced Technology BAT Limitations

today makes sense because it reflects

EPA’s regulatory approach for

promoting successively greater

environmental achievements for this

industry, and because companies

willing to commit to achieve the

increased environmental controls will

be able to avoid the uncertainties

inherent in a succession of later

rulemakings.

EPA has the authority to promulgate

the three Tiers of Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations today even

though their ultimate performance

requirements will not be attained until

a future date. EPA has the authority

under CWA section 304(b)(2) and

304(m) to revise the baseline BAT

limitations for the Bleached Papergrade

Kraft and Soda subcategory whenever

the Administrator deems it is

appropriate. Thus, EPA would be free in

5, 10 or 15 years to codify the Voluntary

Advanced Technology limitations as

BAT. However, by then, mills

potentially interested in pursuing

Advanced Technologies would already

have been required to meet baseline

BAT limitations, perhaps using

technologies not fully compatible with

more advanced processes. The costs of

retrofitting, or in some cases replacing,

newly installed process technologies to

achieve more stringent limits might

prevent EPA from finding that these

technologies are economically

achievable. In addition, participating

mills would lose a long-term planning

horizon, which is very important

because of the significant capital outlays

involved. As a result, EPA was

concerned that failure to promulgate

these Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT limitations today might

compromise future pollution prevention

opportunities. EPA is authorized to

consider those opportunities when

promulgating BAT limitations. EPA

therefore believes it is appropriate to

consider these barriers to pollution

prevention as factors relevant to the

definition of BAT limitations and the

timing of their promulgation, see CWA

section 304(b)(2)(B); especially since

failure to promulgate a Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program at this time might impede

reasonable further progress toward the

national goal of eliminating discharges

of all pollutants. See CWA section

301(b)(2).

An important component of this

incentives program is the element of

choice. Direct discharging mills subject

to Subpart B may choose whether to

enroll in the program and, once

enrolled, may choose the Tier, or

performance level, that they will

achieve. In order to codify this

structure, EPA has promulgated three

sets of Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT limitations for bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mills and two

sets of NSPS in addition to the baseline

BAT and NSPS. In effect, EPA has

divided Subpart B into segments based

on the types of bleach plant processes

mills choose to employ. EPA has

considerable authority to establish

segments within an industrial

subcategory for the purpose of

promulgating BAT limitations unique to

those mills. Much like mill-specific

variances based on fundamentally

different factors, segments reflect EPA’s

authority to take into account the

diversity within each industry. See

Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v. NRDC, 470 U.S.

116, 130, 105 S.Ct 1102, 1110 (1985).

Thus, segmentation, like variances, is

not an exception to the standard-setting

process, but rather a more fine-tuned

application of it. Id.

For BAT, EPA has essentially

established four segments for the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory (and, similarly, three

segments for NSPS). One segment

codifies the baseline BAT limitations;

the other three segments codify Tiers I,

II and III of the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Incentives Program.

EPA defined the Advanced Technology

segments to reflect the various types of

process changes and control techniques

that mills might employ to achieve

environmental performance beyond the

baseline BAT level. The Advanced

Technology segments also reflect the

cost of achieving progressively greater

environmental effluent reductions. Any

one of those factors is sufficient under

CWA section 304(b)(2) to justify a

segment for affected mills. Each mill in

Subpart B must comply with the

baseline BAT limitations unless it

designates itself as an Advanced

Technology mill, in which case it must

meet the BAT limitations corresponding

to the Tier—and segment—it chooses.

Although EPA has identified an array

of process changes that, if employed,

could distinguish one Subpart B mill

from another and has based its

Advanced Technology limitations on

those potential changes, EPA has made

the Advanced Technology segments

voluntary. This is because the decision

whether Advanced Technology process

changes are technically feasible and

economically achievable for a particular

mill depends on many factors unique to

that mill that EPA, on the record

available today, cannot readily discern

or forecast. Among the more significant

factors appear to be the mill’s current

bleaching sequence, the physical

configuration of equipment, the age of

equipment (and, thus, end-of-life

issues), the available capacity in

chlorine dioxide generation and in the

recovery boiler, and whether the mill

uses hardwood or softwood. See DCN

14488. See also Paper Task Force,

Technical Supplement White Papers,

Record section 20.2.8, DCN 14794, DCN

14795, and DCN 14796.

EPA also has important policy reasons

for making the Advanced Technology

BAT limitations voluntary, both in

terms of the decision to participate and

in terms of the level of environmental

performance to be achieved. As

discussed in greater detail above, EPA

believes that mills willing and able to

employ technologies and processes

superior to the ‘‘baseline’’ promulgated

as BAT—and willing to guarantee that

effort in the form of enforceable

technology-based permit limitations—

should have the opportunity to do so.

By giving mills a choice to exceed

baseline compliance levels, EPA

implements CWA section 301(b)(2)’s

direction that BAT limitations ‘‘result in

reasonable further progress toward the

national goal of eliminating the

discharge of all pollutants,’’ to the

extent consistent with EPA’s findings of

economic achievability, among other

factors. By allowing mills to choose

between baseline BAT limitations and

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations at the outset, EPA also wants

to encourage mills to consider all

possible process configurations before

investing in the baseline BAT

technology. Thus, by codifying multiple

expressions of BAT, EPA has

established a regulatory mechanism that

allows mills to choose greater

environmental performance than EPA

could require on this record and also

authorizes permit writers to
18604 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

memorialize that choice in the form of

enforceable permit limits.

Although applied here for the first

time to codify a Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program, the

notion of using segmentation to

determine applicable technology-based

limitations is not new. Indeed, effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

routinely base applicability of

technology-based limitations on a

discharger’s particular process or

treatment technologies. For example,

elsewhere in today’s rule EPA is

segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite

subcategory to reflect, among other

things, the type of product the mill

produces. Thus, a papergrade sulfite

mill choosing to produce specialty

products subjects itself to a different set

of limitations than other mills in its

subcategory simply by making that

business decision. EPA also used

segmentation to account for different

treatment configurations when it

promulgated BAT for the organic

chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers

category. See 40 CFR 414.91, 414.101;

58 FR 36872, 36881–85 (July 9, 1993).

In that rule, EPA established two sets of

BAT limitations for a subcategory of

plants, one set applicable to plants

using end-of-pipe biological treatment

and the other set applicable to plants

using some other treatment technology,

including in-plant waste management

practices. In this rule, the Advanced

Technology segments are intended to

anticipate a mill’s business decision to

change its cooking, washing, bleaching,

wastewater recycle, and recovery

processes to achieve greater pollutant

reductions than EPA can require as

baseline BAT. Indeed, by establishing

these segments, EPA hopes to encourage

many mills to choose Advanced

Technologies, especially those mills that

would need to change their bleaching

and washing processes in any event to

comply with the baseline BAT.

EPA also notes that it could have

accomplished the same result for

existing sources on a case-by-case basis

through the Clean Water Act’s variance

processes. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v.

NRDC, 470 U.S. at 130, 105 S.Ct at 1110.

Advanced Technology mills could have

sought fundamentally different factors

variances under CWA section 301(n); for

non-conventional pollutants, these mills

could have pursued a variance under

section 301(c). Under either section,

mills could have obtained BAT effluent

limitations that are more or less

stringent than the baseline BAT. See

Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v. NRDC, 470 U.S.

at 116, 105 S.Ct at 1105–06 (FDF

variances); EPA v. National Crushed

Stone Ass’n, 449 U.S. 64, 79 n.18 (1980)

(§ 301(c) variances). However, EPA

rejected implementing the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program through variances for several

reasons. First, the Clean Water Act and

its legislative history indicate a clear

Congressional preference for the use of

subcategories, rather than variances, to

address discernible differences among

regulated entities. By requiring

applications for FDF variances to be

based on information submitted during

the rulemaking process (unless the

applicant lacked a reasonable

opportunity to make such submission),

see section 301(n)(1)(B), Congress

stressed the need for companies to

participate fully in the guideline

development process to assure that

adequate information is available to

EPA to develop appropriate

subcategories. See 131 Cong. Rec. S

8013 (June 12, 1985) (Sen. Bentsen); see

also 133 Cong. Rec. H 131, 136–37 (Jan.

7, 1987) (Rep. Howard) (provision

assures that effluent guidelines ‘‘are as

comprehensive as possible’’); 133 Cong.

Rec. S 733, 739 (Jan. 14, 1987) (Sen.

Mitchell) (EPA should accommodate

fundamental differences among

facilities through the establishment of

subcategories). In this rulemaking, many

commenters supplied vast amounts of

information concerning the special

circumstances of facilities aspiring to

become minimum impact mills. As

Congress intended, EPA established the

three Voluntary Advanced Technology

segments in response to that

information rather than deferring

consideration of the issue to the postrulemaking variance process.

Second, as a matter of policy, EPA

believes it is reasonable to employ its

subcategorization, rather than its

variance, authority to implement the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. By establishing the

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations by rulemaking at the same

time it codifies the baseline BAT

limitations, EPA intends to provide all

direct discharging mills within Subpart

B the immediate opportunity to push

beyond base level environmental

performance and also to provide with

certainty regarding the stringency and

timing of the limits they would be

expected to meet. In this way, EPA

hopes to encourage many mills to

participate in the program. Use of caseby-case variance procedures, in contrast,

would introduce delay and uncertainty

into the process, which EPA believes

would discourage industry

participation.

In summary, EPA has discretion in

determining whether to account for

industry characteristics through

subcategorization or through the

variance process. Like variances, the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

segments apply only to mills that on

their own initiative seek different BAT

limitations. Unlike variances, however,

the subcategorization scheme

promulgated by EPA assures consistent

and timely implementation of the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, which EPA believes

is critical to its success. Therefore, for

the reasons explained, EPA’s decision to

subcategorize Subpart B was rational

and within its discretion.

7. Time Frames for Achieving Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT Limitations

In order to promote the pollution

prevention objectives of the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program, EPA has determined that

existing mills choosing to participate in

that program should receive a

reasonable amount of time to achieve

the Advanced Tier performance levels

they select. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii).

(These performance levels are codified

in this rule as ‘‘stage 2’’ BAT

limitations.) The extended timeframes

discussed below are not available for

new sources enrolled in the Advanced

Technology Incentives Program because

the Clean Water Act requires new

sources to comply with applicable NSPS

upon commencing operation. CWA

Section 306(e). However, new sources

interested in participating in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program after commencing

operation may nevertheless do so, for

example, by achieving the baseline

NSPS requirements at the time

discharges commence and later

installing additional technologies

necessary to achieve the more stringent

AOX and flow requirements of Tiers II

or III. Once limitations equivalent to the

selected advanced Tier performance

levels are placed in the mill’s permit

and the mill achieves those limits, it is

eligible to receive the regulatory and

enforcement relief described as

incentives in Section IX.B. below.

EPA has determined that reasonable

dates by which existing sources can

achieve Advanced Technology

performance requirements are [April 15,

2004] for Tier I, April 15, 2009 for Tier

II, and April 15, 2014 for Tier III. See

40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). As discussed in

more detail below, these dates assume

an initial start-up year during which

mills subject to Subpart B would decide

whether to enroll in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and develop a plan for

complying with the ultimate incentives
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18605

BAT limitations. The remaining

additional time, calculated as 5 years for

Tier I, 10 years for Tier II, and 15 years

for Tier III, corresponds to the time EPA

believes a mill would need in order to

arrange its financing and to develop,

install, test, and implement the chosen

Advanced Technologies at full scale to

comply with the ultimate tier limits.

EPA regards five years as a reasonable

time frame to achieve the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

corresponding to Tier I (including the

bleach plant BAT effluent limitations).

When spread over five years, the capital

costs of those technologies become more

manageable (although they are still

significantly higher than the capital

costs associated with the baseline BAT).

In addition, the five year period gives

mills increased flexibility to schedule

the significant capital investment within

the mill’s normal capital investment

cycle, i.e., to purchase and install the

necessary equipment when capital is

available. Therefore, EPA believes the

five year period will enable mills to

participate in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program that

otherwise might not have the financial

resources to make the necessary capital

investment.

EPA regards ten years as a reasonable

timeframe to achieve the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

corresponding to Tier II because the

development and implementation of

technologies to reduce bleach plant flow

to 10 m3/kkg pose technical and

economic difficulties that EPA believes

would take mills up to ten years to

resolve. (Once flow levels are reduced,

EPA expects that mills also will be able

to achieve the Tier II AOX limitations.)

Recycling a substantial portion of

pulping and evaporator condensates and

bleach plant filtrates, with the attendant

complexities of total mill water,

chemical, and energy balances, requires

considerable time before it can be

implemented successfully at mill-scale.

For example, when bleach plant filtrates

are recycled, problems with scale and

corrosion can take many months to over

a year to develop and be observed. Once

identified, fully correcting such

problems can take significant additional

time because of the time lag between

action and observed effect in nearly

closed systems. In addition to problems

with scale and corrosion, mills pursuing

Tier II performance levels may have to

solve challenges associated with reusing

condensates, such as for bleached pulp

washing. There are a few mills currently

doing this, but not broad operating

experience. Consequently, EPA expects

that Tier II mills will need to invest

considerable time and effort to research

and develop solutions to those technical

problems. In addition to these technical

challenges, significant capital costs may

be involved in achieving Tier II limits,

notably as a result of upgrading full

pulping and bleaching lines and

associated evaporator equipment.

Providing an extended timeframe that

allows a mill to make such capital

expenditures on a schedule consistent

with its planned investment cycle can

make such large investments

economically achievable. For example,

one U.S. mill currently approaching the

Tier II flow and AOX levels installed

many of the relevant technologies in

stages over what probably will be a tenyear period, with the last three years

used for testing and fine-tuning its

reduced flow processes. Yet even this

mill still needs to address the technical

challenges of further reducing

condensate discharge flow before it is

fully able to achieve the Tier II BAT

limits. That mill needed ten years to

plan its multi-hundred million dollar

renovation and pollution prevention

investment, to arrange appropriate

financing, to install supporting

technologies at appropriate intervals

and to research, develop, test, and refine

its innovative flow-reducing processes.

EPA believes that this mill’s experience

is representative of what other Tier II

mills may encounter as they work to

achieve the Tier II limitations. See the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program Technical Support

Document (DCN 14488) for additional

examples of why the ten-year timeframe

is appropriate. Based on these

experiences, EPA believes that the

package of technologies underlying the

Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology

BAT limitations will not be technically

and economically achievable for mills

aspiring to those performance levels

until April 15, 2009. However, EPA

believes that mills will be able to

achieve the baseline BAT limitations by

April 15, 2004, and enforceable interim

milestones reflecting intermediate levels

of flow reduction (determined on a caseby-case basis) in a period shorter than

eleven years.

EPA regards 15 years as a reasonable

timeframe to achieve the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT Limitations

corresponding to Tier III. As for Tier II,

flow reduction again is the most

difficult and time-consuming task.

However, because reducing flow for

pulping and evaporator condensates and

bleach plant filtrates to 5 m3/kkg or

even lower approaches a closed mill

configuration, even more technically

difficult and time-consuming tasks must

be successfully completed, necessitating

five additional years beyond the Tier II

timeframe. For example, mills would

probably need to install ‘‘kidney’’

technologies to remove metals and

chlorides in order to control system

scaling and corrosion problems while

maintaining product quality and

minimizing cross-media impacts.

Successful completion of these tasks at

individual mills may involve research,

extensive process development, and

mill trials. The types of corrosion and

scaling problems EPA anticipates could

take over a year of nearly closed-loop

operation to identify and several more

years of experimental modifications to

mill operations to solve. Extensive time

is required for such modifications

because of the time lag in nearly closedmill systems from changing process

conditions and observing the steady

state impact on hydraulic systems,

liquor systems, and associated mill

equipment. Mills may also need to

embark on process development and

mill trials to achieve treated condensate

quality that is sufficient to extensively

reuse condensates, as well as to

reestablish complex mill water and

energy balances. For these reasons, EPA

believes that 15 years is a reasonable

amount of time for a Tier III mill to

perfect existing technologies or invent

or develop new ones as necessary to

achieve the Tier III performance levels.

However, EPA believes that all mills

will be able to achieve the baseline BAT

limitations by [April 15, 2004], and

enforceable interim milestones

reflecting intermediate levels of flow

reduction (determined on a case-by-case

basis) in a period shorter than 15 years.

In short, EPA believes that the

additional 5, 10 and 15 year periods

provided by the rule are necessary to

foster investment, research,

development, and mill trials of

Advanced Technologies envisioned by

the specified performance levels. EPA

further believes that, by the dates

specified in the rule, technologies

necessary to achieve those performance

levels will indeed be available. See DCN

14488.

EPA has concluded that it is

reasonable to measure the extended

time periods from the publication date

of the Cluster Rules rather than from the

date a participating mill’s NPDES

permit is issued, with the addition of

one year at the beginning to afford mills

a meaningful opportunity to consider

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. EPA

recognizes that the decision whether to

commit to the Advanced Technology

goals cannot be undertaken lightly. This

is especially so in view of the significant
18606 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

capital costs involved and in view of

possible uncertainties regarding the

availability of appropriate cost-effective

technologies and a mill’s ability to

maintain product quality. Accordingly,

EPA expects the decision would need to

be made at the corporate rather than the

facility level, which would probably

require corporate-wide consideration of

the firm’s financial health, its

environmental objectives and future

marketing strategies, and its overall

long-term plans. Because EPA believes

that many firms in Subpart B have been

pondering these strategic questions

since publication of the proposed rule

in December 1993 and the notice

regarding a possible incentives program

in July 1996, EPA has concluded that

one year is sufficient to allow firms to

make a decision whether to participate

in the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. If a mill’s permit

expires and is reissued before April 15,

1999, the permitting authority should

incorporate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations into that

permit at the mill’s request. If the mill

has not yet decided whether to

participate in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program, the

permit writer should incorporate BAT

limitations based on the BAT baseline

and should include a reopener clause so

that the permit can be modified as

necessary to reflect the mill’s decision

to participate in the incentives program.

In order to afford that mill a full year to

decide whether to enroll in the

incentives program, EPA believes it

would be appropriate for the permitting

authority to issue a compliance order

expiring April 15, 1999 so that the mill

would not be required to comply with

the baseline BAT limitations until after

the election date has passed.

Some commenters suggested that EPA

measure the Advanced Technology time

periods from the date the first permit

reflecting Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations is issued.

EPA rejected that approach and instead

is measuring the time periods from the

publication date of this rule (plus one

year) for the following reasons. First,

these timeframes reflect EPA’s

conclusions regarding the amount of

time that mills would need in order to

achieve the various Voluntary

Advanced Technology Tier performance

levels, once they have committed to

those goals. As discussed in more detail

above, EPA based these conclusions on

record information concerning the

availability of technologies and capital,

among other factors. These factors have

nothing to do with the permitting cycle.

Second, as a matter of policy, EPA

wants to promote implementation of

advanced technologies as soon as

possible; if EPA were to measure the

Advanced Technology time periods

from the date of permit re-issuance,

achievement of the ultimate Tier I

performance requirements and the

interim baseline BAT limitations for

Tiers II and III, for example, could be

deferred at some mills by as much as ten

years from the date of promulgation.

Third, EPA was concerned that tying the

Advanced Technology time periods to

highly variable permit issuance dates

would mean that mills with later

permits would realize a competitive

advantage over similarly situated mills

that, merely because of their particular

permit cycle, would need to achieve the

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations sooner. Such inequities—

whether perceived or real—could

discourage some mills from

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. Finally,

mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda subcategory have been on

notice since at least 1993 that EPA was

considering basing some portion of its

Cluster Rules on extended

delignification technologies. (In its 1993

proposal, EPA proposed to base BAT

limitations on a process that included

oxygen delignification and 100 percent

substitution of chlorine dioxide for

elemental chlorine.) In some cases, that

proposal has already influenced

investment decisions at some mills.

EPA acknowledges that a mill

choosing not to participate in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program could seek a

compliance schedule in an enforcement

order that, depending on the date its

permit was reissued, could allow that

mill to achieve BAT limits (including a

less stringent AOX limit) at a later date

than Tier I Advanced Technology mills

would be required to achieve a more

stringent AOX limit and reduced kappa

numbers and pulping area filtrate

recycling. While EPA agrees with

comments characterizing this as unfair

to those facilities making the significant

commitment to install Advanced

Technologies, EPA believes that the

likelihood of such inequities is small for

the following reasons. First, EPA has

determined that this is likely to happen

in comparatively few cases. More than

80 percent of the permits issued to mills

in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda subcategory will expire before

2000. See Record section 21.8.1, DCN

14652. Consequently, EPA believes that

most Advanced Technology mills will

receive more time to achieve Tier I

limits than other mills would receive to

achieve baseline BAT limits, even with

an enforcement compliance schedule.

Second, when EPA is the permitting

authority, EPA will exercise its

enforcement discretion to refrain from

issuing enforcement compliance

schedules after April 15, 1999 to mills

not participating in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program. This means that a mill not

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program would

be expected to comply with its baseline

BAT limits by the date its permit

containing those limits is issued, or by

[April 15, 1999], whichever is later. EPA

will also publish guidance urging State

enforcement authorities to do the same.

By limiting the discretionary

enforcement-related compliance

schedules available to baseline BAT

mills, EPA hopes that the additional

time periods specified for Advanced

Technology mills will become a more

meaningful incentive and perhaps may

persuade some mills to participate in

the incentives program rather than

comply immediately with the baseline

BAT limitations.

8. Legal Authority to Promulgate a

Package of Progressively More Stringent

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

Limitations

As described in more detail above, the

Advanced Technology BAT guidelines

for each Tier consists of a range of

successively more stringent limitations

and permit conditions that represent a

mill’s progress toward the Tier’s

ultimate Advanced Technology

performance requirements. Based on its

analysis of today’s advanced and, in

some cases, innovative technologies and

its judgment regarding the historically

rapid advance of pollution prevention

processes in this industry, EPA has

determined that those performance

requirements are achievable, as a

technical matter, by the dates specified

in each Tier, and that none of the other

statutory factors in CWA Section

304(b)(2)(B) justify selecting different

technology bases for Advanced

Technology BAT. EPA has also

determined that those Advanced

Technology performance requirements

are within the economic capability of

mills choosing today to meet them and

hence are economically achievable for

those mills. EPA bases that

determination primarily on two factors.

First, no mill is compelled to enroll in

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program; accordingly, EPA

assumes that mills that choose to

enroll—and voluntarily subject

themselves to a progression of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18607

successively more stringent, enforceable

permit limits—do so with the

knowledge that they have the economic

as well as technical ability to meet those

limits. Second, the experience of other

mills that voluntarily undertook major

pollution prevention projects informs

EPA that the ambitious performance

requirements are indeed achievable for

participating mills if the incremental

improvements are staggered over time.

This incremental approach is

authorized by CWA section

301(b)(2)(A), which expressly requires

BAT to result in reasonable further

progress toward the national goal of

eliminating pollutant discharges. EPA

believes that each of the steps

comprising the three tiers of Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT Limitations

moves participating mills toward that

national goal. Once a mill enrolls in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, it accepts and must

begin immediately to implement a BAT

package consisting of successively more

stringent permit limits and conditions.

Although environmental improvements

are realized only incrementally, the mill

is subject to the total set of limits—

including the ultimate performance

requirements—as soon as its Advanced

Technology permit is written based on

the first increment of that BAT package.

Thus, the mill is continuously subject to

and must comply immediately with the

Advanced Technology BAT package as

it progressively unfolds, including each

interim BAT limitation or permit

condition representing that progress.

EPA’s promulgation of BAT as a

package of progressively more stringent

limitations and conditions is also

consistent with the use of BAT as a

‘‘beacon to show what is possible.’’

Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448

(4th Cir. 1985). Thus, while the

compulsory BAT in this rule functions

as the ‘‘base level’’ for the subcategory

as a whole, see E.I. du Pont de Nemours

& Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977),

EPA expects the Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations to drive

technologies and mills beyond that base

level toward achievement of the goals of

the Clean Water Act. By holding out the

Advanced Technologies as beacons of

progress, EPA believes that today’s rule

will encourage more mills to strive

toward EPA’s pollution prevention and

reduced flow objectives than might

otherwise do so if EPA promulgated

nothing more than a ‘‘base level’’ BAT.

Moreover, by codifying progressively

more stringent limitations in today’s

Advanced Technology BAT package,

EPA promotes a form of technological

progress that is consistent with

Congressional intent that BAT should

aspire to ‘‘increasingly higher levels of

control.’’ See, e.g., Statement of Sen.

Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in A

Legislative History of the Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 (‘‘1972 Leg. Hist.’’), at 170. It is

also consistent with the overall goals of

the Act. See CWA Section 101(a).

Agencies have considerable discretion

to interpret their statutes to promote

Congressional objectives. ‘‘ ‘[T]he

breadth of agency discretion is, if

anything, at zenith when the action

* * * relates primarily to * * * the

fashioning of policies, remedies and

sanctions, including enforcement and

voluntary compliance programs[,] in

order to arrive at maximum effectuation

of Congressional objectives.’ ’’ U.S.

Steelworkers of America v. Marshall,

647 F.2d 1189, 1230–31 n.64 (D.C. Cir.

1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering

lead requirements over 10 years)

(quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

v. FPC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir.

1967)), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 9113

(1981). In this case, the codification of

progressively more stringent BAT

limitations advances not only the

general goal of the Clean Water Act, but

also the explicit goal of the BAT

program. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.

NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984).

Moving toward the elimination of

pollutant discharges in stages is also

consistent with overarching structure of

the effluent limitations guidelines

program. Congress originally envisioned

that the sequence of attaining BPT limits

in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would

result in ‘‘levels of control which

approach and achieve the elimination of

the discharge of pollutants.’’ Statement

of Sen. Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted

in 1972 Legislative History, at 170. This

two-step approach produced dramatic

improvements in water quality, but did

not achieve the elimination of pollutant

discharges. Therefore, EPA periodically

revisits and revises its effluent

limitations guidelines with the intention

each time of making further progress

toward the national goal. (This is the

sixth effluent limitations guideline

promulgated for the pulp and paper

industry, and the fourth applicable to

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills.) Achieving these incremental

improvements through successive

rulemakings carries a substantial cost,

however. The effluent guideline

rulemaking process is highly complex,

in large part because of the massive

record compiled to inform the Agency’s

decisions and because of the substantial

costs associated with achieving each

additional increment of environmental

improvement. By promulgating these

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

limitations today as a package of

incremental environmental

improvements, EPA hopes to achieve

the goals that Congress envisioned for

the BAT program at considerably less

cost: one rulemaking that looks both at

the present and well into the future.

Mills willing to surpass today’s

compulsory BAT requirements have a

framework to anticipate what could be

tomorrow’s subcategory-wide BAT and

to make today’s environmental,

financial and engineering judgments

accordingly. Thus, the three-tiered

incentives program itself represents

reasonable further progress toward the

goal of eliminating pollutant discharges.

At the same time, within each Tier,

mills must make incremental

improvements that also represent

reasonable further progress toward that

national goal. In short, each BAT

increment, whether in the form of the

Tiers themselves or the progressively

more stringent limitations comprising

them, gives contemporary meaning to

the staging process originally

envisioned by Congress as the means to

achieve the goal of eliminating

discharge of pollutants to the Nation’s

waters.

Finally, like other agencies, EPA has

inherent authority to phase in regulatory

requirements in appropriate cases. EPA

has employed this authority in other

contexts. For example, EPA recently

phased in, over two years, TSCA rules

pertaining to lead-based paint activities.

See 40 CFR 746.239 and 61 FR 45788,

45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration phased in, over 10

years, a series of progressively more

stringent lead-related controls. See 29

CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in

upholding that rule, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that

‘‘the extremely remote deadline at

which the [sources] are to meet the final

[permissible exposure limits] is perhaps

the single most important factor

supporting the feasibility of the

standard.’’ United Steelworkers of

America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278.

EPA is aware that CWA sections

301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT limits to

be achieved ‘‘in no case later than three

years after the date such limits are

promulgated under section 304(b), and

in no case later than March 31, 1989.’’

(Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to

BAT limitations for nonconventional

pollutants, also contains the March 31,

1989 date, but uses as its starting point

the date the limitations are

‘‘established.’’) This language does not

speak to the precise question EPA

confronts here: whether EPA can
18608 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

promulgate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limitations that are

phased in over time, so that a direct

discharger at all times is subject to and

must comply immediately with the

particular BAT limitations applicable to

them at any given point in time. Section

301(b)(2) provides no clear direction.

EPA therefore is charged with making a

reasonable interpretation of the statute

to fill the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843–44. EPA

believes that subjecting mills who

voluntarily enroll in the Voluntary

Advance Technology Incentives

Program to progressively more stringent

BAT limitations over time best serves

Congress’ intent of pushing mills to

achieve reasonable further progress

toward eliminating all pollutant

discharges. It also ensures that mills

achieve these superior performance

requirements at a pace that makes

technical and economic sense. Finally,

by phasing in these highly stringent—

but elected—controls, EPA hopes to

encourage more mills to surpass the

BAT baseline, with the result that the

environment realizes a far greater

improvement than EPA could expect to

see without this phased approach. For

these reasons, EPA believes it is entitled

to deference in its decision to

promulgate Voluntary Advanced

Technology BAT limits in this manner.

Several commenters supported the

idea of phasing in compliance with BAT

limitations for the purpose of

minimizing short-term economic

impacts on mills, but urged EPA to

adopt this approach to set baseline BAT

limits based on the model Tier I

Advanced Technology (i.e., BAT Option

B). In other words, these commenters

argued that more stringent baseline BAT

limits based on the Tier I technology

would be economically achievable for

the entire subcategory because affected

mills would have five years to achieve

full compliance. As noted above, EPA

agrees that The Advanced Technologies

that are not economically achievable at

present can become economically

achievable for individual mills that

voluntarily participate as time passes.

Indeed, Congress recognized as much in

requiring EPA to review its effluent

guidelines and to revise them as

appropriate. See CWA section 304(b).

However, EPA disagrees that it currently

has sufficient basis on the record

available today to compel all mills in

the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

subcategory to meet the more stringent

limits five years from now. In this

rulemaking, the economic achievability

of those more stringent (Tier I) limits is

determined by the voluntary investment

decisions of the affected mills; because

of the voluntary nature of the Advanced

Technology Incentives Program, it is the

mills, not EPA, that determine that

particular Advanced Technologies are

available and economically achievable

for them within the time frames

provided in this program. In order for

EPA to impose Advanced Technology

limits on the entire subcategory as the

commenter suggests, EPA would need to

find adequate support in the rulemaking

record today that compulsory BAT

limits will be economically achievable

for their entire subcategory five years

from now. EPA cannot make that

determination based on the information

available today. At best, EPA could only

speculate whether some or all of the

mills projected to sustain the most

severe economic impacts if BAT Option

B is selected would be able to avoid

those impacts if compliance with that

BAT is deferred. EPA does not believe

that this type of speculation is a

sufficient basis for compelling

compliance with BAT limits that are not

economically achievable today for the

subcategory as a whole. Moreover, when

EPA estimated the effects of deferring

compliance, subcategory-wide, for five

years in response to these comments,

EPA concluded that the projected

impacts were such that, even then, BAT

Option B would not be economically

achievable for the subcategory as a

whole. See Section VI.B.5.a(5). For these

reasons, EPA concludes that it does not

have a sufficient record basis today to

make Tier I (or BAT Option B)

limitations the compulsory baseline

BAT even if such limits would not be

effective until 2002. See DCN 14392,

and CBI documents DCN 14390 and

DCN 14391.

EPA could have accomplished the

same results in this rulemaking simply

by deferring the effective dates of the

ultimate Advanced Technology

performance objectives until the dates

specified in the rule for achievement of

the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations. EPA has the

legal authority to defer the effective

dates of the ‘‘stage 2’’ portion of the

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

in this manner. Subject to the minimum

delays imposed by the APA, 5 U.S.C.

§ 553(d), and the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. § 801, EPA has

inherent authority to determine the

effective date of a rule and to defer the

effective date in appropriate cases. See

ASG Industries, Inc. v. Consumer

Products Safety Comm’n, 593 F.2d 1323,

1335 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Nothing in the

Clean Water Act limits this authority

with respect to BAT effluent limitations

guidelines. In contrast to section

306(b)(1)(B), where Congress explicitly

stated that new source performance

standards, ‘‘or revisions thereof, shall

become effective upon promulgation,’’

the CWA is silent regarding the effective

date of BAT effluent limitations

guidelines. Having failed to prescribe

when BAT guidelines become effective,

Congress therefore has delegated to the

Agency the authority to choose the

appropriate effective date of the BAT

effluent guideline limitations it

promulgates, so long as the Agency’s

choice is consistent with the goals and

purposes of the Act. See Chevron,

U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843–

44, 861. Under this approach, the ‘‘stage

1’’ limitations would be effective

immediately, and the ‘‘stage 2’’

limitations would become effective by

the dates specified in the regulation.

B. Incentives Available After

Achievement of Advanced Technology

BAT Limitations and NSPS

1. Greater Certainty Regarding Permit

Limits and Requirements

Industry stakeholders have suggested

to EPA that mills could be encouraged

to implement advanced technologies if

they had a reasonable assurance that all

limitations and conditions in their

permits would remain constant over a

specified period of time, once

compliance with the Advanced

Technology limits and standards is

achieved.

Under this incentive, EPA will issue

guidance to states regarding the

reissuance of NPDES permits held by

mills that achieve all of their Advanced

Technology BAT limitations or NSPS.

(EPA notes that new sources that accept

permit limitations based on, and

commence operation in compliance

with, Tier II or Tier III NSPS

automatically possess a shield against

more stringent standards of performance

for ten years from the completion of

construction.)

In its forthcoming guidance, EPA will

address the timing of reissuing

Advanced Technology NPDES permits

and the limitations those reissued

permits should contain. Regarding the

reissuance of Advanced Technology

NPDES permits, EPA believes that

permitting authorities could reasonably

conclude that an Advanced Technology

NPDES permit held by a mill meeting

all of its Tier limits is a low priority for

permit reissuance, if there is no new

water quality- or facility-related data or

information that would justify new or

different limits. Under these

circumstances, EPA believes it would be

reasonable for a permitting authority to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18609

conclude that that permit is a lower

priority for reissuance because the mill

is voluntarily achieving reductions

greater than otherwise required by the

baseline BAT and hence presents a

lower risk to water quality than other

mills.

In its guidance, however, EPA will

emphasize that an Advanced

Technology NPDES permit should be

administratively extended only if the

permitting authority had provided the

public with notice (the last time the

permit was reissued) that it might

choose to extend the permit

administratively when it expires. Thus,

EPA expects the permitting authority to

notify the public as part of the

preceding permitting process of the

circumstances under which it would

regard the Advanced Technology

NPDES permit as a low priority for

reissuance in the next permitting cycle.

For example, EPA expects the

permitting authority to inform the

public that the permit probably would

be administratively extended if the

permittee has achieved all of its

Advanced Technology limitations, if it

has filed a timely permit application,

and if the permitting authority possesses

no new water quality or facility-related

data that would justify new or different

permit conditions and limits. In

addition, EPA expects that the permit

eligible for an administrative extension

would contain BMPs and any water

quality-based effluent limits necessary

to achieve applicable water quality

standards. Thus, EPA would not expect

any adverse effect on the environment

during the period the permit is

administratively extended, in the

absence of specific information

indicating that more stringent water

quality effluent limits need to be

imposed.

The forthcoming guidance will also

address the types of limitations an

Advanced Technology NPDES permit

should contain when it is reissued after

achievement of the Tier limitations. As

a threshold matter, the permitting

authority will need to determine if there

is a need for new or revised water

quality-based effluent limitations. If

there is none, EPA encourages

permitting authorities to promptly

reissue the NPDES permit with the

existing water quality-based effluent

limitations, if any, and the appropriate

limitations found in 40 CFR Part 430. In

some cases, the permitting authority

may receive new facility- or watershedspecific information indicating that load

reductions and, consequently, more

stringent effluent limits on a pollutant

in the mill’s wastewater are necessary to

achieve applicable water quality

standards for that pollutant. Under these

circumstances, EPA would urge states to

develop priorities for allocating the

necessary load reductions in a way that

gives preference to Advanced

Technology mills over all other Subpart

B mills, particularly where Advanced

Technology mills contribute a small

portion of the total pollutant loads to

the stream. Moreover, where more than

one Advanced Technology mill

discharges in a watershed, these

priorities would further give preference

first to Tier III mills, then to Tier II, and

finally to Tier I mills.

2. Reduced Effluent Monitoring

EPA believes that reduced monitoring

provisions are appropriate for ECF and

TCF mills participating in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and is including them in the

today’s regulation for mills that achieve

Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT

Limitations or NSPS, as appropriate. See

40 CFR 430.02(c), (d) and (e). In EPA’s

view, consistent and successful

implementation of the Advanced

Technologies through ECF or TCF

processes will make it increasingly less

likely that the pollutants controlled by

the baseline BAT will be present in the

wastewater from Advanced Technology

fiber lines in levels of concern. Because

of these reductions and because

monitoring for these pollutants tends to

be costly, EPA believes it is reasonable

to allow mills achieving the Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

or NSPS through ECF or TCF processes

to monitor less frequently for those

pollutant parameters over time after

establishing a reliable baseline of

consistent achievement of those

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

or NSPS. See 40 CFR 430.02(c)–(e). To

qualify for a monitoring incentive, the

mill must certify that the fiber line is

TCF or Advanced ECF either as part of

their permit application or as part of a

report of progress on compliance with

milestones established to achieve their

ultimate Tier limits. 40 CFR 430.02(c).

No monitoring incentive is available

for kappa number or flow because no

minimum monitoring frequencies are

being established by this regulation.

EPA encourages permitting authorities

to consider factors such as the reliability

of the Advanced Technology to

consistently achieve or exceed the

applicable limitations and performance

variability in establishing monitoring

frequencies for kappa number and flow

on a best professional judgment basis.

The monitoring incentive for AOX

applies only when the entire mill is ECF

or TCF. See 40 CFR 430.02(c) and (d).

Since compliance with AOX most likely

will be determined at the end of the

pipe, the monitoring requirement would

be governed by the fiber line for which

most frequent monitoring is required.

EPA retains the authority to request or

obtain specific information that may be

needed to determine compliance with

the requirements of this rule. Because

monitoring relief is specified to be

available by the date compliance is

required, even if the limits have not

been achieved, EPA anticipates that

permitting authorities will exercise their

Section 308 authority to extend more

frequent monitoring for mills that do not

achieve compliance with their

limitations.

EPA relies on section 308(a) of the

Clean Water Act for authority to

promulgate this incentive. The reduced

monitoring for this effluent limitations

guideline incentive program is being

incorporated in the Code of Federal

Regulations, and is summarized as

follows:

a. For TCF fiber lines under Tiers I,

II, and III, no monitoring incentive is

available because no existing TCF fiber

line is subject to minimum monitoring

frequencies established by this rule. See

40 CFR 430.02(a). EPA anticipates that

permitting authorities will consider the

monitoring for AOX being imposed on

mills in comparable Tiers, and the

additional assurance of compliance that

TCF process technologies afford relative

to AOX, in establishing monitoring

frequencies on a best professional

judgment basis. For mills that use TCF

processes part of the time and ECF

processes for the remainder, EPA would

apply the reduced monitoring incentive

applicable to an ECF process. See 40

CFR 430.02(c), (d) and (e).

b. For any fiber line enrolled under

Tier I, II, or III for which the mill

certifies in its NPDES permit

application or other communication to

the permitting authority that it employs

exclusively Advanced ECF technologies

(i.e., extended delignification or other

technologies that achieve at least the

Tier I performance levels specified in

Section 430.24(b)(4)(i)), the minimum

monitoring requirements for dioxin,

furan, chloroform and the 12

chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be

suspended after one year of monitoring

following achievement of those

limitations and standards. See 40 CFR

430.02(c). (These limitations and

standards must be achieved no later

than April 15, 2004. See 40 CFR

430.24(b)(3).) For AOX, a certifying

Advanced ECF mill also would be

permitted to perform weekly instead of

daily monitoring for one year after

achievement of the ultimate Tier BAT

limit or NSPS for that pollutant. See 40
18610 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

CFR 430.02(d). Monitoring for AOX

once per month would be permitted for

Tier I ECF mills for four years beyond

the completion of that one year period.

See 40 CFR 430.02(e). Tier II ECF mills

would be permitted to monitor for AOX

once per quarter for four years beyond

the completion of that one year period,

and Tier III ECF mills would be

permitted to monitor for AOX once per

year for four years beyond the

completion of that one year period. Id.

3. Reduced Inspections

EPA will issue guidance to EPA

Regional Offices indicating that fiber

lines enrolled in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and achieving Voluntary

Advanced Technology BAT limitations

or NSPS should be a lower priority than

other NPDES facilities for routine

inspections under the CWA. Under this

incentive, the guidance would

recommend that fiber lines achieving

Tier I limits receive routine EPA

inspections not more than once every

two years; fiber lines achieving Tier II

limits receive routine EPA inspections

not more than twice every five years;

and fiber lines achieving Tier III limits

receive routine EPA inspections not

more than once every five years. This

incentive reflects EPA’s view that mills

installing and operating Advanced

Technologies at levels to meet the

appropriate tier effluent limitations and

standards are likely to be complying

with the other permit requirements

applicable to that fiber line.

Furthermore, the substantial reductions

in pollutants and wastewater volumes

discharged, particularly by mills

achieving Tier II and Tier III limitations

and standards, will have

commensurately reduced environmental

impacts. EPA already has redirected

Federal NPDES inspections away from

annual inspections of all major

dischargers to focus on high risk

facilities in priority watersheds.

Targeted efforts in these priority

watersheds focus on such factors as

facility compliance status and rates,

location and affected population, citizen

complaints, etc. Nonetheless, under this

incentive, EPA reserves the authority to

conduct multi-media inspections

without prior notice, and to inspect

Advanced Technology fiber lines for

cause, whether or not there is an

ongoing violation. EPA also reserves its

right to inspect an Advanced

Technology mill in connection with

specific watershed or airshed concerns.

4. Public Recognition Programs

EPA is pleased to have the

opportunity to implement a program in

which it can recognize facilities for

voluntary activities that achieve further

environmental improvements beyond

those required by the baseline BAT

limitations and NSPS promulgated

today. EPA’s intention is to provide for

easily administered and meaningful

public recognition for mills that

participate in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. EPA

will accord public recognition to mills

when they formally enroll in the

Program, when they achieve major

interim milestones, and when they

achieve the ultimate Tier performance

requirements. The applicable state

permitting authority also may choose to

separately recognize a pulp and paper

mill for its commitments and

achievements toward further

environmental improvements. The

following paragraphs describe the steps

for public recognition. EPA will issue

additional guidance to facilitate

implementation of this incentive.

a. Enrolling in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program. Once a mill has enrolled in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, EPA will issue a

letter to each facility acknowledging its

participation and identifying the tier

limits (and fiber line(s) as appropriate)

to which the mill has committed. Each

year EPA will publish a Federal

Register notice identifying mills that

have committed to the program within

the previous year. The self-selected Tier

will be clearly identified, as will any

other pertinent information. The

Federal Register notice will be made

available on the EPA Internet web site.

b. Achievement of Milestones. Each

time a mill achieves a major milestone

(particularly those which achieve

reduction in effluent pollutant

loadings), EPA will recognize that mill

in its annual Federal Register notice. In

order to qualify for this recognition,

each mill must notify its permitting

authority and provide supporting

monitoring data or other relevant

documentation. The permitting

authority may choose to visit the site for

verification. EPA, in concert with the

relevant state NPDES programs, also

will then ascertain the status of Clean

Water Act compliance and any other

enforcement actions prior to public

recognition activities. Any criminal

enforcement activities, particularly

convictions, also will be ascertained.

This information on compliance and

enforcement status will be available for

consideration by EPA senior

management prior to initiation of public

recognition activities. Relevant

information on enforcement and

compliance status also may be shared as

appropriate with senior management of

state permitting agencies that initiate

separate public recognition activities.

Public recognition for achieving

milestones will continue until the date

participating mills are required to

achieve the ultimate Tier performance

requirements.

c. Achievement of Voluntary

Advanced Technologies BAT

Limitations or NSPS. Mills that achieve

their Advanced Technology BAT

Limitations or NSPS will notify the

permitting authority and submit

supporting monitoring data and other

relevant documentation. The permitting

authority will verify that the Advanced

Technology BAT Limitations or NSPS

have been achieved. The annual Federal

Register notice will identify these

facilities as reaching their goal. EPA also

will participate in an award ceremony at

an appropriate venue (e.g., TAPPI

Environmental Conference).

5. Reduced Penalties

In recognition of the considerable

capital expenditures that mills

participating in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program will

make to implement Advanced

Technologies and to achieve pollutant

reductions superior to those achievable

through the baseline BAT or NSPS, EPA

will encourage enforcement authorities

to take into account those investments

as appropriate when assessing penalties

against these mills for violations relating

to those Advanced Technologies.

Existing EPA settlement policies

provide consideration of Advanced

Technology investments in this manner.

In EPA’s view, if a facility has installed

and is operating the Advanced

Technology in good faith, reports

violations in a prompt manner to EPA

or the State, and either corrects the

violations in a timely manner or agrees

to and complies with reasonable

remedial measures concurred on by the

primary enforcement authority, then the

enforcement authority would be

justified in taking the Advanced

Technology investment into account in

determining economic benefit and in

reducing the gravity portion of the

penalty by up to 100 percent. Where the

installation and operation of any

Advanced Technology was more

expensive than the installation and

operation of the technology underlying

the baseline BAT, the Advanced

Technology facilities would derive no

economic benefit (i.e., zero BEN) from

the violation associated with the

Advanced Technology. This would be

the case even when the Advanced

Technology fails, as long as the design,

operation and installation are within
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18611

applicable engineering standards and

operational procedures are within

industry norms. The decision whether

to take such Advanced Technology

investments into account in determining

economic benefit would be left to the

State’s discretion when the State is the

enforcing authority. EPA will issue

guidance to clarify application of this

incentive.

Mills also can take advantage of the

recently issued audit policy providing

they meet the criteria specified in that

policy. See 60 FR 66706 (Dec. 22, 1995).

X. Administrative Requirements and

Related Government Acts or Initiatives

A. Dockets

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by

EPA in the development of the final

regulations. The principal purposes of

the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can intelligently

and effectively participate in the

rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as

the record in case of judicial review,

except for intra-agency review materials

as provided for in section 307(d)(7)(A).

1. Air Dockets

Air Docket No. A–92–40 contains

information considered by EPA in

development of the NESHAP for the

chemical wood pulping mills. Air

Docket No. A–95–31 contains

information considered in developing

the NESHAP for mechanical pulping

processes, secondary fiber pulping

processes, and nonwood fiber pulping

processes. The Air Dockets are available

for public inspection between 8 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday

except for Federal holidays, at the

following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (MC–

6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260–7548.

The dockets are located at the above

address in Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall (ground floor). All comments

received during the public comment

period on the 1993 proposed NESHAP

are contained in the Pulp and Paper

Water Docket (see following paragraph

for location). Comments received on the

March 8, 1996, supplemental NESHAP

notice at 61 FR 9383 are contained in

Air Dockets A–92–40 and A–95–31.

2. Water Docket

The complete public record for the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards rulemaking, including EPA’s

responses to comments received during

the rulemaking, is available for review

at EPA’s Water Docket, Room M2616,

401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460. For access to Docket materials,

call (202) 260–3027. The Docket staff

requests that interested parties call

between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for an

appointment before visiting the docket.

The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2

provide that a reasonable fee may be

charged for copying materials from the

Air and Water Dockets.

EPA notes that many documents in

the record supporting these final rules

have been claimed as confidential

business information (CBI) and,

therefore, are not included in the record

that is available to the public in the Air

and Water Dockets. To support the

rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain

information in aggregated form or is

masking facility identities to preserve

confidentiality claims. Further, the

Agency has withheld from disclosure

some data not claimed as confidential

business information because release of

this information could indirectly reveal

information claimed to be confidential.

B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB

Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that ‘‘is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.’’

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that the Cluster Rules are a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because they will

have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more. As such, this

action was submitted to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

are documented in the public record.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended

by SBREFA, EPA generally is required

to conduct a regulatory flexibility

analysis describing the impact of the

rule on small entities. However, under

section 605(b) of the RFA, EPA is not

required to prepare the regulatory

flexibility analysis if EPA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,

the Agency certifies that today’s final

CWA rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. In addition,

EPA also finds that the final CAA rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities, as defined,

include small businesses, small

governments, and small organizations.

This rulemaking does not affect small

organizations. For small governments,

these rules could directly affect

administration or operating costs, but

are not expected to result in significant

impacts (see Section X.E.). Small

businesses are the remaining class of

small entity affected by this rulemaking.

For small businesses, EPA examined the

economic impacts of these rules in

detail and the results of its analysis are

found in the ‘‘Economic Analysis’’ (see

DCN 14649). The following is a brief

summary of the analysis.

Today’s CWA final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

because of those companies affected by

the CWA rule, only four are ‘‘a small

business concern’’ as defined by SBA

regulations. (The RFA, in general,

requires use of SBA definitions of small

businesses; for this regulation, small

businesses are defined as firms

employing no more than 750 workers.)

EPA does not believe this is a

substantial number of small entities as

that term is used in the RFA. Moreover,

while all four small business concerns

would experience increased costs of

operation as a result of today’s rule, the

costs of complying with the rule are also

not significant. As a measure of the

economic impact of today’s

requirements on a small entity, EPA

evaluated the costs of the rule relative

to the company’s annual revenues. The

cost of the rule only exceeded one

percent of revenues for one of the

facilities and in no case did it exceed

three percent.
18612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

When the costs of the CWA rule are

considered in combination with the

costs of the final CAA MACT I and

MACT III rules, EPA’s conclusion does

not change. EPA’s analysis showed that

the combined costs of achieving

compliance with the final air and water

rules will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. As noted

above, the CWA rule affects only four

small entities. Further, the combined

costs of the rules only exceeded one

percent of revenues for one of the four

small entities covered by both the final

air and water rules, and for no small

entity did it exceed three percent. Even

though this is a small cost, because of

the poor pre-existing economic

conditions at one facility, EPA projects

that one facility owned by one of the

small firms may close as a result of the

combined final CWA and CAA rules.

EPA has determined that one closure is

not a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small business

concerns.

Though not required by the RFA, EPA

also examined the costs of the final

CWA rule in combination with the costs

of the final MACT I and MACT III and

proposed MACT II rules. EPA’s analysis

showed that the combined costs of

achieving compliance with the final air

and water rules and the proposed

MACT II rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

stated before, only four small entities

would be affected. The combined cost of

the rules would only exceed one percent

of revenues for two small entities and

for no small entity covered by both the

final air and water rules and the

proposed air rule would it exceed three

percent. Even though this is a small

cost, because of the poor pre-existing

economic conditions at one facility,

EPA projects that one facility owned by

one of the small firms may close as a

result of the final CWA and final and

proposed CAA rules.

EPA’s assessment of the impacts on

small businesses subject to the final

CAA rules yields similar results. EPA

evaluated the impacts of the costs of the

final MACT I and MACT III rules on

small businesses. Of the companies

affected by the two CAA rules, only 11

meet the SBA definition of ‘‘a small

business concern.’’ EPA does not

believe this is a substantial number of

small entities as that term is used in the

RFA. EPA has also examined the extent

of the impact on those 11 companies

and finds that the costs of complying

with the final MACT I rule and the final

MACT III rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. In evaluating

the costs of the rules relative to the

company’s annual revenues, EPA’s

analysis shows that no company is

estimated to incur costs in excess of one

percent of its revenues as a result of

implementing the final MACT I and

MACT III rules. As a consequence, EPA

finds that the CAA rule does not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

When the costs of the final MACT I

and MACT III rules are considered in

combination with the costs of the final

CWA rule, EPA’s analysis shows that

the combined costs of achieving

compliance with the final air and water

rules is still not a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As discussed, only 11 small business

concerns must comply with the CAA

rule. Of these, only four will experience

additional costs due to the CWA rule.

The combined costs of the rules only

exceeded one percent of revenues for

one small entity covered by both the air

and water rules, and for no small entity

did it exceed three percent. Even though

this is a small cost, because of the poor

pre-existing economic conditions at one

facility, EPA projects that one facility

owned by one of the small firms may

close as a result of the combined final

CWA and CAA rules.

Though not required by the RFA, EPA

also assessed the cumulative economic

effect on small entities if the proposed

MACT rule is adopted. EPA’s

conclusion that costs to small entities

are not great does not change when the

costs of the final and proposed MACT

rules are combined with the costs of the

final CWA rule. The combined cost of

the rules would only exceed one percent

of revenues for two small entities

covered by both the final air and water

rules and the proposed air rule, and for

no small entity would it exceed three

percent. Even though this is a small

cost, because of the poor pre-existing

economic conditions at one facility,

EPA projects that one facility owned by

one of the small firms may close as a

result of the combined final CWA and

CAA rules.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in the air emissions rules

have been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1657.02), and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740. The

information requirements are not

effective until OMB approves them.

The information required to be

collected by the air emission rules is

needed as part of the overall compliance

and enforcement program. It is

necessary to identify the regulated

entities who are subject to the rule and

ensure their compliance with the rule.

The recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are mandatory and are

being established under section 114 of

the Clean Air Act.

There are approximately 490

respondents that are potentially affected

by the air emission rules. All 490

respondents must submit an initial

applicability notification. Of the 490

affected respondents, there would be an

estimated 155 respondents required to

perform additional information

collection. For the 155 respondents, this

collection of information has an

estimated total annual recordkeeping

and reporting burden averaging 320

hours per respondent during the first

three years after promulgation. For the

155 respondents, the average annualized

cost of the reporting and recordkeeping

burden per respondent is $29,600 for

the first three years following

promulgation.

The recordkeeping and reporting

burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Specifically, the estimated 155

respondents must submit performance

test notifications, statements of

compliance, and semi-annual reports of

monitored parameters. The 155

respondents must also conduct

performance tests. If compliance

exceedances occur, respondents must

submit quarterly excess emissions

reports. This information will be used to

demonstrate compliance with the

NESHAP.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18613

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

The effluent limitation guidelines and

standards promulgated today contain

two distinct information collection

activities, i.e., specified monitoring

requirements, see 40 CFR 430.02, and

development of BMP plans and related

monitoring, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(4),

(c)(5), (c)(10), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and

(i)(4). EPA will seek approval of these

information collection requirements

from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

as follows. EPA will seek to amend the

NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report

ICR No. 229, OMB approval number

2040–0004, expiration May 31, 1998, to

add specified monitoring requirements

for direct dischargers. EPA will seek to

add the specified monitoring

requirements for indirect dischargers by

amending the National Pretreatment

Program ICR No. 2, OMB approval

number 2040–0009, prior to its

expiration on October 31, 1999. EPA

will seek approval of the Best

Management Practices ICR No. 1829.01

for the requirements pertaining to BMP

plans and associated monitoring. EPA’s

burden estimates for the BMP ICR are

presented for comment in a document

published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR parts 9 and 48 CFR chapter

15.

In addition, direct discharging mills

continue to be required, under 40 CFR

122.21, to submit certain information as

part of their application for an NPDES

permit. Indirect discharging mills, in

turn, must submit industrial user

reports and periodic reports regarding

compliance with categorical

pretreatment standards under 40 CFR

403.12(b), (d), and (e). The effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

being promulgated today do not change

those requirements. EPA notes that

mills that describe their process as TCF

or ECF under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) or 40

CFR 403.12(b), (d), or (e) as applicable,

supply corroborating data if requested

by the permitting authority under 40

CFR 122.21(g)(13), and comply with the

signatory and certification requirements

in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 403.12(l) as

applicable will be deemed to have

certified their process as TCF or ECF. In

addition, direct discharging mills that

indicate under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and

(g)(13) their desire to participate in the

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program and comply with the signatory

and certification requirements in 40

CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 122.23,

whichever is applicable, will be deemed

to have enrolled in the Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. In both

cases, this information will determine

the types of technology-based effluent

limitations and standards and the types

of monitoring requirements, if any, they

will receive. OMB has approved the

existing information collection

requirements associated with NPDES

discharge permit applications and

industrial user reports under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq. OMB has assigned OMB

control number 2040–0086 to the

NPDES permit application activity and

OMB control numbers 2040–0009 and

2040–0150 to the reporting and

certification requirements for industrial

users. Nothing in today’s rule changes

the burden estimates for these ICRs.

All information submitted to the EPA

for which a claim of confidentiality is

made will be safeguarded according to

the EPA policies set forth in Title 40,

Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B—

Confidentiality of Information (see 40

CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1,

1976; amended by 43 FR 39999,

September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42241,

September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674,

March 23, 1979).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most 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.

EPA has determined that today’s final

rules contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for the private sector in

any one year. Accordingly, EPA has

prepared the written statement required

by section 202 of the UMRA. This

statement is contained in the Economic

Analysis for the rule (DCN 14649) and

other support documents and is

summarized below. In addition, EPA

has determined that the rules contain no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments and therefore are not

subject to the requirement of section 203

of the UMRA. The reasons for this

finding are set forth below.

EPA prepared several supporting

analyses for the final rules. Throughout

this preamble and in those supporting

analyses, EPA has responded to the

UMRA section 202 requirements.

Considerations with respect to costs,

benefits, and regulatory alternatives are

addressed in the Economic Analysis

(DCN 14649), which is summarized in

Section VIII of this preamble. A very

brief summary follows.

The statutory authorities for these

rules are found in section 112 of the

CAA and multiple sections of the CWA

(see Section I for a list). In part, these

sections of the statutes authorize and

direct EPA to issue regulations and

standards to address air emissions and

effluent discharges.

EPA prepared a qualitative and

quantitative cost-benefit assessment of
18614 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

the federal requirements imposed by

today’s final rules. In large part, the

private sector, not other governments,

will incur the costs. Specifically, the

costs of this federal mandate are

compliance costs to be borne by the

regulated pulp and paper mills. In

addition, although some States and local

governments will incur costs to

implement the standards, these costs to

governments will not exceed the

thresholds established by UMRA. The

final rules are not expected to result in

significant or unique impacts to small

governments; the requirements are

consistent with established and alreadyoperating implementation programs.

EPA estimates that the total

annualized costs for the private sector to

comply with the federal mandate are

$351 million (pre-tax)/$229 million

(post-tax). The mandate’s benefits are

primarily in the areas of reduced health

risks and improved air and water

quality. The Economic Analysis (DCN

14649) describes, qualitatively, many

such benefits. The analysis then

quantifies a subset of the benefits and,

for a subset of the quantified benefits,

EPA monetizes (i.e., places a dollar

value on) selected benefits. EPA’s

estimates of the monetized benefits for

the final rules are in the range of $39 to

$403 million.

EPA does not believe that there will

be any disproportionate budgetary

effects of the rules on any particular

areas of the country, particular types of

communities, or particular industry

segments. EPA’s basis for this finding is

its analysis of economic impacts, which

is summarized in Section VIII of the

preamble and in the Economic Analysis

(DCN 14649). A key feature of that

analysis is the estimation of financial

impacts for each facility incurring

compliance costs. EPA considered the

costs, impacts, and other effects for

specific regions and individual

communities, and found no

disproportionate budgetary effects.

Although these final rules apply only to

one industry segment, EPA found no

disproportionate budgetary effect. (The

term segment as used in this context

refers to the industrial category of pulp,

paper, and paperboard, and not to

individual subcategories within that

category; it is used differently in other

sections of this preamble.) The

Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) also

describes the rules’ effect on the

national economy in terms of effects on

productivity, economic growth, and

international competitiveness; EPA

found such effects to be minimal.

Although EPA has determined that

these rules do not contain requirements

that might significantly or uniquely

affect any State, local, or tribal

governments (see chapter 7), EPA

consulted with State and local air and

water pollution control officials. These

consultations primarily pertained to

implementation issues for States and

local governments. EPA’s evaluation of

their comments is reflected in the final

rules.

For each regulatory decision in

today’s rules, EPA has selected the

‘‘least costly, most cost effective, or least

burdensome alternative’’ that was

consistent with the requirements of the

CAA and CWA. This satisfies section

205 of the UMRA. As part of this

rulemaking, EPA had identified and

considered a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives. Primarily, the

regulatory alternatives are

manufacturing processes, air emission

controls, wastewater discharge controls,

and other technologies. Many of the

alternatives are described above in

Section VI; others are described in

supporting documents. The Agency’s

consideration of alternatives also

included an incentives program to

encourage bleached papergrade kraft

and soda mills to commit to pollution

prevention advances beyond the

requirements of the federal mandate.

See Section IX. The Agency’s selection

from among these alternatives is

consistent with the requirements of

UMRA, in terms of cost, costeffectiveness, and burden. Several

sections of the preamble are devoted to

describing the Agency’s rationale for

each regulatory decision (e.g., Sections

VI.B.5.a(5) and VI.B.6.b(2)).

Finally, EPA has considered the

purpose and intent of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act and has

determined that these rules are needed,

not only because of the significant

pollutant reductions these rules will

achieve, see Section VII, but also to

satisfy EPA’s obligations under the

consent decree in Environmental

Defense Fund and Natural Wildlife

Federation v. Thomas, see Section

II.C.1.a, and EPA’s CAA obligations.

F. Pollution Prevention Act

In the Pollution Prevention Act of

1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Public

Law 101–508, November 5, 1990),

Congress declared pollution prevention

the national policy of the United States.

The Pollution Prevention Act declares

that pollution should be prevented or

reduced whenever feasible; pollution

that cannot be prevented or reduced

should be recycled or reused in an

environmentally safe manner wherever

feasible; pollution that cannot be

recycled should be treated; and disposal

or release into the environment should

be chosen only as a last resort.

Today’s rules are consistent with this

policy. As described in section VI,

development of today’s rules focused on

the pollution-preventing technologies

that some segments of the industry have

already adopted. Thus, a critical

component of the technology bases for

today’s effluent limitations guidelines

and standards are process changes that

eliminate or substantially reduce the

formation of certain toxic chemicals.

EPA also employs process changes as

the technology basis for the emission

standards.

G. Common Sense Initiative

On August 19, 1994, the

Administrator established the Common

Sense Initiative (CSI) Council in

accordance with the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2,

Section 9 (c)) requirements. A principal

goal of the CSI includes developing

recommendations for optimal

approaches to multimedia controls for

industrial sectors including Petroleum

Refining, Metal Plating and Finishing,

Printing, Electronics and Computers,

Auto Manufacturing, and Iron and Steel

Manufacturing.

The Pulp and Paper regulations were

not among the rulemaking efforts

included in the Common Sense

Initiative. However, many of the CSI

objectives have been incorporated into

these final rules, and the Agency

intends to continue to pursue these

objectives.

H. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 28,

1993, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093). In particular, this executive

order requires EPA to consult with

representatives of affected State, local,

or tribal governments. While these rules

do not create mandates upon State,

local, or tribal governments, EPA

involved State and local governments in

their development. Because this

regulation imposes costs to the private

sector in excess of $100 million, the

EPA pursued the preparation of an

unfunded mandates statement and the

other requirements of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act. The requirements

are met as presented in the unfunded

mandate s section above.

I. Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898 directs federal

agencies to ‘‘determine whether their

programs, policies, and activities have
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18615

disproportionally high adverse human

health or environmental effects on

minority populations and low-income

populations.’’ (Sec.3–301 and Sec. 3–

302). In developing the Cluster Rules,

EPA analyzed the environmental justice

questions raised by these rules. EPA

conducted two analyses in 1996 to

comply with Executive Order 12898 and

to determine human health effects on

minority and low-income populations.

First, in a comparison of demographic

characteristics, EPA found that there is

no significant difference in ethnic

makeup or income level of counties

where bleached papergrade kraft and

soda mills are located when compared

to the States in which they are located.

In fact, of the twenty-six States with

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

mills, fifteen States actually have lower

minority populations (as a percentage of

overall population) in mill counties

than in the State as a whole, and sixteen

States have a lower percent AfricanAmerican population in mill counties

than in their respective states. Fifteen

States have a slightly larger portion of

the population living below the poverty

line in mill counties (15 percent

average) when compared to the State as

a whole (14.1 percent average);

however, when EPA examined the

results statistically, differences

examined between mill counties and

total State populations were not

significant. Therefore, EPA has

concluded that the regulatory decisions

reflected in today’s rules will not have

a disproportionately high adverse

human health or environmental effect

on minority populations or low-income

populations.

Second, EPA investigated the fish

consumption characteristics of Native

American populations downstream from

pulp and paper mills. Of the 48 Native

American tribes downstream from pulp

mills, eight have special subsistence

fishing rights. One finding from EPA’s

analysis is that members of five of these

tribes have elevated risks of contracting

cancer from consuming fish

contaminated by dioxin, when

compared to the general population and

recreational anglers, because they

consume fish at higher levels. EPA

expects the final rule to reduce

substantially the cancer risks to these

tribal populations, as discussed in

Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis

(DCN 14649).

J. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of the rule in today’s Federal Register.

This rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

K. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is required to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) which are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires the Agency to

provide Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards. This section

summarizes EPA’s response to the

requirements of the NTTAA for the

analytical test methods promulgated as

part of today’s effluent limitations

guidelines and standards.

EPA’s analytical test method

development is consistent with the

requirements of the NTTAA. Although

the Agency initiated data collection for

these effluent guidelines many years

prior to enactment of the NTTAA,

traditionally, analytical test method

development has been analogous to the

Act’s requirements for consideration

and use of voluntary consensus

standards. EPA performed extensive

literature searches to identify any

analytical methods from industry,

academia, voluntary consensus

standards bodies and other parties that

could be used to measure the analytes

in today’s rulemaking. The results of

this search formed the basis for EPA’s

analytical method development and

validation in support of this rulemaking.

Two new analytical test methods are

being promulgated in today’s final rule

(see Section VI.B.4).

The first method is EPA Method 1650

for determination of adsorbable organic

halides (AOX). Development of Method

1650 began in 1989 to support data

gathering for regulation of pulp and

paper industry discharges. This method

was developed by combining various

procedures contained in methods from

voluntary consensus standards bodies

and other standards developing

organizations such as German DIN

standard 38 409, International Standard

Organization (ISO) Method 9562,

Scandinavian Method SCAN–W 9:89,

Standard Method 5320 (published

jointly by the American Public Health

Association, the American Water Works

Association and the Water Environment

Federation), a method published by

Environment Canada, EPA’s Method

9020 and EPA’s interim Method 450.1.

The foreign and international methods

all employed the batch adsorption

technique for determination of AOX; the

U.S. methods all employed the column

technique. Nearly all data collected by

the paper industry and others prior to

development of Method 1650 were

gathered using the column technique.

Method 1650 allows use of both the

batch and column techniques but

contains restrictions on the batch

technique specific to paper industry

wastewaters, as detailed in the Method

and as described above in Section VI.B.4

and in EPA’s responses to public

comments (DCN 14497, Vol. VII). In

addition to the differences between

adsorption techniques, none of the

existing methods, including those in

voluntary consensus standards,

contained the standardized quality

control (QC) and QC acceptance criteria

that EPA requires for data verification

and validation in its water programs.

EPA is therefore promulgating the new

EPA Method 1650.

EPA is also promulgating EPA

Method 1653 for determination of

chlorinated phenolics. Development of

Method 1653 also began in 1989 to

support data gathering for regulation of

pulp and paper industry discharges.

This method was developed using

National Council of the Paper Industry

for Air and Stream Improvement

(NCASI) Methods CP85.01 and CP86.01

as a starting point and adding the

necessary standardized QC and QC

acceptance criteria. EPA Method 1653

and the NCASI methods employ in-situ

derivatization to assure that only

chlorophenolics are derivatized and

measured. The in-situ derivatization

technique allows only chlorophenolics

to be derivatized in the effluent and

leaves behind interfering analytes. This

condition is necessary for accurate

measurement of the relevant analytes.

Voluntary consensus standards methods

were not available for chlorophenolics

by in-situ derivatization. EPA is

therefore promulgating the new EPA

Method 1653.

Dischargers are also required to

monitor for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin (dioxin; TCDD; 2,3,7,8-TCDD),

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF;
18616 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

2,3,7,8-TCDF), chloroform, biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD), and total

suspended solids (TSS). Methods for

monitoring these pollutants are

specified in tables at 40 CFR part 136.

When available, methods published by

voluntary consensus standards bodies

are included in the list of approved

methods in these tables. Specifically,

voluntary consensus standards are

approved for the determination of

chloroform, BOD, and TSS (from the

18th edition of Standard Methods). In

addition, USGS methods are approved

for BOD and TSS.

For TCDD and TCDF, EPA is

specifying the use of EPA Method 1613,

promulgated at 62 FR 48394 (September

15, 1997). This method was developed

to support data gathering for regulation

of pulp and paper industry discharges

and incorporates procedures from EPA,

academia, industry (NCASI and the Dow

Chemical Co.) and a commercial

laboratory. There were no voluntary

consensus standards methods available

for these pollutants by high resolution

gas chromatography (HRGC) coupled

with high resolution mass spectrometry

(HRMS) at the time EPA Method 1613

was developed. Both HRGC and HRMS

are required to separately detect and

measure dioxin and furan isomers at

low concentrations (i.e., low parts per

quadrillion (ppq)). High resolution

techniques are necessary to conduct the

assay in the presence of interfering

analytes. EPA is unaware of the

existence of an HRGC/HRMS method

from a voluntary consensus standards

body for determination of TCDD and

TCDF in the low ppq range in pulp and

paper industry discharges.

XI. Background Documents

The summary of public comments

and agency responses and the

environmental impacts statement for the

NESHAP are contained in the final

Background Information Document

(BID). A paper copy of the final

Background Information Document for

the NESHAP may be obtained from the

U.S. EPA Library (MD–35), Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone (919) 541–2777; or from the

National Technical Information

Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone

(703) 487–4650. To obtain the final

Background Information Document,

please refer to ‘‘Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard Industry—Background

Information for Promulgated Air

Emission Standards, Manufacturing

Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, SemiChemical, Mechanical, and Secondary

and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final EIS’’

(EPA–453/R–93–050b). An electronic

copy of the final Background

Information Document is available from

the Technology Transfer Network

described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document.

Documents supporting the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

may be obtained by contacting the

National Technical Information

Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone

(703) 487–4650.

EPA’s technical conclusions

concerning the wastewater regulations

are detailed in the ‘‘Supplemental

Technical Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard Point Source Category’’

(EPA–821–R–97–011, DCN 14487). The

Agency’s economic analysis is found in

the ‘‘Economic Analysis for the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and

Paper Production; Effluent Limitations

Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and

New Source Performance Standards for

the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

Industry—Phase I,’’ referred to as the

Economic Analysis (EPA–821–R–97–

012, DCN 14649). This document also

includes an analysis of the incremental

costs and pollutant removals for the

effluent regulations. Analytical methods

used in the development of the effluent

guidelines are found in ‘‘Analytical

Methods for the Determination of

Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry

Wastewater,’’ a compendium of

analytical methods (EPA 821–B–97–00).

The environmental assessment is

presented in the ‘‘Water Quality

Assessment of Final Effluent

Limitations Guidelines for the

Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard Industry’’ (EPA–823–R–97–

009, DCN 14650). The statistical

analyses used in this rulemaking are

detailed in the ‘‘Statistical Support

Document for the Pulp and Paper

Industry: Subpart B’’ (DCN 14496). The

best management practices program is

presented in ‘‘Technical Support

Document for Best Management

Practices for Spent Pulping Liquor

Management, Spill Prevention, and

Control (DCN 14489), also referred to as

the BMP Technical Support Document.

The Advanced Technology Incentives

Program is presented in the ‘‘Technical

Support Document for the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program,’’ (EPA–821–R–97–014, DCN

14488).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

Hazardous waste, Recycling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 430

Paper and paper products industry,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waste treatment and

disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart S to read as follows:

Subpart S—National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp

and Paper Industry

Sec.

63.440 Applicability.

63.441 Definitions.

63.442 [Reserved]

63.443 Standards for the pulping system at

kraft, soda, and semi-chemical processes.

63.444 Standards for the pulping system at

sulfite processes.

63.445 Standards for the bleaching system.

63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process

condensates.

63.447 Clean condensate alternative.

63.448–63.449 [Reserved]

63.450 Standards for enclosures and closedvent systems.

63.451–63.452 [Reserved]

63.453 Monitoring requirements.

63.454 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.455 Reporting requirements.

63.456 [Reserved]

63.457 Test methods and procedures.

63.458 Delegation of authority.

63.459 [Reserved]
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18617

Table 1 to Subpart S.—General Provisions

Applicability to Subpart S

Subpart S—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry

§ 63.440 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to the owner or operator of

processes that produce pulp, paper, or

paperboard; that are located at a plant

site that is a major source as defined in

§ 63.2 of subpart A of this part; and that

use the following processes and

materials:

(1) Kraft, soda, sulfite, or semichemical pulping processes using wood;

or

(2) Mechanical pulping processes

using wood; or

(3) Any process using secondary or

non-wood fibers.

(b) The affected source to which the

existing source provisions of this

subpart apply is as follows:

(1) For the processes specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the

affected source is the total of all HAP

emission points in the pulping and

bleaching systems; or

(2) For the processes specified in

paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section,

the affected source is the total of all

HAP emission points in the bleaching

system.

(c) The new source provisions of this

subpart apply to the total of all HAP

emission points at new or existing

sources as follows:

(1) Each affected source defined in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section that

commences construction or

reconstruction after December 17, 1993;

(2) Each pulping system or bleaching

system for the processes specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section that

commences construction or

reconstruction after December 17, 1993;

(3) Each additional pulping or

bleaching line at the processes specified

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that

commences construction after December

17, 1993;

(4) Each affected source defined in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section that

commences construction or

reconstruction after March 8, 1996; or

(5) Each additional bleaching line at

the processes specified in paragraphs

(a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, that

commences construction after March 8,

1996.

(d) Each existing source shall achieve

compliance no later than April 16, 2001,

except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1)

through (d)(3) of this section.

(1) Each kraft pulping system shall

achieve compliance with the pulping

system provisions of § 63.443 for the

equipment listed in § 63.443(a)(1)(ii)

through (a)(1)(v) as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than

April 17, 2006 and the owners and

operators shall establish dates, update

dates, and report the dates for the

milestones specified in § 63.455(b).

(2) Each dissolving-grade bleaching

system at either kraft or sulfite pulping

mills shall achieve compliance with the

bleach plant provisions of § 63.445 of

this subpart as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than 3

years after the promulgation of the

revised effluent limitation guidelines

and standards under 40 CFR 430.14

through 430.17 and 40 CFR 430.44

through 430.47.

(3) Each bleaching system complying

with the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program for

Effluent Limitation Guidelines in 40

CFR 430.24, shall comply with the

requirements specified in either

paragraph (d)(3)(i) or (d)(3)(ii) of this

section for the effluent limitation

guidelines and standards in 40 CFR

430.24.

(i) Comply with the bleach plant

provisions of § 63.445 of this subpart as

expeditiously as practicable, but in no

event later than April 16, 2001.

(ii) Comply with all of the following:

(A) The owner or operator of a

bleaching system shall comply with the

bleach plant provisions of § 63.445 of

this subpart as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than

April 15, 2004.

(B) The owner or operator of a

bleaching system shall not increase the

application rate of chlorine or

hypochlorite in kg of bleaching agent

per megagram of ODP, in the bleaching

system above the average daily rates

used over the three months prior to June

15, 1998 until the requirements of

paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section are

met and record application rates as

specified in § 63.454(c).

(C) Owners and operators shall

establish dates, update dates, and report

the dates for the milestones specified in

§ 63.455(b).

(e) Each new source, specified as the

total of all HAP emission points for the

sources specified in paragraph (c) of this

section, shall achieve compliance upon

start-up or June 15, 1998, whichever is

later, as provided in § 63.6(b) of subpart

A of this part.

(f) Each owner or operator of an

affected source with affected process

equipment shared by more than one

type of pulping process, shall comply

with the applicable requirement in this

subpart that achieves the maximum

degree of reduction in HAP emissions.

(g) Each owner or operator of an

affected source specified in paragraphs

(a) through (c) of this section must

comply with the requirements of

subpart A—General Provisions of this

part, as indicated in table 1 to this

subpart.

§ 63.441 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart shall

have the meaning given them in the

CAA, in subpart A of this part, and in

this section as follows:

Acid condensate storage tank means

any storage tank containing cooking

acid following the sulfur dioxide gas

fortification process.

Black liquor means spent cooking

liquor that has been separated from the

pulp produced by the kraft, soda, or

semi-chemical pulping process.

Bleaching means brightening of pulp

by the addition of oxidizing chemicals

or reducing chemicals.

Bleaching line means a group of

bleaching stages arranged in series such

that bleaching of the pulp progresses as

the pulp moves from one stage to the

next.

Bleaching stage means all process

equipment associated with a discrete

step of chemical application and

removal in the bleaching process

including chemical and steam mixers,

bleaching towers, washers, seal (filtrate)

tanks, vacuum pumps, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Bleaching system means all process

equipment after high-density pulp

storage prior to the first application of

oxidizing chemicals or reducing

chemicals following the pulping system,

up to and including the final bleaching

stage.

Boiler means any enclosed

combustion device that extracts useful

energy in the form of steam. A boiler is

not considered a thermal oxidizer.

Chip steamer means a vessel used for

the purpose of preheating or pretreating

wood chips prior to the digester, using

flash steam from the digester or live

steam.

Closed-vent system means a system

that is not open to the atmosphere and

is composed of piping, ductwork,

connections, and, if necessary, flowinducing devices that transport gas or

vapor from an emission point to a

control device.

Combustion device means an

individual unit of equipment, including

but not limited to, a thermal oxidizer,

lime kiln, recovery furnace, process

heater, or boiler, used for the thermal

oxidation of organic hazardous air

pollutant vapors.
18618 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Decker system means all equipment

used to thicken the pulp slurry or

reduce its liquid content after the pulp

washing system and prior to highdensity pulp storage. The decker system

includes decker vents, filtrate tanks,

associated vacuum pumps, and any

other equipment serving the same

function as those previously listed.

Digester system means each

continuous digester or each batch

digester used for the chemical treatment

of wood or non-wood fibers. The

digester system equipment includes

associated flash tank(s), blow tank(s),

chip steamer(s) not using fresh steam,

blow heat recovery accumulator(s),

relief gas condenser(s), prehydrolysis

unit(s) preceding the pulp washing

system, and any other equipment

serving the same function as those

previously listed. The digester system

includes any of the liquid streams or

condensates associated with batch or

continuous digester relief, blow, or flash

steam processes.

Emission point means any part of a

stationary source that emits hazardous

air pollutants regulated under this

subpart, including emissions from

individual process vents, stacks, open

pieces of process equipment, equipment

leaks, wastewater and condensate

collection and treatment system units,

and those emissions that could

reasonably be conveyed through a stack,

chimney, or duct where such emissions

first reach the environment.

Evaporator system means all

equipment associated with increasing

the solids content and/or concentrating

spent cooking liquor from the pulp

washing system including preevaporators, multi-effect evaporators,

concentrators, and vacuum systems, as

well as associated condensers, hotwells,

and condensate streams, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Flow indicator means any device that

indicates gas or liquid flow in an

enclosed system.

HAP means a hazardous air pollutant

as defined in § 63.2 of subpart A of this

part.

High volume, low concentration or

HVLC collection system means the gas

collection and transport system used to

convey gases from the HVLC system to

a control device.

High volume, low concentration or

HVLC system means the collection of

equipment including the pulp washing,

knotter, screen, decker, and oxygen

delignification systems, weak liquor

storage tanks, and any other equipment

serving the same function as those

previously listed.

Knotter system means equipment

where knots, oversized material, or

pieces of uncooked wood are removed

from the pulp slurry after the digester

system and prior to the pulp washing

system. The knotter system equipment

includes the knotter, knot drainer tanks,

ancillary tanks, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Kraft pulping means a chemical

pulping process that uses a mixture of

sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide

as the cooking liquor.

Lime kiln means an enclosed

combustion device used to calcine lime

mud, which consists primarily of

calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide.

Low volume, high concentration or

LVHC collection system means the gas

collection and transport system used to

convey gases from the LVHC system to

a control device.

Low volume, high concentration or

LVHC system means the collection of

equipment including the digester,

turpentine recovery, evaporator, steam

stripper systems, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Mechanical pulping means a pulping

process that only uses mechanical and

thermo-mechanical processes to reduce

wood to a fibrous mass. The mechanical

pulping processes include, but are not

limited to, stone groundwood,

pressurized groundwood, refiner

mechanical, thermal refiner mechanical,

thermo-mechanical, and tandem

thermo-mechanical.

Non-wood pulping means the

production of pulp from fiber sources

other than trees. The non-wood fiber

sources include, but are not limited to,

bagasse, cereal straw, cotton, flax straw,

hemp, jute, kenaf, and leaf fibers.

Oven-dried pulp or ODP means a pulp

sample at zero percent moisture content

by weight. Pulp samples for

applicability or compliance

determinations for both the pulping and

bleaching systems shall be unbleached

pulp. For purposes of complying with

mass emission limits in this subpart,

megagram of ODP shall be measured to

represent the amount of pulp entering

and processed by the equipment system

under the specified mass limit. For

equipment that does not process pulp,

megagram of ODP shall be measured to

represent the amount of pulp that was

processed to produce the gas and liquid

streams.

Oxygen delignification system means

the equipment that uses oxygen to

remove lignin from pulp after highdensity stock storage and prior to the

bleaching system. The oxygen

delignification system equipment

includes the blow tank, washers, filtrate

tanks, any interstage pulp storage tanks,

and any other equipment serving the

same function as those previously

listed.

Primary fuel means the fuel that

provides the principal heat input to the

combustion device. To be considered

primary, the fuel must be able to sustain

operation of the combustion device

without the addition of other fuels.

Process wastewater treatment system

means a collection of equipment, a

process, or specific technique that

removes or destroys the HAP’s in a

process wastewater stream. Examples

include, but are not limited to, a steam

stripping unit, wastewater thermal

oxidizer, or biological treatment unit.

Pulp washing system means all

equipment used to wash pulp and

separate spent cooking chemicals

following the digester system and prior

to the bleaching system, oxygen

delignification system, or paper

machine system (at unbleached mills).

The pulp washing system equipment

includes vacuum drum washers,

diffusion washers, rotary pressure

washers, horizontal belt filters,

intermediate stock chests, and their

associated vacuum pumps, filtrate

tanks, foam breakers or tanks, and any

other equipment serving the same

function as those previously listed. The

pulp washing system does not include

deckers, screens, knotters, stock chests,

or pulp storage tanks following the last

stage of pulp washing.

Pulping line means a group of

equipment arranged in series such that

the wood chips are digested and the

resulting pulp progresses through a

sequence of steps that may include

knotting, refining, washing, thickening,

blending, storing, oxygen

delignification, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Pulping process condensates means

any HAP-containing liquid that results

from contact of water with organic

compounds in the pulping process.

Examples of process condensates

include digester system condensates,

turpentine recovery system condensates,

evaporator system condensates, LVHC

system condensates, HVLC system

condensates, and any other condensates

from equipment serving the same

function as those previously listed.

Liquid streams that are intended for

byproduct recovery are not considered

process condensate streams.

Pulping system means all process

equipment, beginning with the digester

system, and up to and including the last

piece of pulp conditioning equipment

prior to the bleaching system, including
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18619

treatment with ozone, oxygen, or

peroxide before the first application of

a chemical bleaching agent intended to

brighten pulp. The pulping system

includes pulping process condensates

and can include multiple pulping lines.

Recovery furnace means an enclosed

combustion device where concentrated

spent liquor is burned to recover

sodium and sulfur, produce steam, and

dispose of unwanted dissolved wood

components in the liquor.

Screen system means equipment in

which oversized particles are removed

from the pulp slurry prior to the

bleaching or papermaking system

washed stock storage.

Secondary fiber pulping means a

pulping process that converts a fibrous

material, that has previously undergone

a manufacturing process, into pulp

stock through the addition of water and

mechanical energy. The mill then uses

that pulp as the raw material in another

manufactured product. These mills may

also utilize chemical, heat, and

mechanical processes to remove ink

particles from the fiber stock.

Semi-chemical pulping means a

pulping process that combines both

chemical and mechanical pulping

processes. The semi-chemical pulping

process produces intermediate yields

ranging from 55 to 90 percent.

Soda pulping means a chemical

pulping process that uses sodium

hydroxide as the active chemical in the

cooking liquor.

Spent liquor means process liquid

generated from the separation of

cooking liquor from pulp by the pulp

washing system containing dissolved

organic wood materials and residual

cooking compounds.

Steam stripper system means a

column (including associated stripper

feed tanks, condensers, or heat

exchangers) used to remove compounds

from wastewater or condensates using

steam. The steam stripper system also

contains all equipment associated with

a methanol rectification process

including rectifiers, condensers,

decanters, storage tanks, and any other

equipment serving the same function as

those previously listed.

Strong liquor storage tanks means all

storage tanks containing liquor that has

been concentrated in preparation for

combustion or oxidation in the recovery

process.

Sulfite pulping means a chemical

pulping process that uses a mixture of

sulfurous acid and bisulfite ion as the

cooking liquor.

Temperature monitoring device

means a piece of equipment used to

monitor temperature and having an

accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the

temperature being monitored expressed

in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees

Celsius (°C), whichever is greater.

Thermal oxidizer means an enclosed

device that destroys organic compounds

by thermal oxidation.

Turpentine recovery system means all

equipment associated with recovering

turpentine from digester system gases

including condensers, decanters, storage

tanks, and any other equipment serving

the same function as those previously

listed. The turpentine recovery system

includes any liquid streams associated

with the turpentine recovery process

such as turpentine decanter underflow.

Liquid streams that are intended for

byproduct recovery are not considered

turpentine recovery system condensate

streams.

Weak liquor storage tank means any

storage tank except washer filtrate tanks

containing spent liquor recovered from

the pulping process and prior to the

evaporator system.

§ 63.442 [Reserved]

§ 63.443 Standards for the pulping system

at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical

processes.

(a) The owner or operator of each

pulping system using the kraft process

subject to the requirements of this

subpart shall control the total HAP

emissions from the following equipment

systems, as specified in paragraphs (c)

and (d) of this section.

(1) At existing affected sources, the

total HAP emissions from the following

equipment systems shall be controlled:

(i) Each LVHC system;

(ii) Each knotter or screen system with

total HAP mass emission rates greater

than or equal to the rates specified in

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of

this section or the combined rate

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of

this section.

(A) Each knotter system with

emissions of 0.05 kilograms or more of

total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.1

pounds per ton).

(B) Each screen system with

emissions of 0.10 kilograms or more of

total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.2

pounds per ton).

(C) Each knotter and screen system

with emissions of 0.15 kilograms or

more of total HAP per megagram of ODP

(0.3 pounds per ton).

(iii) Each pulp washing system;

(iv) Each decker system that:

(A) Uses any process water other than

fresh water or paper machine white

water; or

(B) Uses any process water with a

total HAP concentration greater than

400 parts per million by weight; and

(v) Each oxygen delignification

system.

(2) At new affected sources, the total

HAP emissions from the equipment

systems listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(iii), and (a)(1)(v) of this section

and the following equipment systems

shall be controlled:

(i) Each knotter system;

(ii) Each screen system;

(iii) Each decker system; and

(iv) Each weak liquor storage tank.

(b) The owner or operator of each

pulping system using a semi-chemical

or soda process subject to the

requirements of this subpart shall

control the total HAP emissions from

the following equipment systems as

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of

this section.

(1) At each existing affected sources,

the total HAP emissions from each

LVHC system shall be controlled.

(2) At each new affected source, the

total HAP emissions from each LVHC

system and each pulp washing system

shall be controlled.

(c) Equipment systems listed in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section

shall be enclosed and vented into a

closed-vent system and routed to a

control device that meets the

requirements specified in paragraph (d)

of this section. The enclosures and

closed-vent system shall meet the

requirements specified in § 63.450.

(d) The control device used to reduce

total HAP emissions from each

equipment system listed in paragraphs

(a) and (b) of this section shall:

(1) Reduce total HAP emissions by 98

percent or more by weight; or

(2) Reduce the total HAP

concentration at the outlet of the

thermal oxidizer to 20 parts per million

or less by volume, corrected to 10

percent oxygen on a dry basis; or

(3) Reduce total HAP emissions using

a thermal oxidizer designed and

operated at a minimum temperature of

871 °C (1600 °F) and a minimum

residence time of 0.75 seconds; or

(4) Reduce total HAP emissions using

a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace

by introducing the HAP emission stream

with the primary fuel or into the flame

zone.

(e) Periods of excess emissions

reported under § 63.455 shall not be a

violation of § 63.443 (c) and (d)

provided that the time of excess

emissions (excluding periods of startup,

shutdown, or malfunction) divided by

the total process operating time in a

semi-annual reporting period does not

exceed the following levels:

(1) One percent for control devices

used to reduce the total HAP emissions

from the LVHC system; and
18620 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(2) Four percent for control devices

used to reduce the total HAP emissions

from the HVLC system; and

(3) Four percent for control devices

used to reduce the total HAP emissions

from both the LVHC and HVLC systems.

§ 63.444 Standards for the pulping system

at sulfite processes.

(a) The owner or operator of each

sulfite process subject to the

requirements of this subpart shall

control the total HAP emissions from

the following equipment systems as

specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of

this section.

(1) At existing sulfite affected sources,

the total HAP emissions from the

following equipment systems shall be

controlled:

(i) Each digester system vent;

(ii) Each evaporator system vent; and

(iii) Each pulp washing system.

(2) At new affected sources, the total

HAP emissions from the equipment

systems listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section and the following equipment

shall be controlled:

(i) Each weak liquor storage tank;

(ii) Each strong liquor storage tank;

and

(iii) Each acid condensate storage

tank.

(b) Equipment listed in paragraph (a)

of this section shall be enclosed and

vented into a closed-vent system and

routed to a control device that meets the

requirements specified in paragraph (c)

of this section. The enclosures and

closed-vent system shall meet the

requirements specified in § 63.450.

Emissions from equipment listed in

paragraph (a) of this section that is not

necessary to be reduced to meet

paragraph (c) of this section is not

required to be routed to a control

device.

(c) The total HAP emissions from both

the equipment systems listed in

paragraph (a) of this section and the

vents, wastewater, and condensate

streams from the control device used to

reduce HAP emissions, shall be

controlled as follows.

(1) Each calcium-based or sodiumbased sulfite pulping process shall:

(i) Emit no more than 0.44 kilograms

of total HAP or methanol per megagram

(0.89 pounds per ton) of ODP; or

(ii) Remove 92 percent or more by

weight of the total HAP or methanol.

(2) Each magnesium-based or

ammonium-based sulfite pulping

process shall:

(i) Emit no more than 1.1 kilograms of

total HAP or methanol per megagram

(2.2 pounds per ton) of ODP; or

(ii) Remove 87 percent or more by

weight of the total HAP or methanol.

§ 63.445 Standards for the bleaching

system.

(a) Each bleaching system that does

not use any chlorine or chlorinated

compounds for bleaching is exempt

from the requirements of this section.

Owners or operators of the following

bleaching systems shall meet all the

provisions of this section:

(1) Bleaching systems that use

chlorine;

(2) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp

from kraft, sulfite, or soda pulping

processes that uses any chlorinated

compounds; or

(3) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp

from mechanical pulping processes

using wood or from any process using

secondary or non-wood fibers, that use

chlorine dioxide.

(b) The equipment at each bleaching

stage, of the bleaching systems listed in

paragraph (a) of this section, where

chlorinated compounds are introduced

shall be enclosed and vented into a

closed-vent system and routed to a

control device that meets the

requirements specified in paragraph (c)

of this section. The enclosures and

closed-vent system shall meet the

requirements specified in § 63.450.

(c) The control device used to reduce

chlorinated HAP emissions (not

including chloroform) from the

equipment specified in paragraph (b) of

this section shall:

(1) Reduce the total chlorinated HAP

mass in the vent stream entering the

control device by 99 percent or more by

weight;

(2) Achieve a treatment device outlet

concentration of 10 parts per million or

less by volume of total chlorinated HAP;

or

(3) Achieve a treatment device outlet

mass emission rate of 0.001 kg of total

chlorinated HAP mass per megagram

(0.002 pounds per ton) of ODP.

(d) The owner or operator of each

bleaching system subject to paragraph

(a)(2) of this section shall comply with

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section

to reduce chloroform air emissions to

the atmosphere, except the owner or

operator of each bleaching system

complying with extended compliance

under § 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall comply

with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(1) Comply with the following

applicable effluent limitation guidelines

and standards specified in 40 CFR part

430:

(i) Dissolving-grade kraft bleaching

systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.14

through 430.17;

(ii) Paper-grade kraft and soda

bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR

430.24(a)(1) and (e), and 40 CFR 430.26

(a) and (c);

(iii) Dissolving-grade sulfite bleaching

systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.44

through 430.47; or

(iv) Paper-grade sulfite bleaching

systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.54(a) and

(c), and 430.56(a) and (c).

(2) Use no hypochlorite or chlorine

for bleaching in the bleaching system or

line.

§ 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping

process condensates.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to owners or operators of kraft

processes subject to the requirements of

this subpart.

(b) The pulping process condensates

from the following equipment systems

shall be treated to meet the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(c), (d), and (e) of this section:

(1) Each digester system;

(2) Each turpentine recovery system;

(3) Each evaporator stage where weak

liquor is introduced (feed stages) in the

evaporator system;

(4) Each HVLC collection system; and

(5) Each LVHC collection system.

(c) One of the following combinations

of HAP-containing pulping process

condensates generated, produced, or

associated with the equipment systems

listed in paragraph (b) of this section

shall be subject to the requirements of

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:

(1) All pulping process condensates

from the equipment systems specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section.

(2) The combined pulping process

condensates from the equipment

systems specified in paragraphs (b)(4)

and (b)(5) of this section, plus pulping

process condensate stream(s) that in

total contain at least 65 percent of the

total HAP mass from the pulping

process condensates from equipment

systems listed in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(3) of this section.

(3) The pulping process condensates

from equipment systems listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section that in total contain a total HAP

mass of 3.6 kilograms or more of total

HAP per megagram (7.2 pounds per ton)

of ODP for mills that do not perform

bleaching or 5.5 kilograms or more of

total HAP per megagram (11.1 pounds

per ton) of ODP for mills that perform

bleaching.

(d) The pulping process condensates

from the equipment systems listed in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be

conveyed in a closed collection system

that is designed and operated to meet

the requirements specified in

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this

section.

(1) Each closed collection system

shall meet the individual drain system
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18621

requirements specified in § 63.960,

63.961, and 63.962 of subpart RR of this

part, except for closed vent systems and

control devices shall be designed and

operated in accordance with

§§ 63.443(d) and 63.450, instead of in

accordance with § 63.693 as specified in

§ 63.962 (a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and

(b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and

(2) If a condensate tank is used in the

closed collection system, the tank shall

meet the following requirements:

(i) The fixed roof and all openings

(e.g., access hatches, sampling ports,

gauge wells) shall be designed and

operated with no detectable leaks as

indicated by an instrument reading of

less than 500 parts per million above

background, and vented into a closedvent system that meets the requirements

in § 63.450 and routed to a control

device that meets the requirements in

§ 63.443(d); and

(ii) Each opening shall be maintained

in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,

covered by a lid that is gasketed and

latched) at all times that the tank

contains pulping process condensates or

any HAP removed from a pulping

process condensate stream except when

it is necessary to use the opening for

sampling, removal, or for equipment

inspection, maintenance, or repair.

(e) Each pulping process condensate

from the equipment systems listed in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be

treated according to one of the following

options:

(1) Recycle the pulping process

condensate to an equipment system

specified in § 63.443(a) meeting the

requirements specified in § 63.443(c)

and (d); or

(2) Discharge the pulping process

condensate below the liquid surface of

a biological treatment system meeting

the requirement specified in paragraph

(e)(3) of this section; or

(3) Treat the pulping process

condensates to reduce or destroy the

total HAP’s by at least 92 percent or

more by weight; or

(4) At mills that do not perform

bleaching, treat the pulping process

condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or

more of total HAP per megagram (6.6

pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a

total HAP concentration of 210 parts per

million or less by weight at the outlet of

the control device; or

(5) At mills that perform bleaching,

treat the pulping process condensates to

remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total

HAP per megagram (10.2 pounds per

ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP

concentration of 330 parts per million or

less by weight at the outlet of the

control device.

(f) Each HAP removed from a pulping

process condensate stream during

treatment and handling under

paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section,

except for those treated according to

paragraph (e)(2) of this section, shall be

controlled as specified in § 63.443(c)

and (d).

(g) For each steam stripper system

used to comply with the requirements

specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this

section, periods of excess emissions

reported under § 63.455 shall not be a

violation of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)

of this section provided that the time of

excess emissions (including periods of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction)

divided by the total process operating

time in a semi-annual reporting period

does not exceed 10 percent.

(h) Each owner or operator of a new

or existing affected source subject to the

requirements of this section shall

evaluate all new or modified pulping

process condensates or changes in the

annual bleached or non-bleached ODP

used to comply with paragraph (i) of

this section, to determine if they meet

the applicable requirements of this

section.

(i) For the purposes of meeting the

requirements in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4),

or (e)(5) of this section at mills

producing both bleached and

unbleached pulp products, owners and

operators may meet a prorated mass

standard that is calculated by prorating

the applicable mass standards

(kilograms of total HAP per megagram of

ODP) for bleached and unbleached

specified in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4), or

(e)(5) of this section by the ratio of

annual megagrams of bleached and

unbleached ODP.

§ 63.447 Clean condensate alternative.

As an alternative to the requirements

specified in § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through

(a)(1)(v) for the control of HAP

emissions from pulping systems using

the kraft process, an owner or operator

must demonstrate to the satisfaction of

the Administrator, by meeting all the

requirements below, that the total HAP

emissions reductions achieved by this

clean condensate alternative technology

are equal to or greater than the total

HAP emission reductions that would

have been achieved by compliance with

§ 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v).

(a) For the purposes of this section

only the following additional

definitions apply.

(1) Clean condensate alternative

affected source means the total of all

HAP emission points in the pulping,

bleaching, causticizing, and

papermaking systems (exclusive of HAP

emissions attributable to additives to

paper machines and HAP emission

points in the LVHC system).

(2) Causticizing system means all

equipment associated with converting

sodium carbonate into active sodium

hydroxide. The equipment includes

smelt dissolving tanks, lime mud

washers and storage tanks, white and

mud liquor clarifiers and storage tanks,

slakers, slaker grit washers, lime kilns,

green liquor clarifiers and storage tanks,

and dreg washers ending with the white

liquor storage tanks prior to the digester

system, and any other equipment

serving the same function as those

previously listed.

(3) Papermaking system means all

equipment used to convert pulp into

paper, paperboard, or market pulp,

including the stock storage and

preparation systems, the paper or

paperboard machines, and the paper

machine white water system, broke

recovery systems, and the systems

involved in calendering, drying, onmachine coating, slitting, winding, and

cutting.

(b) Each owner or operator shall

install and operate a clean condensate

alternative technology with a

continuous monitoring system to reduce

total HAP emissions by treating and

reducing HAP concentrations in the

pulping process water used within the

clean condensate alternative affected

source.

(c) Each owner or operator shall

calculate HAP emissions on a kilogram

per megagram of ODP basis and measure

HAP emissions according to the

appropriate procedures contained in

§ 63.457.

(d) Each owner or operator shall

determine the baseline HAP emissions

for each equipment system and the total

of all equipment systems in the clean

condensate alternative affected source

based on the following:

(1) Process and air pollution control

equipment installed and operating on or

after December 17, 1993, and

(2) Compliance with the following

requirements that affect the level of

HAP emissions from the clean

condensate alternative affected source:

(i) The pulping process condensates

requirements in § 63.446;

(ii) The applicable effluent limitation

guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part

430, subparts A, B, D, and E; and

(iii) All other applicable requirements

of local, State, or Federal agencies or

statutes.

(e) Each owner or operator shall

determine the following HAP emission

reductions from the baseline HAP

emissions determined in paragraph (d)

of this section for each equipment

system and the total of all equipment
18622 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

systems in the clean condensate

alternative affected source:

(1) The HAP emission reduction

occurring by complying with the

requirements of § 63.443(a)(1)(ii)

through (a)(1)(v); and

(2) The HAP emissions reduction that

occurring by complying with the clean

condensate alternative technology.

(f) For the purposes of all

requirements in this section, each owner

or operator may use as an alternative,

individual equipment systems (instead

of total of all equipment systems) within

the clean condensate alternative affected

source to determine emissions and

reductions to demonstrate equal or

greater than the reductions that would

have been achieved by compliance with

§ 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v).

(g) The initial and updates to the

control strategy report specified in

§ 63.455(b) shall include to the extent

possible the following information:

(1) A detailed description of:

(i) The equipment systems and

emission points that comprise the clean

condensate alternative affected source;

(ii) The air pollution control

technologies that would be used to meet

the requirements of § 63.443(a)(1)(ii)

through (a)(1)(v);

(iii) The clean condensate alternative

technology to be used.

(2) Estimates and basis for the

estimates of total HAP emissions and

emissions reductions to fulfill the

requirements paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)

of this section.

(h) Each owner or operator shall

report to the Administrator by the

applicable compliance date specified in

§ 63.440(d) or (e) the rationale,

calculations, test procedures, and data

documentation used to demonstrate

compliance with all the requirements of

this section.

§§ 63.448–63.449 [Reserved]

§ 63.450 Standards for enclosures and

closed-vent systems.

(a) Each enclosure and closed-vent

system specified in §§ 63.443(c),

63.444(b), and 63.445(b) for capturing

and transporting vent streams that

contain HAP shall meet the

requirements specified in paragraphs (b)

through (d) of this section.

(b) Each enclosure shall maintain

negative pressure at each enclosure or

hood opening as demonstrated by the

procedures specified § 63.457(e). Each

enclosure or hood opening closed

during the initial performance test

specified in § 63.457(a) shall be

maintained in the same closed and

sealed position as during the

performance test at all times except

when necessary to use the opening for

sampling, inspection, maintenance, or

repairs.

(c) Each component of the closed-vent

system used to comply with

§§ 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b)

that is operated at positive pressure and

located prior to a control device shall be

designed for and operated with no

detectable leaks as indicated by an

instrument reading of less than 500

parts per million by volume above

background, as measured by the

procedures specified in § 63.457(d).

(d) Each bypass line in the closedvent system that could divert vent

streams containing HAP to the

atmosphere without meeting the

emission limitations in §§ 63.443,

63.444, or 63.445 shall comply with

either of the following requirements:

(1) On each bypass line, the owner or

operator shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate according to

manufacturer’s specifications a flow

indicator that provides a record of the

presence of gas stream flow in the

bypass line at least once every 15

minutes. The flow indicator shall be

installed in the bypass line in such a

way as to indicate flow in the bypass

line; or

(2) For bypass line valves that are not

computer controlled, the owner or

operator shall maintain the bypass line

valve in the closed position with a car

seal or a seal placed on the valve or

closure mechanism in such a way that

valve or closure mechanism cannot be

opened without breaking the seal.

§§ 63.451–63.452 [Reserved]

§ 63.453 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator subject to

the standards specified in §§ 63.443(c)

and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and

(c), 63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or

§ 63.450(d), shall install, calibrate,

certify, operate, and maintain according

to the manufacturer’s specifications, a

continuous monitoring system (CMS, as

defined in § 63.2 of this part) as

specified in paragraphs (b) through (m)

of this section, except as allowed in

paragraph (m) of this section. The CMS

shall include a continuous recorder.

(b) A CMS shall be operated to

measure the temperature in the firebox

or in the ductwork immediately

downstream of the firebox and before

any substantial heat exchange occurs for

each thermal oxidizer used to comply

with the requirements of § 63.443(d)(1)

through (d)(3). Owners and operators

complying with the requirements in

§ 63.443(d)(2) or (d)(3) shall monitor the

parameter specified and for the

temperature and concentration limits

specified.

(c) A CMS shall be operated to

measure the following parameters for

each gas scrubber used to comply with

the bleaching system requirements of

§ 63.445(c) or the sulfite pulping system

requirements of § 63.444(c).

(1) The pH or the oxidation/reduction

potential of the gas scrubber effluent;

(2) The gas scrubber vent gas inlet

flow rate; and

(3) The gas scrubber liquid influent

flow rate.

(d) As an option to the requirements

specified in paragraph (c) of this

section, a CMS shall be operated to

measure the chlorine outlet

concentration of each gas scrubber used

to comply with the bleaching system

outlet concentration requirement

specified in § 63.445(c)(2).

(e) The owner or operator of a

bleaching system complying with 40

CFR 430.24, shall monitor the chlorine

and hypochlorite application rates, in kg

of bleaching agent per megagram of

ODP, of the bleaching system during the

extended compliance period specified

in § 63.440(d)(3).

(f) A CMS shall be operated to

measure the gas scrubber parameters

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(3) of this section or those site

specific parameters determined

according to the procedures specified in

paragraph (n) of this section to comply

with the sulfite pulping system

requirements specified in § 63.444(c).

(g) A CMS shall be operated to

measure the following parameters for

each steam stripper used to comply with

the treatment requirements in

§ 63.446(e) (3), (4), or (5):

(1) The process wastewater feed rate;

(2) The steam feed rate; and

(3) The process wastewater column

feed temperature.

(h) As an option to the requirements

specified in paragraph (g) of this

section, a CMS shall be operated to

measure the methanol outlet

concentration to comply with the steam

stripper outlet concentration

requirement specified in § 63.446 (e)(4)

or (e)(5).

(i) A CMS shall be operated to

measure the appropriate parameters

determined according to the procedures

specified in paragraph (n) of this section

to comply with the condensate

applicability requirements specified in

§ 63.446(c).

(j) Each owner or operator using a

biological treatment system to comply

with § 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the

following monitoring procedures.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18623

(1) On a daily basis, monitor the

following parameters for each biological

treatment unit:

(i) Composite daily sample of outlet

soluble BOD5 concentration to monitor

for maximum daily and maximum

monthly average;

(ii) Mixed liquor volatile suspended

solids;

(iii) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);

(iv) Inlet liquid flow; and

(v) Liquid temperature.

(2) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid

grab samples from each biological

treatment unit to have HAP data

available to perform quarterly percent

reduction tests specified in paragraph

(j)(2)(ii) of this section and the

compliance percent reduction tests

specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this

section. Perform the following

procedures with the liquid samples:

(i) Store the samples for 5 days as

specified in § 63.457(n). The 5 day

storage requirement is required since

the soluble BOD5 test requires 5 days to

obtain results. If the results of the

soluble BOD5 test are outside of the

range established during the initial

performance test, then the archive

sample shall be used to perform the

percent reduction test specified in

§ 63.457(1).

(ii) Perform the percent reduction test

procedures specified in § 63.457(l)

within 45 days after the beginning of

each quarter as follows.

(A) The percent reduction test

performed in the first quarter (annually)

shall be performed for total HAP and the

percent reduction obtained from the test

shall be at least as great as the total HAP

reduction specified in § 63.446(e)(2).

(B) The remaining quarterly percent

reduction tests shall be performed for

methanol and the percent reduction

obtained from the test shall be at least

as great as the methanol reduction

determined in the previous first-quarter

test specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) of

this section.

(C) The parameter values used to

calculate the percent reductions

required in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) and

(j)(2)(ii)(B) of this section shall be

parameter values measured and samples

taken in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.

(k) Each enclosure and closed-vent

system used to comply with § 63.450(a)

shall comply with the requirements

specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through

(k)(6) of this section.

(1) For each enclosure opening, a

visual inspection of the closure

mechanism specified in § 63.450(b)

shall be performed at least once every

30 days to ensure the opening is

maintained in the closed position and

sealed.

(2) Each closed-vent system required

by § 63.450(a) shall be visually

inspected every 30 days and at other

times as requested by the Administrator.

The visual inspection shall include

inspection of ductwork, piping,

enclosures, and connections to covers

for visible evidence of defects.

(3) For positive pressure closed-vent

systems or portions of closed-vent

systems, demonstrate no detectable

leaks as specified in § 63.450(c)

measured initially and annually by the

procedures in § 63.457(d).

(4) Demonstrate initially and annually

that each enclosure opening is

maintained at negative pressure as

specified in § 63.457(e).

(5) The valve or closure mechanism

specified in § 63.450(d)(2) shall be

inspected at least once every 30 days to

ensure that the valve is maintained in

the closed position and the emission

point gas stream is not diverted through

the bypass line.

(6) If an inspection required by

paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of this

section identifies visible defects in

ductwork, piping, enclosures or

connections to covers required by

§ 63.450, or if an instrument reading of

500 parts per million by volume or

greater above background is measured,

or if enclosure openings are not

maintained at negative pressure, then

the following corrective actions shall be

taken as soon as practicable.

(i) A first effort to repair or correct the

closed-vent system shall be made as

soon as practicable but no later than 5

calendar days after the problem is

identified.

(ii) The repair or corrective action

shall be completed no later than 15

calendar days after the problem is

identified.

(l) Each pulping process condensate

closed collection system used to comply

with § 63.446(d) shall be visually

inspected every 30 days and shall

comply with the inspection and

monitoring requirements specified in

§ 63.964 of subpart RR of this part,

except for the closed-vent system and

control device inspection and

monitoring requirements specified in

§ 63.964(a)(2) of subpart RR of this part,

the closed-vent system and the control

device shall meet the requirements

specified in paragraphs (a) and (k) of

this section.

(m) Each owner or operator using a

control device, technique or an

alternative parameter other than those

specified in paragraphs (b) through (l) of

this section shall install a CMS and

establish appropriate operating

parameters to be monitored that

demonstrate, to the Administrator’s

satisfaction, continuous compliance

with the applicable control

requirements.

(n) To establish or reestablish, the

value for each operating parameter

required to be monitored under

paragraphs (b) through (j), (l), and (m) of

this section or to establish appropriate

parameters for paragraphs (f), (i), and

(m) of this section, each owner or

operator shall use the following

procedures:

(1) During the initial performance test

required in § 63.457(a) or any

subsequent performance test,

continuously record the operating

parameter;

(2) Determinations shall be based on

the control performance and parameter

data monitored during the performance

test, supplemented if necessary by

engineering assessments and the

manufacturer’s recommendations;

(3) The owner or operator shall

provide for the Administrator’s approval

the rationale for selecting the

monitoring parameters necessary to

comply with paragraphs (f), (i), and (m)

of this section; and

(4) Provide for the Administrator’s

approval the rationale for the selected

operating parameter value, and

monitoring frequency, and averaging

time. Include all data and calculations

used to develop the value and a

description of why the value,

monitoring frequency, and averaging

time demonstrate continuous

compliance with the applicable

emission standard.

(o) Each owner or operator of a

control device subject to the monitoring

provisions of this section shall operate

the control device in a manner

consistent with the minimum or

maximum (as appropriate) operating

parameter value or procedure required

to be monitored under paragraphs (a)

through (n) of this section and

established under this subpart. Except

as provided in paragraph (p) of this

section, § 63.443(e), or § 63.446(g),

operation of the control device below

minimum operating parameter values or

above maximum operating parameter

values established under this subpart or

failure to perform procedures required

by this subpart shall constitute a

violation of the applicable emission

standard of this subpart and be reported

as a period of excess emissions.

(p) Each owner or operator of a

biological treatment system complying

with paragraph (j) of this section shall

perform all the following requirements

when the monitoring parameters

specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through

(j)(1)(iii) of this section are below

minimum operating parameter values or
18624 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

above maximum operating parameter

values established in paragraph (n) of

this section.

(1) The following shall occur and be

recorded as soon as practical:

(i) Determine compliance with

§ 63.446(e)(2) using the percent

reduction test procedures specified in

§ 63.457(l) and the monitoring data

specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this

section that coincide with the time

period of the parameter excursion;

(ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or

adjust the operation of the process to

end the parameter excursion period; and

(iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize

total HAP emissions to the atmosphere

during the parameter excursion period.

(2) A parameter excursion is not a

violation of the applicable emission

standard if the percent reduction test

specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this

section demonstrates compliance with

§ 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.

§ 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 of subpart A of

this part, as shown in table 1, and the

requirements specified in paragraphs (b)

through (d) of this section for the

monitoring parameters specified in

§ 63.453.

(b) For each applicable enclosure

opening, closed-vent system, and closed

collection system, the owner or operator

shall prepare and maintain a sitespecific inspection plan including a

drawing or schematic of the components

of applicable affected equipment and

shall record the following information

for each inspection:

(1) Date of inspection;

(2) The equipment type and

identification;

(3) Results of negative pressure tests

for enclosures;

(4) Results of leak detection tests;

(5) The nature of the defect or leak

and the method of detection (i.e., visual

inspection or instrument detection);

(6) The date the defect or leak was

detected and the date of each attempt to

repair the defect or leak;

(7) Repair methods applied in each

attempt to repair the defect or leak;

(8) The reason for the delay if the

defect or leak is not repaired within 15

days after discovery;

(9) The expected date of successful

repair of the defect or leak if the repair

is not completed within 15 days;

(10) The date of successful repair of

the defect or leak;

(11) The position and duration of

opening of bypass line valves and the

condition of any valve seals; and

(12) The duration of the use of bypass

valves on computer controlled valves.

(c) The owner or operator of a

bleaching system complying with

§ 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall record the

daily average chlorine and hypochlorite

application rates, in kg of bleaching

agent per megagram of ODP, of the

bleaching system until the requirements

specified in § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met.

(d) The owner or operator shall record

the CMS parameters specified in

§ 63.453 and meet the requirements

specified in paragraph (a) of this section

for any new affected process equipment

or pulping process condensate stream

that becomes subject to the standards in

this subpart due to a process change or

modification.

§ 63.455 Reporting requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator of a source

subject to this subpart shall comply

with the reporting requirements of

subpart A of this part as specified in

table 1 and all the following

requirements in this section. The initial

notification report specified under

§ 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part

shall be submitted by April 15, 1999.

(b) Each owner or operator of a kraft

pulping system specified in

§ 63.440(d)(1) or a bleaching system

specified in § 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall

submit, with the initial notification

report specified under § 63.9(b)(2) of

subpart A of this part and paragraph (a)

of this section and update every two

years thereafter, a non-binding control

strategy report containing, at a

minimum, the information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section in addition to the information

required in § 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of

this part.

(1) A description of the emission

controls or process modifications

selected for compliance with the control

requirements in this standard.

(2) A compliance schedule, including

the dates by which each step toward

compliance will be reached for each

emission point or sets of emission

points. At a minimum, the list of dates

shall include:

(i) The date by which the major

study(s) for determining the compliance

strategy will be completed;

(ii) The date by which contracts for

emission controls or process

modifications will be awarded, or the

date by which orders will be issued for

the purchase of major components to

accomplish emission controls or process

changes;

(iii) The date by which on-site

construction, installation of emission

control equipment, or a process change

is to be initiated;

(iv) The date by which on-site

construction, installation of emissions

control equipment, or a process change

is to be completed;

(v) The date by which final

compliance is to be achieved;

(vi) For compliance with paragraph

§ 63.440(d)(3)(ii), the tentative dates by

which compliance with effluent

limitation guidelines and standards

intermediate pollutant load effluent

reductions and as available, all the dates

for the best available technology’s

milestones reported in the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

authorized under section 402 of the

Clean Water Act and for the best

professional milestones in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program under 40 CFR 430.24 (b)(2);

and

(vii) The date by which the final

compliance tests will be performed.

(3) Until compliance is achieved,

revisions or updates shall be made to

the control strategy report required by

paragraph (b) of this section indicating

the progress made towards completing

the installation of the emission controls

or process modifications during the 2-

year period.

(c) The owner or operator of each

bleaching system complying with

§ 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall certify in the

report specified under § 63.10(e)(3) of

subpart A of this part that the daily

application rates of chlorine and

hypochlorite for that bleaching system

have not increased as specified in

§ 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) until the

requirements of § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are

met.

(d) The owner or operator shall meet

the requirements specified in paragraph

(a) of this section upon startup of any

new affected process equipment or

pulping process condensate stream that

becomes subject to the standards of this

subpart due to a process change or

modification.

§ 63.456 [Reserved]

§ 63.457 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Initial performance test. An initial

performance test is required for all

emission sources subject to the

limitations in §§ 63.443, 63.444, 63.445,

63.446, and 63.447, except those

controlled by a combustion device that

is designed and operated as specified in

§ 63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4).

(b) Vent sampling port locations and

gas stream properties. For purposes of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18625

selecting vent sampling port locations

and determining vent gas stream

properties, required in §§ 63.443,

63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, each owner

or operator shall comply with the

applicable procedures in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.

(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60,

appendix A, as appropriate, shall be

used for selection of the sampling site

as follows:

(i) To sample for vent gas

concentrations and volumetric flow

rates, the sampling site shall be located

prior to dilution of the vent gas stream

and prior to release to the atmosphere;

(ii) For determining compliance with

percent reduction requirements,

sampling sites shall be located prior to

the inlet of the control device and at the

outlet of the control device;

measurements shall be performed

simultaneously at the two sampling

sites; and

(iii) For determining compliance with

concentration limits or mass emission

rate limits, the sampling site shall be

located at the outlet of the control

device.

(2) No traverse site selection method

is needed for vents smaller than 0.10

meter (4.0 inches) in diameter.

(3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate

shall be determined using Method 2,

2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A,

as appropriate.

(4) The moisture content of the vent

gas shall be measured using Method 4

of part 60, appendix A.

(5) To determine vent gas

concentrations, the owner or operator

shall collect a minimum of three

samples that are representative of

normal conditions and average the

resulting pollutant concentrations using

the following procedures.

(i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this

part shall be used to determine the

methanol concentration.

(ii) Except for the modifications

specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(A)

through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section,

Method 26A of part 60, appendix A

shall be used to determine chlorine

concentration in the vent stream.

(A) Probe/Sampling Line. A separate

probe is not required. The sampling line

shall be an appropriate length of 0.64

cm (0.25 in) OD Teflon tubing. The

sample inlet end of the sampling line

shall be inserted into the stack in such

a way as to not entrain liquid

condensation from the vent gases. The

other end shall be connected to the

impingers. The length of the tubing may

vary from one sampling site to another,

but shall be as short as possible in each

situation. If sampling is conducted in

sunlight, opaque tubing shall be used.

Alternatively, if transparent tubing is

used, it shall be covered with opaque

tape.

(B) Impinger Train. Three 30 milliliter

(ml) capacity midget impingers shall be

connected in series to the sampling line.

The impingers shall have regular

tapered stems. Silica gel shall be placed

in the third impinger as a desiccant. All

impinger train connectors shall be glass

and/or Teflon.

(C) Critical Orifice. The critical orifice

shall have a flow rate of 200 to 250 ml/

min and shall be followed by a vacuum

pump capable of providing a vacuum of

640 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). A

45 millimeter diameter in-line Teflon

0.8 micrometer filter shall follow the

impingers to project the critical orifice

and vacuum pump.

(D) The following are necessary for

the analysis apparatus:

(1) Wash bottle filled with deionized

water;

(2) 25 or 50 ml graduated burette and

stand;

(3) Magnetic stirring apparatus and

stir bar;

(4) Calibrated pH Meter;

(5) 150–250 ml beaker or flask; and

(6) A 5 ml pipette.

(E) The procedures listed in

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(E)(1) through

(b)(5)(ii)(E)(7) of this section shall be

used to prepare the reagents.

(1) To prepare the 1 molarity (M)

potassium dihydrogen phosphate

solution, dissolve 13.61 grams (g) of

potassium dihydrogen phosphate in

water and dilute to 100 ml.

(2) To prepare the 1 M sodium

hydroxide solution (NaOH), dissolve 4.0

g of sodium hydroxide in water and

dilute to 100 ml.

(3) To prepare the buffered 2 percent

potassium iodide solution, dissolve 20 g

of potassium iodide in 900 ml water.

Add 50 ml of the 1 M potassium

dihydrogen phosphate solution and 30

ml of the 1 M sodium hydroxide

solution. While stirring solution,

measure the pH of solution

electrometrically and add the 1 M

sodium hydroxide solution to bring pH

to between 6.95 and 7.05.

(4) To prepare the 0.1 normality (N)

sodium thiosulfate solution, dissolve 25

g of sodium thiosulfate, pentahydrate, in

800 ml of freshly boiled and cooled

distilled water in a 1-liter volumetric

flask. Dilute to volume. To prepare the

0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution, add

10.0 ml standardized 0.1 N sodium

thiosulfate solution to a 100 ml

volumetric flask, and dilute to volume

with water.

(5) To standardize the 0.1 N sodium

thiosulfate solution, dissolve 3.249 g of

anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, primary

standard quality, or 3.567 g potassium

iodate dried at 103 +/¥2 degrees

Centigrade for 1 hour, in distilled water

and dilute to 1000 ml to yield a 0.1000

N solution. Store in a glass-stoppered

bottle. To 80 ml distilled water, add,

with constant stirring, 1 ml

concentrated sulfuric acid, 10.00 ml

0.1000 N anhydrous potassium biiodate, and 1 g potassium iodide. Titrate

immediately with 0.1 n sodium

thiosulfate titrant until the yellow color

of the liberated iodine is almost

discharged. Add 1 ml starch indicator

solution and continue titrating until the

blue color disappears. The normality of

the sodium thiosulfate solution is

inversely proportional to the ml of

sodium thiosulfate solution consumed:

Normality of

SodiumThiosulfate ml Sodium Thiosulfate Consumed = 1

(6) To prepare the starch indicator

solution, add a small amount of cold

water to 5 g starch and grind in a mortar

to obtain a thin paste. Pour paste into

1 L of boiling distilled water, stir, and

let settle overnight. Use clear supernate

for starch indicator solution.

(7) To prepare the 10 percent sulfuric

acid solution, add 10 ml of concentrated

sulfuric acid to 80 ml water in an 100

ml volumetric flask. Dilute to volume.

(F) The procedures specified in

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(F)(1) through

(b)(5)(ii)(F)(5) of this section shall be

used to perform the sampling.

(1) Preparation of Collection Train.

Measure 20 ml buffered potassium

iodide solution into each of the first two

impingers and connect probe,

impingers, filter, critical orifice, and

pump. The sampling line and the

impingers shall be shielded from

sunlight.

(2) Leak and Flow Check Procedure.

Plug sampling line inlet tip and turn on

pump. If a flow of bubbles is visible in

either of the liquid impingers, tighten

fittings and adjust connections and
18626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

impingers. A leakage rate not in excess

of 2 percent of the sampling rate is

acceptable. Carefully remove the plug

from the end of the probe. Check the

flow rate at the probe inlet with a

bubble tube flow meter. The flow

should be comparable or slightly less

than the flow rate of the critical orifice

with the impingers off-line. Record the

flow and turn off the pump.

(3) Sample Collection. Insert the

sampling line into the stack and secure

it with the tip slightly lower than the

port height. Start the pump, recording

the time. End the sampling after 60

minutes, or after yellow color is

observed in the second in-line impinger.

Record time and remove the tubing from

the vent. Recheck flow rate at sampling

line inlet and turn off pump. If the flow

rate has changed significantly, redo

sampling with fresh capture solution. A

slight variation (less than 5 percent) in

flow may be averaged. With the inlet

end of the line elevated above the

impingers, add about 5 ml water into

the inlet tip to rinse the line into the

first impinger.

(4) Sample Analysis. Fill the burette

with 0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution

to the zero mark. Combine the contents

of the impingers in the beaker or flask.

Stir the solution and titrate with

thiosulfate until the solution is

colorless. Record the volume of the first

endpoint (TN, ml). Add 5 ml of the 10

percent sulfuric acid solution, and

continue the titration until the contents

of the flask are again colorless. Record

the total volume of titrant required to go

through the first and to the second

endpoint (TA, ml). If the volume of

neutral titer is less than 0.5 ml, repeat

the testing for a longer period of time.

It is important that sufficient lighting be

present to clearly see the endpoints,

which are determined when the

solution turns from pale yellow to

colorless. A lighted stirring plate and a

white background are useful for this

purpose.

(5) Interferences. Known interfering

agents of this method are sulfur dioxide

and hydrogen peroxide. Sulfur dioxide,

which is used to reduce oxidant

residuals in some bleaching systems,

reduces formed iodine to iodide in the

capture solution. It is therefore a

negative interference for chlorine, and

in some cases could result in erroneous

negative chlorine concentrations. Any

agent capable of reducing iodine to

iodide could interfere in this manner. A

chromium trioxide impregnated filter

will capture sulfur dioxide and pass

chlorine and chlorine dioxide.

Hydrogen peroxide, which is commonly

used as a bleaching agent in modern

bleaching systems, reacts with iodide to

form iodine and thus can cause a

positive interference in the chlorine

measurement. Due to the chemistry

involved, the precision of the chlorine

analysis will decrease as the ratio of

chlorine dioxide to chlorine increases.

Slightly negative calculated

concentrations of chlorine may occur

when sampling a vent gas with high

concentrations of chlorine dioxide and

very low concentrations of chlorine.

(G) The following calculation shall be

performed to determine the corrected

sampling flow rate:

S S BP PW

t C U =  −





 +







760 

293

273

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow

rate, liters per minute;

SU=Uncorrected sampling flow rate, L/min;

BP=Barometric pressure at time of sampling;

PW=Saturated partial pressure of water

vapor, mm Hg at temperature; and

t=Ambient temperature, °C.

(H) The following calculation shall be

performed to determine the moles of

chlorine in the sample:

Cl Moles T T N 2 = − 1 8000 5( ) N A Thio ×

Where:

TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;

TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and

NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

(I) The following calculation shall be

performed to determine the

concentration of chlorine in the sample:

Cl ppmv

T T N

S t

N A Thio

C S

2

3005 5 = ( ) − ×

×

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow

rate, liters per minute;

tS=Time sampled, minutes;

TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;

TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and

NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

(J) The following calculation shall be

performed to determine the moles of

chlorine dioxide in the sample:

C O Moles T T N 1 1 4000 2 = − ( ) A N Thio ×

Where:

TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;

TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and

NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

(K) The following calculation shall be

performed to determine the

concentration of chlorine dioxide in the

sample:

C O ppmv

T T N

S t

A N Thio

C S

1

6010

2 = ( ) − ×

×

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow

rate, liters per minute;

tS=Time sampled, minutes;

TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;

TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and

NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

(iii) Any other method that measures

the total HAP or methanol concentration

that has been demonstrated to the

Administrator’s satisfaction.

(6) The minimum sampling time for

each of the three runs per method shall

be 1 hour in which either an integrated

sample or four grab samples shall be

taken. If grab sampling is used, then the

samples shall be taken at approximately

equal intervals in time, such as 15

minute intervals during the run.

(c) Liquid sampling locations and

properties. For purposes of selecting

liquid sampling locations and for

determining properties of liquid streams

such as wastewaters, process waters,

and condensates required in §§ 63.444,

63.446, and 63.447, the owner or

operator shall comply with the

following procedures:

(1) Samples shall be collected using

the sampling procedures specified in

Method 305 of part 60, appendix A;

(i) Where feasible, samples shall be

taken from an enclosed pipe prior to the

liquid stream being exposed to the

atmosphere; and

(ii) When sampling from an enclosed

pipe is not feasible, samples shall be

collected in a manner to minimize

exposure of the sample to the

atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds

prior to sampling.

(2) The volumetric flow rate of the

entering and exiting liquid streams shall

be determined using the inlet and outlet

flow meters or other methods

demonstrated to the Administrator’s

satisfaction. The volumetric flow rate

measurements to determine actual mass

removal shall be taken at the same time

as the concentration measurements;

(3) To determine liquid stream total

HAP or methanol concentrations, the

owner or operator shall collect a

minimum of three samples that are

representative of normal conditions and

average the resulting pollutant

concentrations using one of the

following:

(i) Method 305 in Appendix A of this

part, adjusted using the following

equation:

C C fm i i

i

n

=

=

∑

1

Where:

C ̄ =Pollutant concentration for the liquid

stream, parts per million by weight.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18627

Ci=Measured concentration of pollutant i in

the liquid stream sample determined

using Method 305, parts per million by

weight.

fmi=Pollutant-specific constant that adjusts

concentration measured by Method 305

to actual liquid concentration; the fm for

methanol is 0.85. Additional pollutant

fm values can be found in table 34,

subpart G of this part.

n=Number of individual pollutants, i,

summed to calculate total HAP.

(ii) Any other method that measures

total HAP concentration that has been

demonstrated to the Administrator’s

satisfaction.

(4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the

effluent stream from a biological

treatment unit used to comply with

§§ 63.446(e)(2) and 63.453(j), the owner

or operator shall use Method 405.1, of

part 136, with the following

modifications:

(i) Filter the sample through the filter

paper, into Erlenmeyer flask by

applying a vacuum to the flask sidearm.

Minimize the time for which vacuum is

applied to prevent stripping of volatile

organics from the sample. Replace filter

paper as often as needed in order to

maintain filter times of less than

approximately 30 seconds per filter

paper. No rinsing of sample container or

filter bowl into the Erlenmeyer flask is

allowed.

(ii) Perform Method 405.1 on the

filtrate obtained in paragraph (c)(4) of

this section. Dilution water shall be

seeded with 1 milliliter of final effluent

per liter of dilution water. Dilution

ratios may require adjustment to reflect

the lower oxygen demand of the filtered

sample in comparison to the total BOD5.

Three BOD bottles and different

dilutions shall be used for each sample.

(d) Detectable leak procedures. To

measure detectable leaks for closed-vent

systems as specified in § 63.450 or for

pulping process wastewater collection

systems as specified in § 63.446(d)(2)(i),

the owner or operator shall comply with

the following:

(1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A;

and

(2) The instrument specified in

Method 21 shall be calibrated before use

according to the procedures specified in

Method 21 on each day that leak checks

are performed. The following calibration

gases shall be used:

(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per

million by volume of hydrocarbon in

air); and

(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane

and air at a concentration of

approximately, but less than, 10,000

parts per million by volume methane or

n-hexane.

(e) Negative pressure procedures. To

demonstrate negative pressure at

process equipment enclosure openings

as specified in § 63.450(b), the owner or

operator shall use one of the following

procedures:

(1) An anemometer to demonstrate

flow into the enclosure opening;

(2) Measure the static pressure across

the opening;

(3) Smoke tubes to demonstrate flow

into the enclosure opening; or

(4) Any other industrial ventilation

test method demonstrated to the

Administrator’s satisfaction.

(f) HAP concentration measurements.

For purposes of complying with the

requirements in §§ 63.443, 63.444, and

63.447, the owner or operator shall

measure the total HAP concentration as

one of the following:

(1) As the sum of all individual

HAP’s; or

(2) As methanol.

(g) Condensate HAP concentration

measurement. For purposes of

complying with the kraft pulping

condensate requirements in § 63.446,

the owner or operator shall measure the

total HAP concentration as methanol

except for the purposes of complying

with the initial performance test

specified in § 63.457(a) for § 63.446(e)(2)

and as specified in § 63.453(j)(2)(ii).

(h) Bleaching HAP concentration

measurement. For purposes of

complying with the bleaching system

requirements in § 63.445, the owner or

operator shall measure the total HAP

concentration as the sum of all

individual chlorinated HAP’s or as

chlorine.

(i) Vent gas stream calculations. To

demonstrate compliance with the mass

emission rate, mass emission rate per

megagram of ODP, and percent

reduction requirements for vent gas

streams specified in §§ 63.443, 63.444,

63.445, and 63.447, the owner or

operator shall use the following:

(1) The total HAP mass emission rate

shall be calculated using the following

equation:

E K C M Q j j

j

n

= s















=  2 ∑

1

Where:

E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the

sampled vent, kilograms per hour.

K2=Constant, 2.494×10¥6 (parts per million

by volume)¥1 (gram-mole per standard

cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/

hour), where standard temperature for

(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is

20 °C.

Cj=Concentration on a dry basis of pollutant

j in parts per million by volume as

measured by the test methods specified

in paragraph (b) of this section.

Mj=Molecular weight of pollutant j, gram/

gram-mole.

Qs=Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard

cubic meter per minute) at a temperature

of 20 °C as indicated in paragraph (b) of

this section.

n=Number of individual pollutants, i,

summed to calculate total HAP.

(2) The total HAP mass emission rate

per megagram of ODP shall be

calculated using the following equation:

F E

P =

Where:

F=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the

sampled vent, in kilograms per

megagram of ODP.

E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the

sampled vent, in kilograms per hour

determined as specified in paragraph

(i)(1) of this section.

P=The production rate of pulp during the

sampling period, in megagrams of ODP

per hour.

(3) The total HAP percent reduction

shall be calculated using the following

equation:

R

E E

E

i O

i

= − ( ) 100

Where:

R=Efficiency of control device, percent.

Ei=Inlet mass emission rate of total HAP from

the sampled vent, in kilograms of

pollutant per hour, determined as

specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this

section.

Eo=Outlet mass emission rate of total HAP

from the sampled vent, in kilograms of

pollutant per hour, determined as

specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this

section.

(j) Liquid stream calculations. To

demonstrate compliance with the mass

flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP,

and percent reduction requirements for

liquid streams specified in § 63.446, the

owner or operator shall use the

following:

(1) The mass flow rates of total HAP

or methanol entering and exiting the

treatment process shall be calculated

using the following equations:

E K

n

V C

E K

n

V C

b bi bi

i

n

a ai ai

i

n

= ×













= ×













=

=

∑

∑

10

10

6

1

6

1

Where:

Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol

in the liquid stream entering the

treatment process, kilograms per hour.

Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol

in the liquid exiting the treatment

process, kilograms per hour.
18628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

K=Density of the liquid stream, kilograms per

cubic meter.

Vbi=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream

entering the treatment process during

each run i, cubic meters per hour,

determined as specified in paragraph (c)

of this section.

Vai=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream

exiting the treatment process during each

run i, cubic meters per hour, determined

as specified in paragraph (c) of this

section.

Cbi=Concentration of total HAP or methanol

in the stream entering the treatment

process during each run i, parts per

million by weight, determined as

specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

Cai=Concentration of total HAP or methanol

in the stream exiting the treatment

process during each run i, parts per

million by weight, determined as

specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

n=Number of runs.

(2) The mass of total HAP or methanol

per megagram ODP shall be calculated

using the following equation:

F

E

P

a =

Where:

F=Mass loading of total HAP or methanol in

the sample, in kilograms per megagram

of ODP.

Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol

in the wastewater stream in kilograms

per hour as determined using the

procedures in paragraph (j)(1) of this

section.

P=The production rate of pulp during the

sampling period in megagrams of ODP

per hour.

(3) The percent reduction of total HAP

across the applicable treatment process

shall be calculated using the following

equation:

R

E E

E

b a

b

= − ×100

Where:

R=Control efficiency of the treatment

process, percent.

Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream

entering the treatment process, kilograms

per hour, as determined in paragraph

(j)(1) of this section.

Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream

exiting the treatment process, kilograms

per hour, as determined in paragraph

(j)(1) of this section.

(4) Compounds that meet the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(j)(4)(i) or (4)(ii) of this section are not

required to be included in the mass flow

rate, mass per megagram of ODP, or the

mass percent reduction determinations.

(i) Compounds with concentrations at

the point of determination that are

below 1 part per million by weight; or

(ii) Compounds with concentrations

at the point of determination that are

below the lower detection limit where

the lower detection limit is greater than

1 part per million by weight.

(k) Oxygen concentration correction

procedures. To demonstrate compliance

with the total HAP concentration limit

of 20 ppmv in § 63.443(d)(2), the

concentration measured using the

methods specified in paragraph (b)(5) of

this section shall be corrected to 10

percent oxygen using the following

procedures:

(1) The emission rate correction factor

and excess air integrated sampling and

analysis procedures of Methods 3A or

3B of part 60, appendix A shall be used

to determine the oxygen concentration.

The samples shall be taken at the same

time that the HAP samples are taken.

(2) The concentration corrected to 10

percent oxygen shall be computed using

the following equation:

C C

O c m

d

= −











 10 9

20 9 2

.

. %

Where:

Cc=Concentration of total HAP corrected to

10 percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per

million by volume.

Cm=Concentration of total HAP dry basis,

parts per million by volume, as specified

in paragraph (b) of this section.

%02d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis,

percent by volume.

(1) Biological treatment system

percent reduction calculation. To

determine compliance with an open

biological treatment system option

specified in § 63.446(e)(2) and the

monitoring requirements specified in

§ 63.453(j)(2), 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 total HAP or methanol in

the biological treatment process, percent.

fbio=The fraction of total HAP or methanol

removed in the biological treatment

system. The site-specific biorate

constants shall be determined using the

procedures specified and as limited in

appendix C of part 63.

(m) Condensate segregation

procedures. The following procedures

shall be used to demonstrate

compliance with the condensate

segregation requirements specified in

§ 63.446(c).

(1) To demonstrate compliance with

the percent mass requirements specified

in § 63.446(c)(1), the procedures

specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) through

(m)(1)(iii) of this section shall be

performed.

(i) Determine the total HAP mass of

all condensates from each equipment

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

(b)(3) using the procedures specified in

paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section.

(ii) Multiply the total HAP mass

determine in paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this

section by 0.65 to determine the target

HAP mass for the high-HAP fraction

condensate stream or streams.

(iii) Compliance with the segregation

requirements specified in § 63.446(c)(1)

is demonstrated if the condensate

stream or streams from each equipment

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

(b)(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)(2), the procedures

specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through

(m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be

performed.

(i) Determine the total HAP mass

contained in the high-HAP fraction

condensates from each equipment

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

(b)(3) and the total condensates streams

from the equipment systems listed in

§ 63.446(b)(4) and (b)(5), using the

procedures specified in paragraphs (c)

and (j) of this section.

(ii) Compliance with the segregation

requirements specified in § 63.446(c)(2)

is demonstrated if the total HAP mass

determined in paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this

section is equal to or greater than the

appropriate mass requirements specified

in § 63.446(c)(2).

(n) 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.

§ 63.458 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(d) of the CAA, the

authorities contained in paragraph (b) of

this section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b) Authorities which will not be

delegated to States:

(1) Section 63.6(g)—Use of an

alternative nonopacity emission

standard;

(2) Section 63.453(m)—Use of an

alternative monitoring parameter;

(3) Section 63.457(b)(5)(iii)—Use of an

alternative test method for total HAP or

methanol in vents; and

(4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(ii)—Use of an

alternative test method for total HAP or

methanol in wastewater.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18629

§ 63.459 [Reserved]

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a

Reference Applies to

Subpart S Comment

63.1(a)(1)–(3) ............ Yes.

63.1(a)(4) ................... Yes .............. Subpart S (this table) specifies applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to subpart S.

63.1(a)(5) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.1(a)(6)–(8) ............ Yes.

63.1(a)(9) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.1(a)(10) ................. No ............... Subpart S and other cross-referenced subparts specify calendar or operating day.

63.1(a)(11)–(14) ........ Yes.

63.1(b)(1) ................... No ............... Subpart S specifies its own applicability.

63.1(b)(2)–(3) ............ Yes.

63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............. Yes.

63.1(c)(3) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.1(c)(4)–(5) ............. Yes.

63.1(d) ....................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.1(e) ....................... Yes.

63.2 ............................ Yes.

63.3 ............................ Yes.

63.4(a)(1) ................... Yes.

63.4(a)(3).

63.4(a)(4) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.4(a)(5) ................... Yes.

63.4(b) ....................... Yes.

63.4(c) ....................... Yes.

63.5(a) ....................... Yes.

63.5(b)(1) ................... Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.5(b)(3) ................... Yes.

63.5(b)(4)–(6) ............ Yes.

63.5(c) ....................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.5(d) ....................... Yes.

63.5(e) ....................... Yes.

63.5(f) ........................ Yes.

63.6(a) ....................... Yes.

63.6(b) ....................... No ............... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S.

63.6(c) ....................... No ............... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S.

63.6(d) ....................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.6(e) ....................... Yes.

63.6(f) ........................ Yes.

63.6(g) ....................... Yes.

63.6(h) ....................... No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.6(i) ........................ Yes.

63.6(j) ........................ Yes.

63.7 ............................ Yes.

63.8(a)(1) ................... Yes.

63.8(a)(2) ................... Yes.

63.8(a)(3) ................... No ............... Section reserved.

63.8(a)(4) ................... Yes.

63.8(b)(1) ................... Yes.

63.8(b)(2) ................... No ............... Subpart S specifies locations to conduct monitoring.

63.8(b)(3) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(1) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(2) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(3) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(4) ................... No ............... Subpart S allows site specific determination of monitoring frequency in § 63.453(n)(4).

63.8(c)(5) ................... No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.8(c)(6) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(7) ................... Yes.

63.8(c)(8) ................... Yes.

63.8(d) ....................... Yes.

63.8(e) ....................... Yes.

63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............. Yes.

63.8(f)(6) .................... No ............... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy test for CEM’s.

63.8(g) ....................... Yes.

63.9(a) ....................... Yes.

63.9(b) ....................... Yes .............. Initial notifications must be submitted within one year after the source becomes subject to the relevant

standard.

63.9(c) ....................... Yes.

63.9(d) ....................... No ............... Special compliance requirements are only applicable to kraft mills.

63.9(e) ....................... Yes.

63.9(f) ........................ No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.
18630 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a—Continued

Reference Applies to

Subpart S Comment

63.9(g)(1) ................... Yes.

63.9(g)(2) ................... No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.9(g)(3) ................... No ............... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy tests, therefore no notification is required for an alternative.

63.9(h) ....................... Yes.

63.9(i) ........................ Yes.

63.9(j) ........................ Yes.

63.10(a) ..................... Yes.

63.10(b) ..................... Yes.

63.10(c) ..................... Yes.

63.10(d)(1) ................. Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ................. Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ................. No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.10(d)(4) ................. Yes.

63.10(d)(5) ................. Yes.

63.10(e)(1) ................. Yes.

63.10(e)(2)(i) .............. Yes.

63.10(e)(2)(ii) ............. No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.10(e)(3) ................. Yes.

63.10(e)(4) ................. No ............... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard.

63.10(f) ...................... Yes.

63.11–63.15 ............... Yes.

aWherever subpart A specifies ‘‘postmark’’ dates, submittals may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier). Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not required.

3. Appendix A of part 63 is amended

by adding Method 308 in numerical

order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 308—Procedure for

Determination of Methanol Emission

From Stationary Sources

1.0 Scope and Application

1.1 Analyte. Methanol. Chemical

Abstract Service (CAS) No. 67–56–1.

1.2 Applicability. This method

applies to the measurement of methanol

emissions from specified stationary

sources.

2.0 Summary of Method

A gas sample is extracted from the

sampling point in the stack. The

methanol is collected in deionized

distilled water and adsorbed on silica

gel. The sample is returned to the

laboratory where the methanol in the

water fraction is separated from other

organic compounds with a gas

chromatograph (GC) and is then

measured by a flame ionization detector

(FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica

gel is extracted with an aqueous

solution of n-propanol and is then

separated and measured by GC/FID.

3.0 Definitions [Reserved]

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety

5.1 Disclaimer. This method may

involve hazardous materials, operations,

and equipment. This test method does

not purport to address all of the safety

problems associated with its use. It is

the responsibility of the user of this test

method to establish appropriate safety

and health practices and to determine

the applicability of regulatory

limitations before performing this test

method.

5.2 Methanol Characteristics.

Methanol is flammable and a dangerous

fire and explosion risk. It is moderately

toxic by ingestion and inhalation.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

6.1 Sample Collection. The

following items are required for sample

collection:

6.1.1 Sampling Train. The sampling

train is shown in Figure 308–1 and

component parts are discussed below.

6.1.1.1 Probe. Teflon,

approximately 6-millimeter (mm) (0.24

inch) outside diameter.

6.1.1.2 Impinger. A 30-milliliter (ml)

midget impinger. The impinger must be

connected with leak-free glass

connectors. Silicone grease may not be

used to lubricate the connectors.

6.1.1.3 Adsorbent Tube. Glass tubes

packed with the required amount of the

specified adsorbent.

6.1.1.4 Valve. Needle valve, to

regulate sample gas flow rate.

6.1.1.5 Pump. Leak-free diaphragm

pump, or equivalent, to pull gas through

the sampling train. Install a small surge

tank between the pump and rate meter

to eliminate the pulsation effect of the

diaphragm pump on the rotameter.

6.1.1.6 Rate Meter. Rotameter, or

equivalent, capable of measuring flow

rate to within 2 percent of the selected

flow rate of up to 1000 milliliter per

minute (ml/min). Alternatively, the

tester may use a critical orifice to set the

flow rate.

6.1.1.7 Volume Meter. Dry gas meter

(DGM), sufficiently accurate to measure

the sample volume to within 2 percent,

calibrated at the selected flow rate and

conditions actually encountered during

sampling, and equipped with a

temperature sensor (dial thermometer,

or equivalent) capable of measuring

temperature accurately to within 3 °C

(5.4 °F).

6.1.1.8 Barometer. Mercury (Hg),

aneroid, or other barometer capable of

measuring atmospheric pressure to

within 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) Hg. See the

NOTE in Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A), section 6.1.2.

6.1.1.9 Vacuum Gauge and

Rotameter. At least 760-mm (30-inch)

Hg gauge and 0- to 40-ml/min rotameter,

to be used for leak-check of the

sampling train.

6.2 Sample Recovery. The following

items are required for sample recovery:

6.2.1 Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or

glass, 500-ml, two.

6.2.2 Sample Vials. Glass, 40-ml,

with Teflon-lined septa, to store

impinger samples (one per sample).

6.2.3 Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml

size.

6.3 Analysis. The following are

required for analysis:

6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. GC with

an FID, programmable temperature

control, and heated liquid injection

port.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18631

6.3.2 Pump. Capable of pumping

100 ml/min. For flushing sample loop.

6.3.3 Flow Meter. To monitor

accurately sample loop flow rate of 100

ml/min.

6.3.4 Regulators. Two-stage

regulators used on gas cylinders for GC

and for cylinder standards.

6.3.5 Recorder. To record, integrate,

and store chromatograms.

6.3.6 Syringes. 1.0- and 10-

microliter (l) size, calibrated, for

injecting samples.

6.3.7 Tubing Fittings. Stainless steel,

to plumb GC and gas cylinders.

6.3.8 Vials. Two 5.0-ml glass vials

with screw caps fitted with Teflon-

lined septa for each sample.

6.3.9 Pipettes. Volumetric type,

assorted sizes for preparing calibration

standards.

6.3.10 Volumetric Flasks. Assorted

sizes for preparing calibration

standards.

6.3.11 Vials. Glass 40-ml with

Teflon-lined septa, to store calibration

standards (one per standard).

7.0 Reagents and Standards

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all

reagents must conform to the specifications

established by the Committee on Analytical

Reagents of the American Chemical Society.

Where such specifications are not available,

use the best available grade.

7.1 Sampling. The following are

required for sampling:

7.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled to

conform to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Specification D 1193–77, Type 3. At the

option of the analyst, the potassium

permanganate (KMnO4) test for

oxidizable organic matter may be

omitted when high concentrations of

organic matter are not expected to be

present.

7.1.2 Silica Gel. Deactivated

chromatographic grade 20/40 mesh

silica gel packed in glass adsorbent

tubes. The silica gel is packed in two

sections. The front section contains 520

milligrams (mg) of silica gel, and the

back section contains 260 mg.

7.2 Analysis. The following are

required for analysis:

7.2.1 Water. Same as specified in

section 7.1.1.

7.2.2 n-Propanol, 3 Percent. Mix 3

ml of n-propanol with 97 ml of water.

7.2.3 Methanol Stock Standard.

Prepare a methanol stock standard by

weighing 1 gram of methanol into a 100-

ml volumetric flask. Dilute to 100 ml

with water.

7.2.3.1 Methanol Working Standard.

Prepare a methanol working standard by

pipetting 1 ml of the methanol stock

standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask.

Dilute the solution to 100 ml with

water.

7.2.3.2 Methanol Standards For

Impinger Samples. Prepare a series of

methanol standards by pipetting 1, 2, 5,

10, and 25 ml of methanol working

standard solution respectively into five

50-ml volumetric flasks. Dilute the

solutions to 50 ml with water. These

standards will have 2, 4, 10, 20, and 50

μg/ml of methanol, respectively. After

preparation, transfer the solutions to 40-

ml glass vials capped with Teflon

septa and store the vials under

refrigeration. Discard any excess

solution.

7.2.3.3 Methanol Standards for

Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a

series of methanol standards by first

pipetting 10 ml of the methanol working

standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask

and diluting the contents to exactly 100

ml with 3 percent n-propanol solution.

This standard will contain 10 μg/ml of

methanol. Pipette 5, 15, and 25 ml of

this standard, respectively, into four 50-

ml volumetric flasks. Dilute each

solution to 50 ml with 3 percent npropanol solution. These standards will

have 1, 3, and 5 μg/ml of methanol,

respectively. Transfer all four standards

into 40-ml glass vials capped with

Teflon-lined septa and store under

refrigeration. Discard any excess

solution.

7.2.4 GC Column. Capillary column,

30 meters (100 feet) long with an inside

diameter (ID) of 0.53 mm (0.02 inch),

coated with DB 624 to a film thickness

of 3.0 micrometers, (μm) or an

equivalent column. Alternatively, a 30-

meter capillary column coated with

polyethylene glycol to a film thickness

of 1 μm such as AT–WAX or its

equivalent.

7.2.5 Helium. Ultra high purity.

7.2.6 Hydrogen. Zero grade.

7.2.7 Oxygen. Zero grade.

8.0 Procedure

8.1 Sampling. The following items

are required for sampling:

8.1.1 Preparation of Collection

Train. Measure 20 ml of water into the

midget impinger. The adsorbent tube

must contain 520 mg of silica gel in the

front section and 260 mg of silica gel in

the backup section. Assemble the train

as shown in Figure 308–1. An optional,

second impinger that is left empty may

be placed in front of the watercontaining impinger to act as a

condensate trap. Place crushed ice and

water around the impinger.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
18632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18633

8.1.2 Leak Check. A leak check prior

to the sampling run is optional;

however, a leak check after the sampling

run is mandatory. The leak-check

procedure is as follows:

Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0-

to 40-ml/min) rotameter to the outlet of

the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at

or near the probe inlet. Plug the probe

inlet, pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm

(10 inch) Hg, and note the flow rate as

indicated by the rotameter. A leakage

rate not in excess of 2 percent of the

average sampling rate is acceptable.

Note: Carefully release the probe inlet plug

before turning off the pump.

8.1.3 Sample Collection. Record the

initial DGM reading and barometric

pressure. To begin sampling, position

the tip of the Teflon tubing at the

sampling point, connect the tubing to

the impinger, and start the pump.

Adjust the sample flow to a constant

rate between 200 and 1000 ml/min as

indicated by the rotameter. Maintain

this constant rate (±10 percent) during

the entire sampling run. Take readings

(DGM, temperatures at DGM and at

impinger outlet, and rate meter) at least

every 5 minutes. Add more ice during

the run to keep the temperature of the

gases leaving the last impinger at 20 °C

(68 °F) or less. At the conclusion of each

run, turn off the pump, remove the

Teflon tubing from the stack, and

record the final readings. Conduct a leak

check as in section 8.1.2. (This leak

check is mandatory.) If a leak is found,

void the test run or use procedures

acceptable to the Administrator to

adjust the sample volume for the

leakage.

8.2 Sample Recovery. The following

items are required for sample recovery:

8.2.1 Impinger. Disconnect the

impinger. Pour the contents of the

midget impinger into a graduated

cylinder. Rinse the midget impinger and

the connecting tubes with water, and

add the rinses to the graduated cylinder.

Record the sample volume. Transfer the

sample to a glass vial and cap with a

Teflon septum. Discard any excess

sample. Place the samples in an ice

chest for shipment to the laboratory.

8.2.2. Adsorbent Tubes. Seal the

silica gel adsorbent tubes and place

them in an ice chest for shipment to the

laboratory.

9.0 Quality Control

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control

Measures. The following quality control

measures are required:

Section Quality control

measure Effect

8.1.2,

8.1.3,

10.1.

Sampling equipment leak

check and

calibration.

Ensures accurate measurement of sample volume.

10.2 ...... GC calibration .. Ensures precision of GC

analysis.

9.2 Applicability. When the method

is used to analyze samples to

demonstrate compliance with a source

emission regulation, an audit sample

must be analyzed, subject to availability.

9.3 Audit Procedure. Analyze an

audit sample with each set of

compliance samples. Concurrently

analyze the audit sample and a set of

compliance samples in the same manner

to evaluate the technique of the analyst

and the standards preparation. The

same analyst, analytical reagents, and

analytical system shall be used both for

the compliance samples and the EPA

audit sample.

9.4 Audit Sample Availability.

Audit samples will be supplied only to

enforcement agencies for compliance

tests. Audit samples may be obtained by

writing: Source Test Audit Coordinator

(MD–77B), Air Measurement Research

Division, National Exposure Research

Laboratory, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27711; or by calling the Source

Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (919)

541–7834. The audit sample request

must be made at least 30 days prior to

the scheduled compliance sample

analysis.

9.5 Audit Results. Calculate the

audit sample concentration according to

the calculation procedure provided in

the audit instructions included with the

audit sample. Fill in the audit sample

concentration and the analyst’s name on

the audit response form included with

the audit instructions. Send one copy to

the EPA Regional Office or the

appropriate enforcement agency and a

second copy to the STAC. The EPA

Regional office or the appropriate

enforcement agency will report the

results of the audit to the laboratory

being audited. Include this response

with the results of the compliance

samples in relevant reports to the EPA

Regional Office or the appropriate

enforcement agency.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

10.1 Metering System. The following

items are required for the metering

system:

10.1.1 Initial Calibration.

10.1.1.1 Before its initial use in the

field, first leak-check the metering

system (drying tube, needle valve,

pump, rotameter, and DGM) as follows:

Place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the

drying tube, and pull a vacuum of 250

mm (10 inch) Hg; plug or pinch off the

outlet of the flow meter, and then turn

off the pump. The vacuum shall remain

stable for at least 30 seconds. Carefully

release the vacuum gauge before

releasing the flow meter end.

10.1.1.2 Next, remove the drying

tube, and calibrate the metering system

(at the sampling flow rate specified by

the method) as follows: Connect an

appropriately sized wet test meter (e.g.,

1 liter per revolution (0.035 cubic feet

per revolution)) to the inlet of the drying

tube. Make three independent

calibrations runs, using at least five

revolutions of the DGM per run.

Calculate the calibration factor, Y (wet

test meter calibration volume divided by

the DGM volume, both volumes

adjusted to the same reference

temperature and pressure), for each run,

and average the results. If any Y-value

deviates by more than 2 percent from

the average, the metering system is

unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the

average as the calibration factor for

subsequent test runs.

10.1.2 Posttest Calibration Check.

After each field test series, conduct a

calibration check as in section 10.1.1

above, except for the following

variations: (a) The leak check is not to

be conducted, (b) three, or more

revolutions of the DGM may be used,

and (c) only two independent runs need

be made. If the calibration factor does

not deviate by more than 5 percent from

the initial calibration factor (determined

in section 10.1.1), then the DGM

volumes obtained during the test series

are acceptable. If the calibration factor

deviates by more than 5 percent,

recalibrate the metering system as in

section 10.1.1, and for the calculations,

use the calibration factor (initial or

recalibration) that yields the lower gas

volume for each test run.

10.1.3 Temperature Sensors.

Calibrate against mercury-in-glass

thermometers.

10.1.4 Rotameter. The rotameter

need not be calibrated, but should be

cleaned and maintained according to

the manufacturer’s instruction.

10.1.5 Barometer. Calibrate against a

mercury barometer.

10.2 Gas Chromatograph. The

following procedures are required for

the gas chromatograph:

10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Inject 1 μl

of each of the standards prepared in

sections 7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 into the GC

and record the response. Repeat the

injections for each standard until two

successive injections agree within 5

percent. Using the mean response for
18634 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

each calibration standard, prepare a

linear least squares equation relating the

response to the mass of methanol in the

sample. Perform the calibration before

analyzing each set of samples.

10.2.2 Continuing Calibration. At

the beginning of each day, analyze the

mid level calibration standard as

described in section 10.5.1. The

response from the daily analysis must

agree with the response from the initial

calibration within 10 percent. If it does

not, the initial calibration must be

repeated.

11.0 Analytical Procedure

11.1 Gas Chromatograph Operating

Conditions. The following operating

conditions are required for the GC:

11.1.1 Injector. Configured for

capillary column, splitless, 200 °C (392

°F).

11.1.2 Carrier. Helium at 10 ml/min.

11.1.3 Oven. Initially at 45 °C for 3

minutes; then raise by 10 °C to 70 °C;

then raise by 70 °C/min to 200 °C.

11.2 Impinger Sample. Inject 1 μl of

the stored sample into the GC. Repeat

the injection and average the results. If

the sample response is above that of the

highest calibration standard, either

dilute the sample until it is in the

measurement range of the calibration

line or prepare additional calibration

standards. If the sample response is

below that of the lowest calibration

standard, prepare additional calibration

standards. If additional calibration

standards are prepared, there shall be at

least two that bracket the response of

the sample. These standards should

produce approximately 50 percent and

150 percent of the response of the

sample.

11.3 Silica Gel Adsorbent Sample.

The following items are required for the

silica gel adsorbent samples:

11.3.1 Preparation of Samples.

Extract the front and backup sections of

the adsorbent tube separately. With a

file, score the glass adsorbent tube in

front of the first section of silica gel.

Break the tube open. Remove and

discard the glass wool. Transfer the first

section of the silica gel to a 5-ml glass

vial and stopper the vial. Remove the

spacer between the first and second

section of the adsorbent tube and

discard it. Transfer the second section of

silica gel to a separate 5-ml glass vial

and stopper the vial.

11.3.2 Desorption of Samples. Add 3

ml of the 10 percent n-propanol solution

to each of the stoppered vials and shake

or vibrate the vials for 30 minutes.

11.3.3 Inject a 1-μl aliquot of the

diluted sample from each vial into the

GC. Repeat the injection and average the

results. If the sample response is above

that of the highest calibration standard,

either dilute the sample until it is in the

measurement range of the calibration

line or prepare additional calibration

standards. If the sample response is

below that of the lowest calibration

standard, prepare additional calibration

standards. If additional calibration

standards are prepared, there shall be at

least two that bracket the response of

the sample. These standards should

produce approximately 50 percent and

150 percent of the response of the

sample.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations

12.1 Nomenclature.

Caf=Concentration of methanol in the

front of the adsorbent tube, μg/ml.

Cab=Concentration of methanol in the

back of the adsorbent tube, μg/ml.

Ci=Concentration of methanol in the

impinger portion of the sample

train, μg/ml.

E=Mass emission rate of methanol, μg/

hr (lb/hr).

Mtot=Total mass of methanol collected

in the sample train, μg.

Pbar=Barometric pressure at the exit

orifice of the DGM, mm Hg (in. Hg).

Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760

mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).

Qstd=Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate

corrected to standard conditions,

dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

Tm=Average DGM absolute temperature,

degrees K (°R).

Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293

degrees K (528 °R).

Vaf=Volume of front half adsorbent

sample, ml.

Vab=Volume of back half adsorbent

sample, ml.

Vi=Volume of impinger sample, ml.

Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by the

DGM, dry cubic meters (dcm), dry

cubic feet (dcf).

Vm(std)=Dry gas volume measured by the

DGM, corrected to standard

conditions, dry standard cubic

meters (dscm), dry standard cubic

feet (dscf).

12.2 Mass of Methanol. Calculate the

total mass of methanol collected in the

sampling train using Equation 308–1.

M V C V C V C tot i i af af ab ab = + + Equation 308 -1

12.3 Dry Sample Gas Volume, Corrected to Standard Conditions. Calculate the volume of gas sampled at standard

conditions using Equation 308–2.

V std V Y T P

T P m m std bar

m std

( ) = Equation 308 - 2

12.4 Mass Emission Rate of Methanol. Calculate the mass emission rate of methanol using Equation 308–3.

E M Q

V

tot sd

m std

=

( )

Equation 308 - 3

13.0 Method Performance [Reserved]

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 Bibliography

1. Rom, J.J. ‘‘Maintenance,

Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic

Source Sampling Equipment.’’ Office of

Air Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.

APTD–0576 March 1972.

2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Part 31; Water, Atmospheric Analysis.

American Society for Testing and

Materials. Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp.

40–42.

3. Westlin, P.R. and R.T. Shigehara.

‘‘Procedure for Calibrating and Using

Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration

Standards.’’ Source Evaluation Society

Newsletter. 3(1) :17–30. February 1978.

4. Yu, K.K. ‘‘Evaluation of Moisture

Effect on Dry Gas Meter Calibration.’’

Source Evaluation Society Newsletter.

5(1) :24–28. February 1980.

5. NIOSH Manual of Analytical

Methods, Volume 2. U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services National

Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health. Center for Disease Control. 4676
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18635

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH

45226. (available from the

Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.)

6. Pinkerton, J.E. ‘‘Method for

Measuring Methanol in Pulp Mill Vent

Gases.’’ National Council of the Pulp

and Paper Industry for Air and Stream

Improvement, Inc., New York, NY.

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts,

and Validation Data

[Reserved].

* * * * *

PART 261—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation of part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, and 6938.

2. Section 261.4 is amended by

adding paragraph (a) (15) to read as

follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

(a) * * *

(15) Condensates derived from the

overhead gases from kraft mill steam

strippers that are used to comply with

40 CFR 63.446(e). The exemption

applies only to combustion at the mill

generating the condensates.

* * * * *

1. Part 430 is revised to read as

follows:

PART 430—THE PULP, PAPER, AND

PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE

CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.

430.00 Applicability.

430.01 General definitions.

430.02 Monitoring requirements.

430.03 Best management practices (BMPs)

for spent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine management, spill

prevention, and control.

Subpart A—Dissolving Kraft Subcategory

Sec.

430.10 Applicability; description of the

dissolving kraft subcategory.

430.11 Specialized definitions.

430.12 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the best

conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.14 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.15 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.17 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart B—Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Subcategory

Sec.

430.20 Applicability; description of the

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory.

430.21 Specialized definitions.

430.22 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.23 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.24 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.25 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.26 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.27 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

430.28 Best management practices (BMPs).

Subpart C—Unbleached Kraft Subcategory

Sec.

430.30 Applicability; description of the

unbleached kraft subcategory.

430.31 Specialized definitions.

430.32 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.33 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.34 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.35 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.36 Pretreatment standards for existing

(PSES).

430.37 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D—Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory

Sec.

430.40 Applicability; description of the

dissolving sulfite subcategory.

430.41 Specialized definitions.

430.42 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.43 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.44 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.45 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.46 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.47 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart E—Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

Sec.

430.50 Applicability; description of the

papergrade sulfite subcategory.

430.51 Specialized definitions.

430.52 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.53 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.54 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.55 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.56 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.57 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

430.58 Best management practices (BMPs).

Subpart F—Semi-Chemical Subcategory

Sec.

430.60 Applicability; description of the

semi-chemical subcategory.

430.61 Specialized definitions.

430.62 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.63 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.64 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.65 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.66 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.67 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart G—Mechanical Pulp Subcategory

Sec.

430.70 Applicability; description of the

mechanical pulp subcategory.

430.71 Specialized definitions.

430.72 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).
18636 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

430.73 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.74 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.75 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.76 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.77 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart H—Non-Wood Chemical Pulp

Subcategory

Sec.

430.80 Applicability; description of the

non-wood chemical pulp subcategory.

430.81 Specialized definitions.

430.82 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT). [Reserved]

430.83 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT). [Reserved]

430.84 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). [Reserved]

430.85 New source performance standards

(NSPS). [Reserved]

430.86 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES). [Reserved]

430.87 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS). [Reserved]

Subpart I—Secondary Fiber Deink

Subcategory

Sec.

430.90 Applicability; description of the

secondary fiber deink subcategory.

430.91 Specialized definitions.

430.92 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

430.93 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

430.94 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

430.95 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.97 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart J—Secondary Fiber Non-Deink

Subcategory

Sec.

430.100 Applicability; description of the

secondary fiber non-deink subcategory.

430.101 Specialized definitions.

430.102 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

430.103 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

430.104 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

available technology economically

achievable (BAT).

430.105 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.106 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.107 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart K—Fine and Lightweight Papers

From Purchased Pulp Subcategory

Sec.

430.110 Applicability; description of the

fine and lightweight papers from

purchased pulp subcategory.

430.111 Specialized definitions.

430.112 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

430.113 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

430.114 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

available technology economically

achievable (BAT).

430.115 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.117 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart L—Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and

Paperboard From Purchased Pulp

Subcategory

Sec.

430.120 Applicability; description of the

tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard

from purchased pulp subcategory.

430.121 Specialized definitions.

430.122 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

430.123 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

430.124 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction

attainable by the application of best

available technology economically

achievable (BAT).

430.125 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

430.127 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Appendix A to Part 430—Methods 1650 and

1653

Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307,

308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as

amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,

1318, 1342, and 1361), and Section 112 of the

Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).

General Provisions

§ 430.00 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to any pulp,

paper, or paperboard mill that

discharges or may discharge process

wastewater pollutants to the waters of

the United States, or that introduces or

may introduce process wastewater

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works.

(b) The following table presents the

subcategorization scheme codified in

this part, with references to former

subpart designations contained in the

1997 edition of 40 CFR parts 425

through 699:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18637

SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME WITH REFERENCES TO FORMER SUBPARTS CONTAINED IN THE JULY 1, 1997 EDITION OF

40 CFR PARTS 425 THROUGH 699

Final codified subpart Final subcategorization scheme Types of products covered in the subpart

A ............... Dissolving Kraft .............................. Dissolving pulp at kraft mills (Fa)

B ............... Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda.

Market pulp at bleached kraft mills (Ga); paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at

bleached kraft mills (Ha); pulp and fine papers at bleached kraft mills (Ia); and pulp and

paper at soda mills (Pa).

C ............... Unbleached Kraft ........................... Pulp and paper at unbleached kraft mills including linerboard or bag paper and other mixed

products (Aa); pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical

(cross recovery) process (Da); and pulp and paper at combined unbleached kraft and semichemical mills, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system (Va).

D ............... Dissolving Sulfite ........................... Pulp at dissolving sulfite mills for the following grades: nitration, viscose, cellophane, and acetate (Ka).

E ............... Papergrade Sulfite .........................

—Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based pulps.

—Ammonium-based pulps.

—Specialty grade pulps.

Pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where blow pit pulp washing techniques are used

(Ja) and pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where vacuum or pressure drums are

used to wash pulp (Ua).

F ............... Semi-Chemical ............................... Pulp and paper at semi-chemical mills using an ammonia base or a sodium base (Ba).

G ............... Mechanical Pulp ............................ Pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills (La); pulp and paper at groundwood

mills through the application of the thermo-mechanical process (Ma); pulp and coarse

paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills (Na); and pulp and fine

paper at groundwood mills (Oa).

H ............... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp ............. Pulp and paper at non-wood chemical pulp mills.

I ................. Secondary Fiber Deink .................. Pulp and paper at deink mills including fine papers, tissue papers, or newsprint (Qa).

J ................ Secondary Fiber Non-Deink .......... Paperboard from wastepaper from noncorrugating medium furnish or from corrugating medium furnish (Ea); tissue paper from wastepaper without deinking at secondary fiber mills

(Ta); molded products from wastepaper without deinking (Wa); and builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper (40 CFR Part 431, Subpart Aa).

K ............... Fine and Lightweight Papers from

Purchased Pulp.

Fine Papers at nonintegrated mills using wood fiber furnish or cotton fiber furnish (Ra); and

lightweight papers at nonintegrated mills or lightweight electrical papers at nonintegrated

mills (Xa).

L ................ Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.Tissue papers at nonintegrated mills (Sa); filter and non-woven papers at nonintegrated mills

(Ya); and paperboard at nonintegrated mills (Za).

aThis subpart is contained in the 40 CFR parts 425 through 699, edition revised as of July 1, 1997.

§ 430.01 General definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR part 401 and 40 CFR 403.3,

the following definitions apply to this

part:

(a) Adsorbable organic halides (AOX).

A bulk parameter that measures the total

mass of chlorinated organic matter in

water and wastewater.

(b) Annual average. The mean

concentration, mass loading or

production-normalized mass loading of

a pollutant over a period of 365

consecutive days (or such other period

of time determined by the permitting

authority to be sufficiently long to

encompass expected variability of the

concentration, mass loading, or

production-normalized mass loading at

the relevant point of measurement).

(c) Bleach plant. All process

equipment used for bleaching beginning

with the first application of bleaching

agents (e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide,

ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite,

or peroxide), each subsequent extraction

stage, and each subsequent stage where

bleaching agents are applied to the pulp.

For mills in Subpart E of this part

producing specialty grades of pulp, the

bleach plant includes process

equipment used for the hydrolysis or

extraction stages prior to the first

application of bleaching agents. Process

equipment used for oxygen

delignification prior to the application

of bleaching agents is not part of the

bleach plant.

(d) Bleach plant effluent. The total

discharge of process wastewaters from

the bleach plant from each physical

bleach line operated at the mill,

comprising separate acid and alkaline

filtrates or the combination thereof.

(e) Chemical oxygen demand (COD).

A bulk parameter that measures the

oxygen-consuming capacity of organic

and inorganic matter present in water or

wastewater. It is expressed as the

amount of oxygen consumed from a

chemical oxidant in a specific test.

(f) Elemental chlorine-free (ECF). Any

process for bleaching pulps in the

absence of elemental chlorine and

hypochlorite that uses exclusively

chlorine dioxide as the only chlorinecontaining bleaching agent.

(g) End of the pipe. The point at

which final mill effluent is discharged

to waters of the United States or

introduced to a POTW.

(h) Fiber line. A series of operations

employed to convert wood or other

fibrous raw material into pulp. If the

final product is bleached pulp, the fiber

line encompasses pulping, de-knotting,

brownstock washing, pulp screening,

centrifugal cleaning, and multiple

bleaching and washing stages.

(i) Minimum level (ML). The level at

which the analytical system gives

recognizable signals and an acceptable

calibration point. The following

minimum levels apply to pollutants in

this part.
18638 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Pollutant Method Minimum level

2,3,7,8-TCDD ................................................................................................................................................................. 1613 10 pg/L a

2,3,7,8-TCDF ................................................................................................................................................................. 1613 10 pg/L a

Trichlorosyringol ............................................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b

3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol .................................................................................................................................................. 1653 5.0 ug/L b

3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol .................................................................................................................................................. 1653 5.0 ug/L b

3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b

3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b

4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 1653 2.5 ug/L b

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 1653 2.5 ug/L b

Tetrachlorocatechol ....................................................................................................................................................... 1653 5.0 ug/L b

Tetrachloroguaiacol ....................................................................................................................................................... 1653 5.0 ug/L b

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol .............................................................................................................................................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................................... 1653 5.0 ug/L b

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1650 20 ug/L b

aPicograms per liter.

b Micrograms per liter.

(j) New source. (1) Notwithstanding

the criteria codified at 40 CFR

122.29(b)(1), a source subject to subpart

B or E of this part is a ‘‘new source’’ if

it meets the definition of ‘‘new source’’

at 40 CFR 122.2 and:

(i) It is constructed at a site at which

no other source is located; or

(ii) It totally replaces the process or

production equipment that causes the

discharge of pollutants at an existing

source, including the total replacement

of a fiber line that causes the discharge

of pollutants at an existing source,

except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of

this section; or

(iii) Its processes are substantially

independent of an existing source at the

same site. In determining whether these

processes are substantially independent,

the Director shall consider such factors

as the extent to which the new facility

is integrated with the existing plant; and

the extent to which the new facility is

engaged in the same general type of

activity as the existing source.

(2) The following are examples of

changes made by mills subject to

subparts B or E of this part that alone

do not cause an existing mill to become

a ‘‘new source’’:

(i) Upgrades of existing pulping

operations;

(ii) Upgrades or replacement of pulp

screening and washing operations;

(iii) Installation of extended cooking

and/or oxygen delignification systems

or other post-digester, pre-bleaching

delignification systems;

(iv) Bleach plant modifications

including changes in methods or

amounts of chemical applications, new

chemical applications, installation of

new bleaching towers to facilitate

replacement of sodium or calcium

hypochlorite, and installation of new

pulp washing systems; or

(v) Total replacement of process or

production equipment that causes the

discharge of pollutants at an existing

source (including a replacement fiber

line), but only if such replacement is

performed for the purpose of achieving

limitations that have been included in

the discharger’s NPDES permit pursuant

to § 430.24(b).

(k) Non-continuous discharger. (1)

Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2)

of this section, a non-continuous

discharger is a mill which is prohibited

by the NPDES authority from

discharging pollutants during specific

periods of time for reasons other than

treatment plant upset control, such

periods being at least 24 hours in

duration. A mill shall not be deemed a

non-continuous discharger unless its

permit, in addition to setting forth the

prohibition described above, requires

compliance with the effluent limitations

established for non-continuous

dischargers and also requires

compliance with maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days effluent

limitations. Such maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days effluent

limitations for non-continuous

dischargers shall be established by the

NPDES authority in the form of

concentrations which reflect wastewater

treatment levels that are representative

of the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available,

the best conventional pollutant control

technology, or new source performance

standards in lieu of the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for conventional

pollutants set forth in each subpart.

(2) A mill is a non-continuous

discharger for the purposes of

determining applicable effluent

limitations under subpart B or E of this

part (other than conventional limits for

existing sources) if, for reasons other

than treatment plant upset control (e.g.,

protecting receiving water quality), the

mill is prohibited by the NPDES

authority from discharging pollutants

during specific periods of time or if it

is required to release its discharge on a

variable flow or pollutant loading rate

basis.

(l) POTW. Publicly owned treatment

works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(o).

(m) Process wastewater. For subparts

B and E only, process wastewater is any

water that, during manufacturing or

processing, comes into direct contact

with or results from the production or

use of any raw material, intermediate

product, finished product, byproduct, or

waste product. For purposes of subparts

B and E of this part, process wastewater

includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters

from water treatment and other utility

operations; blowdowns from high rate

(e.g., greater than 98 percent) recycled

non-contact cooling water systems to

the extent they are mixed and co-treated

with other process wastewaters;

wastewater, including leachates, from

landfills owned by pulp and paper mills

subject to subpart B or E of this part if

the wastewater is commingled with

wastewater from the mill’s

manufacturing or processing facility;

and storm waters from the immediate

process areas to the extent they are

mixed and co-treated with other process

wastewaters. For purposes of this part,

contaminated groundwaters from on-site

or off-site groundwater remediation

projects are not process wastewater.

(n) Production. (1) For all limitations

and standards specified in this part

except those pertaining to AOX and

chloroform: Production shall be defined

as the annual off-the-machine

production (including off-the-machine

coating where applicable) divided by

the number of operating days during

that year. Paper and paperboard

production shall be measured at the offthe-machine moisture content, except

for subpart C of this part (as it pertains

to pulp and paperboard production at
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18639

unbleached kraft mills including

linerboard or bag paper and other mixed

products, and to pulp and paperboard

production using the unbleached kraft

neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross

recovery) process), and subparts F and

J of this part (as they pertain to

paperboard production from wastepaper

from noncorrugating medium furnish or

from corrugating medium furnish)

where paper and paperboard production

shall be measured in air-dry-tons (10%

moisture content). Market pulp shall be

measured in air-dry tons (10%

moisture). Production shall be

determined for each mill based upon

past production practices, present

trends, or committed growth.

(2) For AOX and chloroform

limitations and standards specified in

subparts B and E of this part: Production

shall be defined as the annual

unbleached pulp production entering

the first stage of the bleach plant

divided by the number of operating days

during that year. Unbleached pulp

production shall be measured in airdried-metric-tons (10% moisture) of

brownstock pulp entering the bleach

plant at the stage during which chlorine

or chlorine-containing compounds are

first applied to the pulp. In the case of

bleach plants that use totally chlorine

free bleaching processes, unbleached

pulp production shall be measured in

air-dried-metric tons (10% moisture) of

brownstock pulp entering the first stage

of the bleach plant from which

wastewater is discharged. Production

shall be determined for each mill based

upon past production practices, present

trends, or committed growth.

(o) TCDD. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin.

(p) TCDF. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-furan.

(q) Totally chlorine-free (TCF)

bleaching. Pulp bleaching operations

that are performed without the use of

chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium

hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine

monoxide, or any other chlorinecontaining compound.

(r) Wet Barking. Wet barking

operations shall be defined to include

hydraulic barking operations and wet

drum barking operations which are

those drum barking operations that use

substantial quantities of water in either

water sprays in the barking drums or in

a partial submersion of the drums in a

‘‘tub’’ of water.

§ 430.02 Monitoring requirements.

This section establishes minimum

monitoring frequencies for certain

pollutants. Where no monitoring

frequency is specified in this section or

where the duration of the minimum

monitoring frequency has expired under

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this

section, the permit writer or

pretreatment control authority shall

determine the appropriate monitoring

frequency in accordance with 40 CFR

122.44(i) or 40 CFR part 403, as

applicable.

(a) BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS

monitoring frequency for chlorinated

organic pollutants. The following

monitoring frequencies apply to

discharges subject to subpart B or

subpart E of this part:

CAS number Pollutant

Minimum monitoring frequency

Non-TCFa TCFb

1198556 ....... Tetrachlorocatechol .................................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

2539175 ....... Tetrachloroguaiacol .................................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

2539266 ....... Trichlorosyringol ....................................................................................................................... Monthly ............. (c)

2668248 ....... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol .............................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

32139723 ..... 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol .............................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

56961207 ..... 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol .............................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

57057837 ..... 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol .............................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

58902 ........... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ......................................................................................................... Monthly ............. (c)

60712449 ..... 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .............................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

87865 ........... Pentachlorophenol d .................................................................................................................. Monthly ............. (c)

88062 ........... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol d ............................................................................................................... Monthly ............. (c)

95954 ........... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol d ............................................................................................................... Monthly ............. (c)

1746016 ....... 2,3,7,8-TCDD ........................................................................................................................... Monthly ............. (c)

51207319 ..... 2,3,7,8-TCDF ............................................................................................................................ Monthly ............. (c)

67663 ........... chloroforme ............................................................................................................................... Weekly .............. (c)

59473040 ..... AOXf ........................................................................................................................................ Daily ................. None specified.

a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes.

bTCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22 or, for indirect dischargers, as reported to the pretreatment control authority under 40

CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e). cThis regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.

d Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting or pretreatment control authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR Part 403, as applicable.eThis regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for Subpart E mills.

fThis regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for the ammonium-based or specialty grade sulfite pulp segments of Subpart E.

(b) Duration of required monitoring

for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The

monitoring frequencies specified in

paragraph (a) of this section apply for

the following time periods:

(1) For direct dischargers, a duration

of five years commencing on the date

the applicable limitations or standards

from subpart B or subpart E of this part

are first included in the discharger’s

NPDES permit;

(2) For existing indirect dischargers,

until April 17, 2006;

(3) For new indirect dischargers, a

duration of five years commencing on

the date the indirect discharger

commences operation.

(c) Reduced monitoring frequencies

for bleach plant pollutants under the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program. The following

monitoring frequencies apply to mills

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program

established under subpart B of this part

for a duration of five years commencing

after achievement of the applicable BAT

limitations specified in § 430.24(b)(3) or

NSPS specified in § 430.25(c)(1) for the

following pollutants, except as noted in

footnote f:
18640 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

CAS

number Pollutant

Minimum monitoring frequency

Non-ECF a Advanced

ECF b,f TCF c

1198556 ... Tetrachlorocatechol ....................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

2539175 ... Tetrachloroguiacol ......................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

2539266 ... Trichlorosyringol ............................................................................................ Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

2668248 ... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

32139723 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

56961207 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

57057837 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

58902 ....... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .............................................................................. Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

60712449 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

87865 ....... Pentachlorophenol e ....................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

88062 ....... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol e .................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

95954 ....... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol e .................................................................................... Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

1746016 ... 2,3,7,8-TCDD ................................................................................................ Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

51207319 2,3,7,8-TCDF ................................................................................................. Monthly ............. Monthly (d)

67663 ....... Chloroform ..................................................................................................... Weekly .............. Monthly (d)

a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.

bAdvanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes, or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching

processes as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF

consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in

§ 430.24(b)(4)(i).

cTCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. dThis regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.

e Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i). f Monitoring requirements for these pollutants by mills certifying as Advanced ECF in their NPDES permit application or other communication to

the permitting authority will be suspended after one year of monitoring. The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for these pollutants beyond that time under 40 CFR 122.44(i).

(d) Reduced monitoring frequencies

for AOX under the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program (year

one). The following monitoring

frequencies apply to direct dischargers

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program

established under Subpart B of this part

for a duration of one year after

achievement of the applicable BAT

limitations specified in § 430.24(b)(4)(i)

or NSPS specified in § 430.25(c)(2):

CAS

number Pollutant Non-ECF,any tier a

Advanced ECF,

any tier b

TCF,

any tier c

59473040 AOX ............................................................................................................... Daily ................. Weekly .............. None specified.

a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.

bAdvanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching

processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced

ECF consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in

§ 430.24(b)(4)(i).

cTCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.

(e) Reduced monitoring frequencies

for AOX under the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program (years

two through five). The following

monitoring frequencies apply to mills

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program

established under Subpart B of this part

for a duration of four years starting one

year after achievement of the applicable

BAT limitations specified in

§ 430.24(b)(4)(i) or NSPS specified in

§ 430.25(c)(2):

CAS

number Pollutant Non-ECFany tier a

Advanced ECF—

tier I b

Advanced ECF—

tier II b

Advanced ECF—

tier III b

TCF—

any tier c

59473040 AOX ....................... Daily ....................... Monthly .................. Quarterly ................ Annually ................. None specified.

a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.

bAdvanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching

processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced

ECF consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in

§ 430.24(b)(4)(i).

cTCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18641

§ 430.03 Best management practices

(BMPs) for spent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine management, spill prevention,

and control.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

to direct and indirect discharging pulp,

paper, and paperboard mills with pulp

production in subparts B (Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and E

(Papergrade Sulfite).

(b) Specialized definitions. (1) Action

Level: A daily pollutant loading that

when exceeded triggers investigative or

corrective action. Mills determine action

levels by a statistical analysis of six

months of daily measurements collected

at the mill. For example, the lower

action level may be the 75th percentile

of the running seven-day averages (that

value exceeded by 25 percent of the

running seven-day averages) and the

upper action level may be the 90th

percentile of the running seven-day

averages (that value exceeded by 10

percent of the running seven-day

averages).

(2) Equipment Items in Spent Pulping

Liquor, Soap, and Turpentine Service:

Any process vessel, storage tank,

pumping system, evaporator, heat

exchanger, recovery furnace or boiler,

pipeline, valve, fitting, or other device

that contains, processes, transports, or

comes into contact with spent pulping

liquor, soap, or turpentine. Sometimes

referred to as ‘‘equipment items.’’

(3) Immediate Process Area: The

location at the mill where pulping,

screening, knotting, pulp washing,

pulping liquor concentration, pulping

liquor processing, and chemical

recovery facilities are located, generally

the battery limits of the aforementioned

processes. ‘‘Immediate process area’’

includes spent pulping liquor storage

and spill control tanks located at the

mill, whether or not they are located in

the immediate process area.

(4) Intentional Diversion: The planned

removal of spent pulping liquor, soap,

or turpentine from equipment items in

spent pulping liquor, soap, or

turpentine service by the mill for any

purpose including, but not limited to,

maintenance, grade changes, or process

shutdowns.

(5) Mill: The owner or operator of a

direct or indirect discharging pulp,

paper, or paperboard manufacturing

facility subject to this section.

(6) Senior Technical Manager: The

person designated by the mill manager

to review the BMP Plan. The senior

technical manager shall be the chief

engineer at the mill, the manager of

pulping and chemical recovery

operations, or other such responsible

person designated by the mill manager

who has knowledge of and

responsibility for pulping and chemical

recovery operations.

(7) Soap: The product of reaction

between the alkali in kraft pulping

liquor and fatty acid portions of the

wood, which precipitate out when water

is evaporated from the spent pulping

liquor.

(8) Spent Pulping Liquor: For kraft

and soda mills ‘‘spent pulping liquor’’

means black liquor that is used,

generated, stored, or processed at any

point in the pulping and chemical

recovery processes. For sulfite mills

‘‘spent pulping liquor’’ means any

intermediate, final, or used chemical

solution that is used, generated, stored,

or processed at any point in the sulfite

pulping and chemical recovery

processes (e.g., ammonium-, calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite

liquors).

(9) Turpentine: A mixture of terpenes,

principally pinene, obtained by the

steam distillation of pine gum recovered

from the condensation of digester relief

gases from the cooking of softwoods by

the kraft pulping process. Sometimes

referred to as sulfate turpentine.

(c) Requirement to implement Best

Management Practices. Each mill

subject to this section must implement

the Best Management Practices (BMPs)

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(10) of this section. The primary

objective of the BMPs is to prevent leaks

and spills of spent pulping liquors,

soap, and turpentine. The secondary

objective is to contain, collect, and

recover at the immediate process area,

or otherwise control, those leaks, spills,

and intentional diversions of spent

pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine

that do occur. BMPs must be developed

according to best engineering practices

and must be implemented in a manner

that takes into account the specific

circumstances at each mill. The BMPs

are as follows:

(1) The mill must return spilled or

diverted spent pulping liquors, soap,

and turpentine to the process to the

maximum extent practicable as

determined by the mill, recover such

materials outside the process, or

discharge spilled or diverted material at

a rate that does not disrupt the receiving

wastewater treatment system.

(2) The mill must establish a program

to identify and repair leaking equipment

items. This program must include:

(i) Regular visual inspections (e.g.,

once per day) of process areas with

equipment items in spent pulping

liquor, soap, and turpentine service;

(ii) Immediate repairs of leaking

equipment items, when possible.

Leaking equipment items that cannot be

repaired during normal operations must

be identified, temporary means for

mitigating the leaks must be provided,

and the leaking equipment items

repaired during the next maintenance

outage;

(iii) Identification of conditions under

which production will be curtailed or

halted to repair leaking equipment items

or to prevent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine leaks and spills; and

(iv) A means for tracking repairs over

time to identify those equipment items

where upgrade or replacement may be

warranted based on frequency and

severity of leaks, spills, or failures.

(3) The mill must operate continuous,

automatic monitoring systems that the

mill determines are necessary to detect

and control leaks, spills, and intentional

diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap,

and turpentine. These monitoring

systems should be integrated with the

mill process control system and may

include, e.g., high level monitors and

alarms on storage tanks; process area

conductivity (or pH) monitors and

alarms; and process area sewer, process

wastewater, and wastewater treatment

plant conductivity (or pH) monitors and

alarms.

(4) The mill must establish a program

of initial and refresher training of

operators, maintenance personnel, and

other technical and supervisory

personnel who have responsibility for

operating, maintaining, or supervising

the operation and maintenance of

equipment items in spent pulping

liquor, soap, and turpentine service. The

refresher training must be conducted at

least annually and the training program

must be documented.

(5) The mill must prepare a brief

report that evaluates each spill of spent

pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that

is not contained at the immediate

process area and any intentional

diversion of spent pulping liquor, soap,

or turpentine that is not contained at the

immediate process area. The report

must describe the equipment items

involved, the circumstances leading to

the incident, the effectiveness of the

corrective actions taken to contain and

recover the spill or intentional

diversion, and plans to develop changes

to equipment and operating and

maintenance practices as necessary to

prevent recurrence. Discussion of the

reports must be included as part of the

annual refresher training.

(6) The mill must establish a program

to review any planned modifications to

the pulping and chemical recovery

facilities and any construction activities

in the pulping and chemical recovery

areas before these activities commence.

The purpose of such review is to

prevent leaks and spills of spent
18642 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine

during the planned modifications, and

to ensure that construction and

supervisory personnel are aware of

possible liquor diversions and of the

requirement to prevent leaks and spills

of spent pulping liquors, soap, and

turpentine during construction.

(7) The mill must install and maintain

secondary containment (i.e.,

containment constructed of materials

impervious to pulping liquors) for spent

pulping liquor bulk storage tanks

equivalent to the volume of the largest

tank plus sufficient freeboard for

precipitation. An annual tank integrity

testing program, if coupled with other

containment or diversion structures,

may be substituted for secondary

containment for spent pulping liquor

bulk storage tanks.

(8) The mill must install and maintain

secondary containment for turpentine

bulk storage tanks.

(9) The mill must install and maintain

curbing, diking or other means of

isolating soap and turpentine processing

and loading areas from the wastewater

treatment facilities.

(10) The mill must conduct

wastewater monitoring to detect leaks

and spills, to track the effectiveness of

the BMPs, and to detect trends in spent

pulping liquor losses. Such monitoring

must be performed in accordance with

paragraph (i) of this section.

(d) Requirement to develop a BMP

Plan. (1) Each mill subject to this

section must prepare and implement a

BMP Plan. The BMP Plan must be based

on a detailed engineering review as

described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of

this section. The BMP Plan must specify

the procedures and the practices

required for each mill to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c) of this

section, the construction the mill

determines is necessary to meet those

requirements including a schedule for

such construction, and the monitoring

program (including the statistically

derived action levels) that will be used

to meet the requirements of paragraph

(i) of this section. The BMP Plan also

must specify the period of time that the

mill determines the action levels

established under paragraph (h) of this

section may be exceeded without

triggering the responses specified in

paragraph (i) of this section.

(2) Each mill subject to this section

must conduct a detailed engineering

review of the pulping and chemical

recovery operations—including but not

limited to process equipment, storage

tanks, pipelines and pumping systems,

loading and unloading facilities, and

other appurtenant pulping and chemical

recovery equipment items in spent

pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine

service—for the purpose of determining

the magnitude and routing of potential

leaks, spills, and intentional diversions

of spent pulping liquors, soap, and

turpentine during the following periods

of operation:

(i) Process start-ups and shut downs;

(ii) Maintenance;

(iii) Production grade changes;

(iv) Storm or other weather events;

(v) Power failures; and

(vi) Normal operations.

(3) As part of the engineering review,

the mill must determine whether

existing spent pulping liquor

containment facilities are of adequate

capacity for collection and storage of

anticipated intentional liquor diversions

with sufficient contingency for

collection and containment of spills.

The engineering review must also

consider:

(i) The need for continuous, automatic

monitoring systems to detect and

control leaks and spills of spent pulping

liquor, soap, and turpentine;

(ii) The need for process wastewater

diversion facilities to protect end-ofpipe wastewater treatment facilities

from adverse effects of spills and

diversions of spent pulping liquors,

soap, and turpentine;

(iii) The potential for contamination

of storm water from the immediate

process areas; and

(iv) The extent to which segregation

and/or collection and treatment of

contaminated storm water from the

immediate process areas is appropriate.

(e) Amendment of BMP Plan. (1) Each

mill subject to this section must amend

its BMP Plan whenever there is a change

in mill design, construction, operation,

or maintenance that materially affects

the potential for leaks or spills of spent

pulping liquor, turpentine, or soap from

the immediate process areas.

(2) Each mill subject to this section

must complete a review and evaluation

of the BMP Plan five years after the first

BMP Plan is prepared and, except as

provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this

section, once every five years thereafter.

As a result of this review and

evaluation, the mill must amend the

BMP Plan within three months of the

review if the mill determines that any

new or modified management practices

and engineered controls are necessary to

reduce significantly the likelihood of

spent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine leaks, spills, or intentional

diversions from the immediate process

areas, including a schedule for

implementation of such practices and

controls.

(f) Review and certification of BMP

Plan. The BMP Plan, and any

amendments thereto, must be reviewed

by the senior technical manager at the

mill and approved and signed by the

mill manager. Any person signing the

BMP Plan or its amendments must

certify to the permitting or pretreatment

control authority under penalty of law

that the BMP Plan (or its amendments)

has been prepared in accordance with

good engineering practices and in

accordance with this regulation. The

mill is not required to obtain approval

from the permitting or pretreatment

control authority of the BMP Plan or any

amendments thereto.

(g) Record keeping requirements. (1)

Each mill subject to this section must

maintain on its premises a complete

copy of the current BMP Plan and the

records specified in paragraph (g)(2) of

this section and must make such BMP

Plan and records available to the

permitting or pretreatment control

authority and the Regional

Administrator or his or her designee for

review upon request.

(2) The mill must maintain the

following records for three years from

the date they are created:

(i) Records tracking the repairs

performed in accordance with the repair

program described in paragraph (c)(2) of

this section;

(ii) Records of initial and refresher

training conducted in accordance with

paragraph (c)(4) of this section;

(iii) Reports prepared in accordance

with paragraph (c)(5) of this section; and

(iv) Records of monitoring required by

paragraphs (c)(10) and (i) of this section.

(h) Establishment of wastewater

treatment system influent action levels.

(1) Each mill subject to this section must

conduct a monitoring program,

described in paragraph (h)(2) of this

section, for the purpose of defining

wastewater treatment system influent

characteristics (or action levels),

described in paragraph (h)(3) of this

section, that will trigger requirements to

initiate investigations on BMP

effectiveness and to take corrective

action.

(2) Each mill subject to this section

must employ the following procedures

in order to develop the action levels

required by paragraph (h) of this

section:

(i) Monitoring parameters. The mill

must collect 24-hour composite samples

and analyze the samples for a measure

of organic content (e.g., Chemical

Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic

Carbon (TOC)). Alternatively, the mill

may use a measure related to spent

pulping liquor losses measured

continuously and averaged over 24

hours (e.g., specific conductivity or

color).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18643

(ii) Monitoring locations. For direct

dischargers, monitoring must be

conducted at the point influent enters

the wastewater treatment system. For

indirect dischargers monitoring must be

conducted at the point of discharge to

the POTW. For the purposes of this

requirement, the mill may select

alternate monitoring point(s) in order to

isolate possible sources of spent pulping

liquor, soap, or turpentine from other

possible sources of organic wastewaters

that are tributary to the wastewater

treatment facilities (e.g., bleach plants,

paper machines and secondary fiber

operations).

(3) By the date prescribed in

paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section, each

existing discharger subject to this

section must complete an initial sixmonth monitoring program using the

procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2)

of this section and must establish initial

action levels based on the results of that

program. A wastewater treatment

influent action level is a statistically

determined pollutant loading

determined by a statistical analysis of

six months of daily measurements. The

action levels must consist of a lower

action level, which if exceeded will

trigger the investigation requirements

described in paragraph (i) of this

section, and an upper action level,

which if exceeded will trigger the

corrective action requirements

described in paragraph (i) of this

section.

(4) By the date prescribed in

paragraph (j)(1)(vi) of this section, each

existing discharger must complete a

second six-month monitoring program

using the procedures specified in

paragraph (h)(2) of this section and must

establish revised action levels based on

the results of that program. The initial

action levels shall remain in effect until

replaced by revised action levels.

(5) By the date prescribed in

paragraph (j)(2) of this section, each new

source subject to this section must

complete a six-month monitoring

program using the procedures specified

in paragraph (h)(2) of this section and

must develop a lower action level and

an upper action level based on the

results of that program.

(6) Action levels developed under this

paragraph must be revised using six

months of monitoring data after any

change in mill design, construction,

operation, or maintenance that

materially affects the potential for leaks

or spills of spent pulping liquor, soap,

or turpentine from the immediate

process areas.

(i) Monitoring, corrective action, and

reporting requirements. (1) Each mill

subject to this section must conduct

daily monitoring of the influent to the

wastewater treatment system in

accordance with the procedures

described in paragraph (h)(2) of this

section for the purpose of detecting

leaks and spills, tracking the

effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting

trends in spent pulping liquor losses.

(2) Whenever monitoring results

exceed the lower action level for the

period of time specified in the BMP

Plan, the mill must conduct an

investigation to determine the cause of

such exceedance. Whenever monitoring

results exceed the upper action level for

the period of time specified in the BMP

Plan, the mill must complete corrective

action to bring the wastewater treatment

system influent mass loading below the

lower action level as soon as

practicable.

(3) Although exceedances of the

action levels will not constitute

violations of an NPDES permit or

pretreatment standard, failure to take

the actions required by paragraph (i)(2)

of this section as soon as practicable

will be a permit or pretreatment

standard violation.

(4) Each mill subject to this section

must report to the NPDES permitting or

pretreatment control authority the

results of the daily monitoring

conducted pursuant to paragraph (i)(1)

of this section. Such reports must

include a summary of the monitoring

results, the number and dates of

exceedances of the applicable action

levels, and brief descriptions of any

corrective actions taken to respond to

such exceedances. Submission of such

reports shall be at the frequency

established by the NPDES permitting or

pretreatment control authority, but in no

case less than once per year.

(j) Compliance deadlines. (1) Existing

direct and indirect dischargers. Except

as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this

section for new sources, indirect

discharging mills subject to this section

must meet the deadlines set forth below.

Except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of

this section for new sources, NPDES

permits must require direct discharging

mills subject to this section to meet the

deadlines set forth below. If a deadline

set forth below has passed at the time

the NPDES permit containing the BMP

requirement is issued, the NPDES

permit must require immediate

compliance with such BMP

requirement(s).

(i) Prepare BMP Plans and certify to

the permitting or pretreatment authority

that the BMP Plan has been prepared in

accordance with this regulation not later

than April 15, 1999;

(ii) Implement all BMPs specified in

paragraph (c) of this section that do not

require the construction of containment

or diversion structures or the

installation of monitoring and alarm

systems not later than April 15, 1999.

(iii) Establish initial action levels

required by paragraph (h)(3) of this

section not later than April 15, 1999.

(iv) Commence operation of any new

or upgraded continuous, automatic

monitoring systems that the mill

determines to be necessary under

paragraph (c)(3) of this section (other

than those associated with construction

of containment or diversion structures)

not later than April 17, 2000.

(v) Complete construction and

commence operation of any spent

pulping liquor, collection, containment,

diversion, or other facilities, including

any associated continuous monitoring

systems, necessary to fully implement

BMPs specified in paragraph (c) of this

section not later than April 16, 2001.

(vi) Establish revised action levels

required by paragraph (h)(4) of this

section as soon as possible after fully

implementing the BMPs specified in

paragraph (c) of this section, but not

later than January 15, 2002.

(2) New Sources. Upon commencing

discharge, new sources subject to this

section must implement all of the BMPs

specified in paragraph (c) of this

section, prepare the BMP Plan required

by paragraph (d) of this section, and

certify to the permitting or pretreatment

authority that the BMP Plan has been

prepared in accordance with this

regulation as required by paragraph (f)

of this section, except that the action

levels required by paragraph (h)(5) of

this section must be established not

later than 12 months after

commencement of discharge, based on

six months of monitoring data obtained

prior to that date in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2)

of this section.

Subpart A—Dissolving Kraft

Subcategory

§ 430.10 Applicability; description of the

dissolving kraft subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart apply

to discharges resulting from the

production of dissolving pulp at kraft

mills.

§ 430.11 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.
18644 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 430.12 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:

SUBPART A

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 23.6 12.25 6.88

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 37.3 20.05 11.02

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of wet

barking operations, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations. Noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART A

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers (annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 3.2 1.7 0.95

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6.9 3.75 2.0

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant parameters, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

washing or chip washing operations,

which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart. These limitations are in

addition to the limitations set forth in

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

calculated using the proportion of the

mill’s total production due to use of logs

and/or chips which are subject to such

operations. Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

limitations, but shall be subject to the

annual average effluent limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18645

SUBPART A

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.35 0.2 0.1

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 0.4 0.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

flumes or log ponds, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations. Noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days

limitations but shall be subject to the

annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART A

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 0.35 0.2

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.45 0.8 0.4

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.12 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 430.14 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18646 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART A

[BAT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 (0.011)(55.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.016 (0.068)(55.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.15 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART A

[NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 15.6 8.4 4.4

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 27.3 14.3 7.5

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 (0.012)(50.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.016 (0.074)(50.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.16 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenoliccontaining biocides. Permittees not

using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. PSES must be attained

on or before July 1, 1984:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18647

SUBPART A

[PSES]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011)(55.1)/y .................... 0.0025

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.082)(55.1)/y .................... 0.019

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.17 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) if it

uses chlorophenolic-containing

biocides. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART A

[PSNS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.012)(50.7)/y .................... 0.0025

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.089)(50.7)/y .................... 0.019

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart B—Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda Subcategory

§ 430.20 Applicability; description of the

bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart apply

to discharges resulting from: the

production of market pulp at bleached

kraft mills; the integrated production of

paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue

paper at bleached kraft mills; the

integrated production of pulp and fine

papers at bleached kraft mills; and the

integrated production of pulp and paper

at soda mills.

§ 430.21 Specialized definitions.

(a) The general definitions,

abbreviations, and methods of analysis

set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and

§ 430.01 of this part apply to this

subpart.

(b) Baseline BAT limitations or NSPS

means the BAT limitations specified in

§ 430.24(a) (1) or (2), as applicable, and

the NSPS specified in § 430.25(b) (1) or

(2), as applicable, that apply to any

direct discharger that is not ‘‘enrolled’’

in the ‘‘Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program.’’

(c) Enroll means to notify the

permitting authority that a mill intends

to participate in the ‘‘Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program.’’ A mill can enroll by

indicating its intention to participate in

the program either as part of its

application for a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit, or through separate

correspondence to the permitting

authority as long as the mill signs the

correspondence in accordance with 40

CFR 122.22.

(d) Existing effluent quality means the

level at which the pollutants identified

in § 430.24(a)(1) are present in the

effluent of a mill ‘‘enrolled’’ in the

‘‘Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program.’’

(e) Kappa number is a measure of the

lignin content in unbleached pulp,

determined after pulping and prior to

bleaching.

(f) Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program is the program

established under § 430.24(b) (for

existing direct dischargers) and

§ 430.25(c) (for new direct dischargers)

whereby participating mills agree to

accept enforceable effluent limitations

and conditions in their NPDES permits

that are more stringent than the

‘‘baseline BAT limitations or NSPS’’

that would otherwise apply, in

exchange for regulatory- and

enforcement-related rewards and

incentives.

§ 430.22 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):
18648 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 15.45 8.05 4.52

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 30.4 16.4 9.01

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 13.65 7.1 3.99

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 24.0 12.9 7.09

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10.6 5.5 3.09

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 22.15 11.9 6.54

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 13.7 7.1 3.99

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 24.5 13.2 7.25

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18649

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by

this section, resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be discharged by a point source subject

to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs which

are subject to such operations:

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2.3 1.2 0.70

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.3 2.85 1.55

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.25 1.2 0.65

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.75 3.1 1.70

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

11 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 1.95 1.0 0.55

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5.3 2.85 1.55

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 2.05 1.1 0.60
18650 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B—Continued

[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5.25 2.8 1.55

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant parameters, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

washing or chip washing operations,

which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart. These limitations are in

addition to the limitations set forth in

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

calculated using the proportion of the

mill’s total production due to use of logs

and/or chips which are subject to such

operations:

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.1 0.1

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 0.3 0.15

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times..

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.25 0.15 0.05

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.65 0.35 0.20

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Subpart B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.1 0.05

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.55 0.3 0.15
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18651

Subpart B—Continued

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.1 0.05

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 0.25 0.15

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

flumes or log ponds, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations:

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.4 0.2 0.15

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.15 0.6 0.35

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.45 0.25 0.10

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.25 0.7 0.35
18652 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B—Continued

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.35 0.2 0.10

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1.15 0.6 0.30

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.3 0.2 0.10

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.55 0.35

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.23 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified in § 430.22 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 430.24 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section—

(1) The following effluent limitations

apply with respect to each fiber line that

does not use an exclusively TCF

bleaching process, as disclosed by the

discharger in its NPDES permit

application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3)

and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18653

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD ........................................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

TCDF ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31.9 c (b)

Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.92 d 4.14 (d)

Trichlorosyringol ........................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

Tetrachlorocatechol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Tetrachloroguaiacol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .......................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day (kg/kkg)

Monthly average (kg/

kkg)

Annual average (kg/

kkg)

AOX .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.951 0.623 0.512

COD .......................................................................................................................................................... (e) (e) (e)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

cPicograms per liter.

dGrams per 1,000 kilograms (g/kkg).

e [Reserved].

(2) The following effluent limitations

apply with respect to each fiber line that

uses exclusively TCF bleaching

processes, as disclosed by the discharger

in its NPDES permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under

40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg(or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(b) The following limitations apply

with respect to each fiber line enrolled

in the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program:

(1) Stage 1 Limitations: Numeric

limitations that are equivalent to the

discharger’s existing effluent quality or

the discharger’s current effluent

limitations established under CWA

section 301(b)(2), whichever are more

stringent, for the pollutants identified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section (with the

exception of COD). For AOX, the

permitting authority must determine

existing effluent quality for each fiber

line enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program at the

end of the pipe based on loadings

attributable to that fiber line. For the

remaining pollutants, with the

exception of COD, the permitting

authority must determine existing

effluent quality for each fiber line

enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program at the

point where the wastewater containing

those pollutants leaves the bleach plant.

These limitations must be recalculated

each time the NPDES permit of a

discharger enrolled in the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program is reissued, up to:

(i) April 15, 2004 for all pollutants in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section except

AOX; and

(ii) The date specified in paragraph

(b)(4)(ii) of this section for achieving the

applicable AOX limitation specified in

paragraph (b)(4)(i).
18654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(2) Best Professional Judgment

Milestones: Narrative or numeric

limitations and/or special permit

conditions, as appropriate, established

by the permitting authority on the basis

of his or her best professional judgment

that reflect reasonable interim

milestones toward achievement of the

effluent limitations specified in

paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this

section, as applicable.

(3) Six-year Milestones: By April 15,

2004 all dischargers enrolled in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must achieve the

following:

(i) The effluent limitations specified

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,

except that, with respect to AOX,

dischargers subject to Tier I effluent

limitations specified in paragraph

(b)(4)(i) of this section must achieve the

AOX limitation specified in that

paragraph; or

(ii) For dischargers that use

exclusively TCF bleaching processes as

of April 15, 2004, the effluent

limitations specified in paragraph (a)(2)

of this section.

(4)(i) Stage 2 Limitations:

ULTIMATE VOLUNTARY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM BAT LIMITATIONS

Tier Kappa number (annual average) Filtrate

recycling

Total pulping area condensate, evaporator

condensate, and bleach

plant wastewater flow

(annual average)

AOX (kg/kkg)

Non-TCF a TCF

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

Tier I ......................... 20 (softwood furnish) ..................

13 (Hardwood furnish)

(b) ........... N/A ............................... 0.58 0.26 <ML c (d)

Tier II ........................ NA ............................................... (b) ........... 10 cubic meters/kkg ..... 0.23 0.10 <ML c (d)

Tier III ....................... N/A .............................................. (b) ........... 5 cubic meters/kkg ....... 0.11 0.5 <ML c (d)

a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes.

b Complete recycling to the chemical recovery system of all filtrates generated prior to bleaching. Under Tier I, this includes all filtrates up to

the point where kappa number is measures. c ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. dThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

AN/A means ‘‘not applicable.’’

(ii) Deadlines. (A) A discharger

enrolled in Tier I of the Voluntary

Advanced Technology Incentives

Program must achieve for Tier I

limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this

section by April 15, 2004.

(B) A discharger enrolled in Tier II of

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must achieve the

Tier II limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i)

of this section by April 15, 2009.

(C) A discharger enrolled in Tier III of

the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program must achieve the

Tier III limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i)

of this section by April 15, 2014.

(c) [RESERVED].

(d) The following additional effluent

limitations apply to all dischargers

subject to this section in accordance

with the previous subcategorization

scheme unless the discharger certifies to

the permitting authority that it is not

using these compounds as biocides.

Also, for non-continuous dischargers,

concentration limitation (mg/l) shall

apply. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers:

SUBPART B

[Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pullutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0019 (0.011)(41.6)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.012 (0.068)(41.6)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximun for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0016 (0.11)(35.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.010 (0.068)(35.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18655

SUBPART B

[Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and

paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0014 (0.011) (30.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0088 (0.068) (30.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(e) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and

122.45(h), a discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

effluent limitations in paragraph (a)(1)

or (b)(3) of this section, as applicable, by

monitoring for all pollutants (except for

AOX and COD) at the point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the bleach plant. The permitting

authority may impose effluent

limitations and/or monitoring

requirements on internal wastestreams

for any other pollutants covered in this

section as appropriate under 40 CFR

122.44(i) and 122.45(h). In addition, a

discharger subject to a limitation on

total pulping area condensate,

evaporator condensate, and bleach plant

wastewater flow under paragraph

(b)(4)(i) of this section, for Tier II and

Tier III, must demonstrate compliance

with that limitation by establishing and

maintaining flow measurement

equipment to monitor these flows at the

point or points where they leave the

pulping area, evaporator area, and

bleach plant.

§ 430.25 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) The following standards apply to

each new source that commenced

discharge after June 15, 1988 and before

June 15, 1998, provided that the new

source was constructed to meet these

standards:

SUBPART B

[1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10.3 5.5 2.88

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 18.2 9.5 5.00

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B

[1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 8.5 4.6 2.41

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14.6 7.6 4.00

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B

[1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp

and paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.7 3.1 1.62

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 9.1 4.8 2.53

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section—

(1) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source fiber

line that does not use an exclusively

TCF bleaching process, as disclosed by

the discharger in its NPDES permit

application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3)

and certified under 40 CFR 122.22, and

that commences discharge after June 15,

1998:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD ........................................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

TCDF ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31.9 c (b)

Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.92 d 4.14 d

Trichlorosyringol ........................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

Tetrachlorocatechol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Tetrachloroguaiacol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .......................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for

any 1 day

(kg/kkg)

Monthly average (kg/kkg) Annual average (kg/kkg)

AOX .................................................................................................................................................... 0.476 0.272 0.208

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................. 4.52 2.41 1.73

TSS ..................................................................................................................................................... 8.47 3.86 2.72

pH ....................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

COD .................................................................................................................................................... (e) (e) (e)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

cPicograms per liter.

dGrams per 1,000 kilograms(g/kkg).

e [Reserved].

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(2) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source fiber

line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching

processes, as disclosed by the discharger

in its NPDES permit application under

40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under

40 CFR 122.22, and that commences

discharge after June 15, 1998:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18657

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous

dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

Maximum for

any 1 day

Annual

average

AOXd ............................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

BOD5 d ........................................................................................................................... 4.52 2.41 N/A 1.73

TSSd .............................................................................................................................. 8.47 3.86 N/A 2.72

pH .................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1) (1)

COD ............................................................................................................................... (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

dKilograms per 1,000 kilograms (kg/kkg).

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) With respect to each new source

fiber line that is enrolled in the

Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program, dischargers subject

to this section must achieve:

(1) The standards specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section (except

for AOX) or paragraph (b)(2) of this

section, as applicable; and

(2) Standards for filtrates, flow, and

AOX:

ULTIMATE VOLUNTARY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM NSPS

Tier Filtrate

recycling

Total pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant

wastewater flow (annual

average)

AOX (kg/kkg)

Non-TCF a TCF

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

Tier II ........................................................................... (b) ........... 10 cubic meters/kkg ........... 0.23 0.10 <ML c (d)

Tier III .......................................................................... (b) ........... 5 cubic meters/kkg ............. 0.11 0.05 <ML c (d)

a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes.

b Complete recycling to the chemical recovery system of all filtrates generated prior to bleaching.

c ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. dThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

(d) These additional standards apply

to all new sources, regardless of when

they commenced discharge, in

accordance with the previous

subcategorization scheme unless the

discharger certifies to the permitting

authority that it is not using these

compounds as biocides. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply.

Concentration limitations will only

apply to non-continuous dischargers:

SUBPART B

[Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0019 (0.013)(36.6)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.012 (0.077)(36.6)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0016 (0.012)(31.7)/y
18658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B—Continued

[Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.010 (0.076)(31.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are

produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0014 (0.014)(25.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0088 (0.084)(25.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(e) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and

122.45(h), a discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

limitations in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(1)

of this section, as applicable, by

monitoring for all pollutants (except for

AOX, COD, BOD5, TSS, and pH) at the

point where the wastewater containing

those pollutants leaves the bleach plant.

The permitting authority may impose

effluent limitations and/or monitoring

requirements on internal wastestreams

for any other pollutants covered in this

section as appropriate under 40 CFR

122.44(i) and 122.45(h). In addition, a

discharger subject to a limitation on

total pulping area condensate,

evaporator condensate, and bleach plant

wastewater flow under paragraph (c)(2)

of this section must demonstrate

compliance with that limitation by

establishing and maintaining flow

measurement equipment monitoring

these flows at the point or points where

they leave the pulping area, evaporator

area, and the bleach plant.

§ 430.26 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

(a)(1) The following pretreatment

standards apply with respect to each

fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger subject to this section, unless

the indirect discharger discloses to the

pretreatment control authority in a

report submitted under 40 CFR

403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF

bleaching processes at that fiber line.

These pretreatment standards must be

attained on or before April 16, 2001:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD ........................................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

TCDF ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31.9 c (b)

Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.92 d d 4.14

Trichlorosyringol ........................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

Tetrachlorocatechol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Tetrachloroguaiacol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .......................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

AOX ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2.64 e e 1.41

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

cPicograms per liter.

dGrams per 1,000 kilograms (g/kkg).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18659

eKilograms per 1,000 kilograms (kg/kkg).

(2) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each fiber line operated by an indirect discharger

subject to this section if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report submitted

under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line. These pretreatment standards

must be attained on or before April 16, 2001:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSES (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(b) The following pretreatment standards apply to all indirect dischargers, in accordance with the previous subcategorization scheme. An indirect discharger is not required to meet these pretreatment standards if it certifies to the

pretreatment control authority that it is not using these compounds as biocides. In cases when POTWs find it necessary

to impose mass effluent limitations, equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance:

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0019 (0.011)(41.6)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.014 (0.082)(41.6)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0016 (0.011)(35.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.012 (0.082)(35.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are

produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0014 (0.011)(30.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.011 (0.082)(30.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product

(c) An indirect discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

pretreatment standards in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section by monitoring at

the point where the wastewater

containing those pollutants leaves the

bleach plant.

§ 430.27 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must:
18660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS).

(a)(1) The following pretreatment

standards apply with respect to each

fiber line that is a new source, unless

the indirect discharger discloses to the

pretreatment control authority in a

report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12

that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching

processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD ........................................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

TCDF ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31.9 c (b)

Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.92 d 4.14 d

Trichlorosyringol ........................................................................................................................................................ <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. <ML a (b)

Tetrachlorocatechol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Tetrachloroguaiacol ................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .......................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

AOX ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.16 e 0.814 e

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

cPicograms per liter.

dGrams per 1,000 kilograms (g/kkg).

eKilograms per 1,000 kilograms (kg/kkg).

(2) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger subject to this section if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report

submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART B

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSNS (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(b) The following pretreatment standards apply to all new source indirect dischargers, regardless of when they

commenced discharge, in accordance with the previous subcategorization scheme. An indirect discharger is not required

to meet these pretreatment standards if it certifies to the pretreatment control authority that it is not using these

compounds as biocides. In cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass-based effluent limitations, equivalent

mass limitations are provided as guidance:

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0019 (0.013)(36.6)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.014 (0.093)(36.6)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18661

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0016 (0.012)(31.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.012 (0.092)(31.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B

[Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are

produced]

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0014 (0.014)(25.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.011 (0.101)(25.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) An indirect discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

pretreatment standards in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section by monitoring at

the point where the wastewater

containing those pollutants leaves the

bleach plant.

§ 430.28 Best management practices

(BMPs).

The definitions and requirements set

forth in 40 CFR 430.03 apply to facilities

in this subpart.

Subpart C—Unbleached Kraft

Subcategory

§ 430.30 Applicability; description of the

unbleached kraft subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from:

the production of pulp and paper at

unbleached kraft mills; the production

of pulp and paper at unbleached kraftneutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross

recovery) mills; and the production of

pulp and paper at combined unbleached

kraft and semi-chemical mills, wherein

the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor

is burned within the unbleached kraft

chemical recovery system.

§ 430.31 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.32 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):

SUBPART C

[BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000

lb) of product

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5.6 2.8

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12.0 6.0

pH ............................................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART C

[BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities producing pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross

recovery) process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000

lb) of product

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8.0 4.0

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12.5 6.25

pH ............................................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C

[BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical

process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000

lb) of product

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ (a) (a)

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... (a) (a)

pH ............................................................................................................................................................................. (a) (a)

a [Reserved].

§ 430.33 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best

conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart shall achieve

the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best

conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART C

[BCT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous

dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers (annual average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.6 2.8 1.9

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12.0 6.0 3.6

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18663

SUBPART C

[BCT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and

semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 2.9

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 12.5 6.25 3.57

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.34 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb),

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART C

[BAT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00058 (0.011)(12.6)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00053 (0.010)(12.6)/y

y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART C

[BAT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00064 (0.011)(14.0)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00059 (0.010)(14.0)/y

y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.35 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART C

[NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where linerboard is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.4 1.8 0.94

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 3.0 1.6

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00058 (0.015)(9.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00053 (0.013)(9.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C

[NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where bag paper and other mixed products are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.0 2.71 1.4

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 9.1 4.8 2.5

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00058 (0.012)(11.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00053 (0.011)(11.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C

[NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned

within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.9 2.1 1.1
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18665

SUBPART C—Continued

[NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned

within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.3 3.8 1.9

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.00064 (0.013)(11.5)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00059 (0.012)(11.5)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.36 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenoliccontaining biocides. Permittees not

using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

those biocides. PSES must be attained

on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART C

[PSES for unbleached kraft facilities]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.011)(12.6)/y .................... 0.00058

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(12.6)/y .................... 0.00053

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C

[PSES for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned

within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.011)(14.0)/y .................... 0.00064

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(14.0)/y .................... 0.00059

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
18666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 430.37 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, any new source subject to this

subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) if it

uses chlorophenolic-containing

biocides. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART C

[PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where linerboard is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.015)(9.4)/y ...................... 0.00058

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.013)(9.4)/y ...................... 0.00053

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C

[PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where bag paper and other mixed products are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.012)(11.4)/y .................... 0.00058

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.011)(11.4)/y .................... 0.00053

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C

[PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned

within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.013)(11.5)/y .................... 0.00064

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.012)(11.5)/y .................... 0.00059

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart D—Dissolving Sulfite

Subcategory

§ 430.40 Applicability; description of the

dissolving sulfite subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the production of pulp at dissolving

sulfite mills.

§ 430.41 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.42 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18667

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 41.4 21.5 12.1

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 70.65 38.05 20.9

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where viscose grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 44.3 23.0 12.9

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 70.65 38.05 20.9

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where cellophane grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 48.05 24.95 14.0

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 70.65 38.05 20.9

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 150.80 126.40 114.83

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 70.65 38.05 20.9

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (2) (2) (2)

1BOD5 effluent limitations were remanded (Weyerhaeuser Company, et al v. Costle, 590 F. 2nd 1011; D.C. Circuit 1978).

2Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(b) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of wet

barking operations, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations. Noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.35 0.2

TSS ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.1 0.05

pH ....................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant parameters, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

washing or chip washing operations,

which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart. These limitations are in

addition to the limitations set forth in

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

calculated using the proportion of the

mill’s total production due to use of logs

and/or chips which are subject to such

operations. Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

limitations, but shall be subject to the

annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.1 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.1 0.05

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

flumes or log ponds, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations. Noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days

limitations but shall be subject to the

annual average effluent limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18669

SUBPART D

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.1 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.1 0.05

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.43 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.42 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 430.44 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART D

[BAT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane pulps are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0030 (0.011)(66.0)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.019 (0.068)(66.0)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART D

[BAT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0033 (0.011)(72.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.021 (0.068)(72.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.45 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides
18670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART D

[NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 26.9 14.5 7.59

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 40.8 21.3 11.2

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.019 (0.012)(59.0)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D

[NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where viscose grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 28.7 15.5 8.12

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 40.8 21.3 11.2

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.019 (0.012)(59.0)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18671

SUBPART D

[NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where cellophane grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31.2 16.8 8.80

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 40.8 21.3 11.2

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.019 (0.076)(59.0)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D

[NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 39.6 21.4 11.2

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 41.1 21.5 11.3

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0033 (0.012)(65.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.021 (0.075)(65.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.46 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenoliccontaining biocides. Permittees not

using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. PSES must be attained

on or before July 1, 1984:
18672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART D

[PSES for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane grade pulps are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011)(66.0)/y .................... 0.0030

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.082)(66.0)/y .................... 0.023

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART D

[PSES for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011)(72.7)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.082)(72.7)/y .................... 0.025

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.47 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) if it

uses chlorophenolic-containing

biocides. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART D

[PSNS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane grade pulps are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.012)(59.0)/y .................... 0.0030

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.092)(59.0)/y .................... 0.023

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART D

[PSNS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.012)(65.7)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.091)(65.7)/y .................... 0.025

y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18673

Subpart E—Papergrade Sulfite

Subcategory

§ 430.50 Applicability; description of the

papergrade sulfite subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart apply

to discharges resulting from the:

integrated production of pulp and paper

at papergrade sulfite mills, where blow

pit pulp washing techniques are used;

and the integrated production of pulp

and paper at papergrade sulfite mills

where vacuum or pressure drums are

used to wash pulp.

§ 430.51 Specialized definitions.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section, the general

definitions, abbreviations, and methods

of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401

and § 430.01 of this part apply to this

subpart.

(b) Sulfite cooking liquor is defined as

bisulfite cooking liquor when the pH of

the liquor is between 3.0 and 6.0 and as

acid sulfite cooking liquor when the pH

is less than 3.0.

(c) For this subpart, the segments for

the papergrade sulfite subcategory are

defined as follows:

(1) The calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-based sulfite pulp segment

consists of papergrade sulfite mills

where pulp and paper are produced

using an acidic cooking liquor of

calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite,

unless those mills are specialty grade

sulfite mills;

(2) The ammonium-based sulfite pulp

segment consists of papergrade sulfite

mills where pulp and paper are

produced using an acidic cooking liquor

of ammonium sulfite, unless those mills

are specialty grade sulfite mills;

(3) The specialty grade sulfite pulp

segment consists of those papergrade

sulfite mills where a significant portion

of production is characterized by pulp

with a high percentage of alpha

cellulose and high brightness sufficent

to produce end products such as plastic

molding compounds, saturating and

laminating products, and photographic

papers. The specialty grade segment

also includes those mills where a major

portion of production is 91 ISO

brightness and above.

§ 430.52 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):

SUBPART E

[Bisulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31.8 16.55 9.30

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 43.95 23.65 12.99

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E

[Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 34.7 18.05 10.14

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 28.1 15.44

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18674 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E

[Acid sulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 32.3 16.8 9.44

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 43.95 23.65 12.99

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E

[Acid sulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 35.55 18.5 10.39

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 28.1 15.44

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E

[Bisulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash

pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 26.7 13.9 7.81

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 43.95 23.65 12.99

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E

[Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to

wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 29.4 15.3 8.60

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 28.1 15.44
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18675

SUBPART E—Continued

[Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to

wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E

[Acid sulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to

wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 29.75 15.5 8.71

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 43.95 23.65 12.99

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E

[Acid sulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to

wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 32.5 16.9 9.49

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 28.1 15.44

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E

[Continuous digesters; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38.15 19.85 11.15

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 53.75 28.95 15.91
18676 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E—Continued

[Continuous digesters; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of wet

barking operations, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations:

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.7 1.45 0.80

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.5 3.95 2.19

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 3.05 1.6 0.90

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 7.5 3.95 2.19

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant parameters, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

washing or chip washing operations,

which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart. These limitations are in

addition to the limitations set forth in

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

calculated using the proportion of the

mill’s total production due to use of logs

and/or chips which are subject to such

operations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18677

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.1 0.05

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 2.55 1.35 0.75

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers (annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.35 0.2 0.1

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.55 1.35 0.75

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of log

flumes or log ponds, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations:

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.35 0.2 0.1

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.7 0.9 0.5

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18678 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E

[BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.7 0.35 0.2

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.70 0.9 0.5

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.53 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants in

§ 430.52 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BCT).

§ 430.54 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

(a) (1) The following effluent

limitations apply to all dischargers in

the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodiumbased sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E

[Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <MLa (b) <MLa (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(2)(i) The following effluent limitations apply to all dischargers in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Chloroform a ................................................................................................................................................................... (d) (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18679

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous

dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Monthly

average

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

COD .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines that use a TCF bleaching process as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

d [Reserved].

(ii) The following effluent limitations apply to all dischargers in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp segment with

respect to each fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES

permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(3)(i) The following effluent limitations apply to all dischargers in the specialty grade pulp segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

Average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Chloroform a ................................................................................................................................................................... (d) (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous

dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Monthly averageMaximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

COD .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines that use a TCF bleaching process as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.
18680 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

d [Reserved].

(ii) The following effluent limitations apply to dischargers in the specialty grade pulp segment with respect to

each fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit

application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(b) The following additional effluent limitations apply to each discharger subject to this section in accordance with

the previous subcatgorization scheme unless it certifies to the permitting authority that it is not using these compounds

as biocides. Also, for non-continuous dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply. Concentration limitations

will only apply to non-continuous dischargers:

SUBPART E

[Supplemental BAT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ....................................................................................... 0.00058exp(0.017x) ........... ((0.011)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................. 0.0036exp(0.017x) ............. ((0.068)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y

x = percent sulfite pulp in final product.

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and

122.45(h), a discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

limitations in paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3)

of this section, as applicable, by

monitoring for all pollutants (except for

AOX and COD) at the point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the bleach plant. The permitting

authority may impose effluent

limitations and/or monitoring

requirements on internal wastestreams

for any other pollutants covered in this

section as appropriate under 40 CFR

122.44(i) and 122.45(h).

§ 430.55 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) The following standards apply to

each new source regardless of when it

commenced discharge:

SUBPART E

[1982 NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant

property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers (annual average)

Maximum for any 1 day Average of daily values for

30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................. 4.38exp(0.017x) ................. 2.36exp(0.017x) ................. Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days divided by 1.91.

TSS .................................... 5.81exp(0.017x) ................. 3.03exp(0.017x) ................. Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days divided by 1.90.

pH ....................................... (1) ........................................ (1) ........................................ (1)

x = percent sulfite pulp in final product.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line that commences discharge after June

15, 1998.

(1) The following standards apply to all new sources in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp

segment:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18681

SUBPART E

[Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(2)(i) The following standards apply to all new sources in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Chloroform a ................................................................................................................................................................... (d) (d)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous

dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Monthly

average

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

COD .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines that use a TCF bleaching process as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

d [Reserved].

(ii) The following standards apply to all new sources in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp segment with respect

to each fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit

application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)
18682 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS—Continued

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].

(3)(i) The following standards apply to all new sources in the specialty grade sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Chloroform a ................................................................................................................................................................... (d) (d)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol ....................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous

dischargers

Maximum

for any 1

day

Monthly

average

Maximum

for any 1

day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

COD .................................................................................................................................. (d) (d) (d) (d)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines that use a TCF bleaching process as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

d [Reserved].

(ii) The following standards apply to all new sources within the specialty grade sulfite pulp segment with respect

to each fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit

application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

NSPS (TCF)

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

Maximum for

any 1 day Monthly average Maximum forany 1 day

Annual

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ................................................................................................................. <ML a (b) <ML a (b)

COD ................................................................................................................. (c) (c) (c) (c)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, permitting authorities may do so as appropriate.

c [Reserved].
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18683

(c) The following standards apply to each new source regardless of when it commenced discharge, unless it certifies

to the permitting authority that it is not using these compounds as biocides. Also, for non-continuous dischargers,

concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply. Concentration limitations will only apply to non-continuous dischargers:

SUBPART E

[Supplemental NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ....................................................................................... 0.00058exp(0.017x) ........... ((0.015)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................. 0.0036exp(0.017x) ............. ((0.094)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y

x = percent sulfite pulp in final product.

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(d) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and

122.45(h), a discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

standards in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3)

of this section, as applicable, by

monitoring for all pollutants (except for

AOX, COD, BOD5, TSS, and pH) at the

point where the wastewater containing

those pollutants leaves the bleach plant.

The permitting authority may impose

effluent limitations and/or monitoring

requirements on internal wastestreams

for any other pollutants covered in this

section as appropriate under 40 CFR

122.44(i) and 122.45(h).

§ 430.56 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

(a) The following pretreatment

standards must be attained on or before

April 16, 2001.

(1) The following pretreatment

standards apply to all indirect dischargers in the calcium-, magnesium-,

or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E

[Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000

lb) of product

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... >ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(2)(i) The following pretreatment standards apply to all indirect dischargers in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp

segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines operated by any indirect discharger that discloses to the pretreatment control authority, at the time it submits the report required under 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), or (e), that it uses a TCF bleaching process at that fiber line. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.
18684 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(ii) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger producing ammonium-based sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSNS (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(3)(i) The following pretreatment standards apply to all indirect dischargers in the specialty grade sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines operated by any indirect discharger that discloses to the pretreatment control authority, at the time it submits the report required under 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), or (e), that it uses a TCF bleaching process at that fiber line. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(ii) The following pretreatment

standards apply with respect to each

fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger producing specialty grade

sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger

discloses to the pretreatment control

authority in a report submitted under 40

CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively

TCF bleaching processes at that fiber

line. These pretreatment standards must

be attained on or before April 16, 2001:

SUBPART E

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSES (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(b) The following pretreatment standards apply to each indirect discharger, in accordance with the previous subcategorization scheme, unless it certifies to the pretreatment control authority that it is not using these compounds as

biocides. In cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations, equivalent mass limitations are

provided as guidance:

SUBPART E

Pollutant or pollutant property

Supplemental PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ............................................................................................ 0.00058exp(0.017x) ........... ((0.011)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18685

SUBPART E—Continued

Pollutant or pollutant property

Supplemental PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................. 0.0043exp(0.017x) ............. ((0.082)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y

x = percent sulfite pulp in final product.

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) An indirect discharger must demonstrate compliance with the pretreatment standards in paragraphs (a)(2) or

(a)(3) of this section, as applicable, by monitoring for all pollutants at the point where the wastewater containing

those pollutants leaves the bleach plant.

§ 430.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS).

(a) (1) The following pretreatment standards apply to each indirect discharger in the calcium-,

magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment that is a new source:

SUBPART E

[Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Pulps]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(2)(i) The following standards apply to each indirect discharger in the ammonium-based sulfite pulp segment that

is a new source:

SUBPART E.—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines operated by any indirect discharger that discloses to the pretreatment control authority, at the time it submits the report required under 40 CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e), that it uses a TCF bleaching process at that fiber line. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(ii) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger producing ammonium-based sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line:
18686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E.—PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSNS (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ............................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(3)(i) The following pretreatment standards apply to each indirect discharger in the specialty grade sulfite pulp

segment that is a new source:

SUBPART E.—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

TCDD a .......................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

TCDF a ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Trichlorosyringol a .......................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol a ................................................................................................................................................. <ML b (c)

2,4,5-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol a .................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachlorocatechol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

Tetrachloroguaiacol a ..................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol a ............................................................................................................................................ <ML b (c)

Pentachlorophenol a ...................................................................................................................................................... <ML b (c)

aThese limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines operated by any indirect discharger that discloses to the pretreatment control authority, at the time it submits the report required under 40 CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e), that it uses a TCF bleaching process at that fiber line. b ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. cThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(ii) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line operated by an indirect

discharger producing specialty grade sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority

in a report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART E.—PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

PSNS (TCF)

Maximum for

any 1 day

Monthly

average

AOX ........................................................................................................................................................................... <ML a (b)

a ‘‘<ML’’ means less than the minimum level specified in § 430.01(i) for the particular pollutant. bThis regulation does not specify this type of limitation for this pollutant; however, pretreatment control authorities may do so as appropriate.

(b) The following pretreatment standards shall apply to each new source indirect dischargers unless the indirect

discharger certifies to the pretreatment control authority that it is not using these compounds as biocides. In cases

when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent standards, equivalent mass standards are provided as guidance:

SUBPART E

Pollutant or pollutant property

Supplemental PSNS

Maximum for any 1 day

kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .............................................................................................................. 0.00058exp

(0.017x).

((0.015)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................... 0.0043exp

(0.017x).

((0.114)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y

x = percent sulfite pulp in final product.

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18687

(c) An indirect discharger must

demonstrate compliance with the

pretreatment standards in paragraphs

(a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, as

applicable, by monitoring for all

pollutants at the point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the bleach plant.

§ 430.58 Best management practices

(BMPs).

The definitions and requirements set

forth in 40 CFR 430.03 apply to facilities

in this subpart.

Subpart F—Semi-Chemical

Subcategory

§ 430.60 Applicability; description of the

semi-chemical subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the integrated production of pulp and

paper at semi-chemical mills.

§ 430.61 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.62 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):

SUBPART F

[BPT effluent limitations for ammonia base mills]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average

of daily

values for

30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8.0 4.0

TSS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10.0 5.0

pH .................................................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART F

[BPT effluent limitations for sodium base mills]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

Maximum for

any 1 day

Average

of daily

values for

30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8.7 4.35

TSS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11.0 5.5

pH .................................................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.62 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT), except that noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average-of-30-consecutive-days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations

determined by dividing the average-of30-consecutive-days limitations for

BOD5 by 1.36 and TSS by 1.36.

§ 430.64 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb),

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART F

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0012 (0.029)(10.3)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00043 (0.010)(10.3)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.65 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART F

[NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.0 1.6 0.84

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 3.0 1.6

pH ........................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0012 (0.041)(7.3)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00043 (0.014)(7.3)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.66 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must: comply with 40

CFR part 403; and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenoliccontaining biocides. Permittees not

using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. PSES must be attained

on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART F

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(10.3)/y .................... 0.0014
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18689

SUBPART F—Continued

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(10.3)/y .................... 0.00043

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

§ 430.67 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) if it

uses chlorophenolic-containing

biocides. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART F

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.045)(7.3)/y ...................... 0.0014

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.014)(7.3)/y ...................... 0.00043

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

Subpart G—Mechanical Pulp

Subcategory

§ 430.70 Applicability; description of the

mechanical pulp subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from:

the production of pulp and paper at

groundwood chemi-mechanical mills;

the production of pulp and paper at

groundwood mills through the

application of the thermo-mechanical

process; the integrated production of

pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp

products, and newsprint at groundwood

mills; and the integrated production of

pulp and fine paper at groundwood

mills.

§ 430.71 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.72 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 13.5 7.05 3.96

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 19.75 10.65 5.85
18690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G—Continued

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10.6 5.55 3.12

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15.55 8.35 4.59

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.45 3.9 2.19

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12.75 6.85 3.76

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.85 3.6 2.0

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 11.75 6.3 3.5

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18691

(b) The following limitations establish

the quantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by this

section, resulting from the use of wet

barking operations, which may be

discharged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart. These

limitations are in addition to the

limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated

using the proportion of the mill’s total

production due to use of logs which are

subject to such operations. Noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.9 0.45 0.25

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.6 1.45 0.80

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.9 0.45 0.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.7 1.45 0.75

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.15 0.55 0.30

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 1.1 0.60

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18692 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 .................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.55 0.35

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.95 1.1 0.60

pH ......................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by

this section, resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph

(a) of this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs and/

or chips which are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days limitations, but shall be subject to the annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.25 0.15 0.10

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.30 0.15 0.05

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18693

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.15 0.10

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.15 0.10

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by

this section, resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be discharged by a point source subject

to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of

this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs which

are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of

30 consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to the annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.55 0.3 0.15

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.15 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.60 0.35 0.15

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.25 0.1 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.45 0.25 0.15

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.2 0.05 0.05

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.4 0.25 0.15

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(e) For those mills using zinc hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent in the manufacturing process, the following effluent

limitations are to be added to the base limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Permittees not using

zinc hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must certify to the permit issuing authority that they are not using this bleaching

compound. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18695

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.34 0.17 0.11

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.26 0.13 0.09

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.30 0.15 0.10

SUBPART G

[BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.275 0.135 0.090

§ 430.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

(a)(1) The following applies to:

mechanical pulp facilities where the

integrated production of pulp and

coarse paper, molded pulp products,

and newsprint at groundwood mills

occurs; and mechanical pulp facilities

where the integrated production of pulp

and fine paper at groundwood mills

occurs:

(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional
18696 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.72 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

(b) [Reserved]

§ 430.74 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) The following applies to

mechanical pulp facilities where pulp

and paper at groundwood mills are

produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process; mechanical

pulp facilities where the integrated

production of pulp and coarse paper,

molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs; and

mechanical pulp facilities where the

integrated production of pulp and fine

paper at groundwood mills occurs:

except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day mass limitations in kg/

kkg (lb/1000 lb), but shall be subject to

concentration limitations. Concentration

limitations are only applicable to noncontinuous dischargers.

Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations are only applicable at

facilities where chlorophenoliccontaining biocides are used. Permittees

not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. Zinc limitations are only

applicable at facilities where zinc

hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching

agent. Permittees not using zinc

hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must

certify to the permit issuing authority

that they are not using this bleaching

compound:

SUBPART G

[BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.00097 (0.011)(21.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00088 (0.010)(21.1)/y

Zinc ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.26 (3.0)(21.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART G

[BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and

newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0011 (0.011)(23.8)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00099 (0.010)(23.8)/y

Zinc ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.30 (3.0)(23.8)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART G

[BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0010 (0.011)(21.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00092 (0.010)(21.9)/y

Zinc ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.27 (3.0)(21.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(b) [Reserved] § 430.75 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

(a) The following applies to

mechanical pulp facilities where pulp

and paper at groundwood mills are

produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process; mechanical

pulp facilities where the integrated
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18697

production of pulp and coarse paper,

molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs; and

mechanical pulp facilities where the

integrated production of pulp and fine

paper at groundwood mills occurs: any

new source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), except

that non-continuous dischargers shall

not be subject to the maximum day and

average of 30 consecutive days effluent

limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations. Also, for non-continuous

dischargers, concentration limitations

(mg/l) shall apply, where provided.

Concentration limitations will only

apply to non-continuous dischargers.

Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations are only applicable at

facilities where chlorophenoliccontaining biocides are used. Permittees

not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. Zinc limitations are only

applicable at facilities where zinc

hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching

agent. Permittees not using zinc

hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must

certify to the permit issuing authority

that they are not using this bleaching

compound:

SUBPART G

[NSPS for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical

process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.6 2.5 1.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 8.7 4.6 2.4

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.00097 (0.017)(13.8)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00088 (0.015)(13.8)/y

Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.17 (3.0)(13.8)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G

[NSPS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.6 2.5 1.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.3 3.8 2.0

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 (0.016)(16.8)/y

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00099 (0.014)(16.8)/y

Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.21 (3.0)(16.8)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G

[NSPS mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.5 1.9 0.99

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 3.0 1.58

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0010 (0.016) (15.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.00092 (0.014) (15.4)/y

Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.19 (3.0) (15.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) [Reserved]

§ 430.76 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

(a) The following applies to

mechanical pulp facilities where pulp

and paper at groundwood mills are

produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process; mechanical

pulp facilities where the integrated

production of pulp and coarse paper,

molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs; and

mechanical pulp facilities where the

integrated production of pulp and fine

paper at groundwood mills occurs:

except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and

403.13, any existing source subject to

this subpart that introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works

must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES).

Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations are only applicable at

facilities where chlorophenoliccontaining biocides are used. Permittees

not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permitissuing authority that they are not using

these biocides. Zinc limitations are only

applicable at facilities where zinc

hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching

agent. Permittees not using zinc

hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must

certify to the permit-issuing authority

that they are not using this bleaching

compound. PSES must be attained on or

before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART G

[PSES for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical

process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/1)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 1b) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011) (21.1)/y ................... 0.00097

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010) (21.1)/y ................... 0.00088

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0) (21.1)/y ....................... 0.26

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18699

SUBPART G

[PSES for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/1)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 1b) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011) (23.8)/y ................... 0.0011

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010) (23.8)/y ................... 0.00099

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0) (23.8)/y ....................... 0.30

y = wasterwater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART G

[PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.011)(21.9)/y .................... 0.0010

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(21.9)/y .................... 0.00092

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0)(21.9)/y ........................ 0.27

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

(b) [Reserved]

§ 430.77 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) The following applies to

mechanical pulp facilities where pulp

and paper at groundwood mills are

produced through the application of the

thermo-mechanical process; mechanical

pulp facilities where the integrated

production of pulp and coarse paper,

molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs; and

mechanical pulp facilities where the

integrated production of pulp and fine

paper at groundwood mills occurs:

except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any

new source subject to this subpart that

introduces pollutants into a publicly

owned treatment works must comply

with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the

following pretreatment standards for

new sources (PSNS). Pentachlorophenol

and trichlorophenol limitations are only

applicable at facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides. Zinc limitations are only

applicable at facilities where zinc

hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching

agent. Permittees not using zinc

hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must

certify to the permit issuing authority

that they are not using this bleaching

compound:

SUBPART G

[PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical

process]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.017)(13.8)/y .................... 0.00097

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.015)(13.8)/y .................... 0.00088

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0)(13.8)/y ........................ 0.17

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
18700 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G

[PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at

groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.016)(16.8)/y .................... 0.0011

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.014)(16.8)/y .................... 0.00099

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0)(16.8)/y ........................ 0.21

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART G

[PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.016)(15.4)/y .................... 0.0010

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.014)(15.4)/y .................... 0.00092

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................ (3.0)(15.4)/y ........................ 0.19

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

(b) [Reserved]

Subpart H—Non-Wood Chemical Pulp

Subcategory

§ 430.80 Applicability; description of the

non-wood chemical pulp subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the production of pulp and paper at

non-wood chemical pulp mills. This

subcategory includes, but is not limited

to, mills producing non-wood pulps

from chemical pulping processes such

as kraft, sulfite, or soda.

§ 430.81 Specialized definitions.

The general definitions, abbreviations,

and methods of analysis set forth in 40

CFR 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.82 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT). [Reserved]

§ 430.83 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

[Reserved]

§ 430.84 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

[Reserved]

§ 430.85 New source performance

standards (NSPS). [Reserved]

§ 430.86 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]

§ 430.87 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS). [Reserved]

Subpart I—Secondary Fiber Deink

Subcategory

§ 430.90 Applicability; description of the

secondary fiber deink subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the integrated production of pulp and

paper at deink mills.

§ 430.91 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.92 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18701

SUBPART I

[BPT effluent limitations]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 18.1 9.4 5.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 24.05 12.95 7.12

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.93 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.92 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 430.94 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART I

[Facilities where fine or tissue paper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.029)(24.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0069 (0.068)(24.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART I

[Facilities where newsprint is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BAT effluent limitations

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.029)(24.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0010 (0.010)(24.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.95 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration
18702 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART I

[Facilities where fine paper is produced]

[NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.7 3.1 1.6

TSS ......................................................................................................................................................... 8.7 4.6 2.4

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.045)(15.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0069 (0.104)(15.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART I

[Facilities where tissue paper is produced]

[NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 9.6 5.2 2.72

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13.1 6.8 3.58

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.036)(19.5)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0069 (0.085)(19.5)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18703

SUBPART I

[Facilities where newsprint is produced]

[NSPS]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.0 3.2 1.7

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12.0 6.3 3.3

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.044)(16.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0010 (0.015)(16.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides.

PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART I

[Facilities where fine or tissue paper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(24.4)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.082)(24.4)/y .................... 0.0084

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I

[Facilities where newsprint is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(24.4)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(24.4)/y .................... 0.0010

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.
18704 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 430.97 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into

a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART I

[Facilities where fine paper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.049)(15.9)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.126)(15.9)/y .................... 0.0084

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I

[Facilities where tissue paper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.040)(19.5)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.103)(19.5)/y .................... 0.0084

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I

[Facilities where newsprint is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSNS

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg ( or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.048)(16.2)/y .................... 0.0033

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.015)(16.2)/y .................... 0.0010

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

Subpart J—Secondary Fiber NonDeink Subcategory

§ 430.100 Applicability; description of the

secondary fiber non-deink subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the production of: paperboard from

wastepaper; tissue paper from

wastepaper without deinking at

secondary fiber mills; molded products

from wastepaper without deinking at

secondary fiber mills; and builders’

paper and roofing felt from wastepaper.

§ 430.101 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

(b) Noncorrugating medium furnish

subdivision mills are mills where

recycled corrugating medium is not

used in the production of paperboard.

(c) Corrugating medium furnish

subdivision mills are mills where only

recycled corrugating medium is used in

the production of paperboard.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18705

§ 430.102 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):

SUBPART J

[BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced—noncorrugating medium finish

subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.0 1.5

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 2.5

pH ..................................................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1)

1 1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced—corrugating medium finish

subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5.7 2.8

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9.2 4.6

pH ..................................................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per

1,000 lb) of product

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5.0 3.0

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 3.0

pH ..................................................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1)

Setteable Solids ............................................................................................................................................................... (2) (2)

1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

2 Not to exceed 0.2 ml/l.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not

be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations:
18706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J

[BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average

days)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 13.7 7.1 4.0

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 17.05 9.2 5.1

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average

days)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.4 2.3 1.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.8 5.8 3.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.103 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32, any existing

point source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.102 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

(b) For secondary fiber non-deink

facilities where paperboard from

wastepaper is produced, noncontinuous dischargers shall not be

subject to the maximum day and

average-of-30-consecutive-days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations

determined by dividing the average-of30-consecutive-days limitations for

BOD5 and TSS by 1.77 and 2.18.

(c) For secondary fiber non-deink

facilities where builders’ paper and

roofing felt from wastepaper are

produced, non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average-of-30-consecutive-days

limitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitations

determined by dividing the average-of30-consecutive-days limitations for

BOD5 and TSS by 1.90 and 1.90.

§ 430.104 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18707

SUBPART J

[BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.00087 (0.029)(7.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00030 (0.010)(7.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J

[BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0017 (0.029)(14.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00060 (0.010)(14.4)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J

[BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.029)(25.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 (0.010)(25.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J

[BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0026 (0.029)(21.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00088 (0.010)(21.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.105 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced—noncorrugating medium furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.6 1.4 0.73

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3.5 1.8 0.95

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.00087 (0.065)(3.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00030 (0.023)(3.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced—corrugating medium finish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.9 2.1 1.1

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 2.3 1.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.00087 (0.065)(3.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00030 (0.023)(3.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.7 0.94 0.49

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.7 1.40 0.74
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18709

SUBPART J—Continued

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0017 (0.155)(2.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00060 (0.053)(2.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.6 2.5 1.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.2 5.3 2.8

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 (0.045)(16.3)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 (0.015)(16.3)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J

[NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.1 1.1 0.58

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 2.3 1.21

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)
18710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0026 (0.107)(5.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00088 (0.037)(5.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.106 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenoliccontaining biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must

be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART J

[PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

producta

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(7.2)/y ...................... 0.00096

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(7.2)/y ...................... 0.00030

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J

[PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(14.4)y ..................... 0.0019

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(14.4)y ..................... 0.00060

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J

[PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(25.2)y ..................... 0.0034

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(25.2)/y .................... 0.0011

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18711

SUBPART J

[PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(21.1)y ..................... 0.0028

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(21.1)y ..................... 0.00088

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.107 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART J

[PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.072)(3.2)/y ...................... 0.00096

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.023)(3.2)/y ...................... 0.00030

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J

[PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders’ paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.171)(2.7)/y ...................... 0.0019

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.053)(2.7)/y ...................... 0.00060

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J

[PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................... (0.049)(16.3)/y 0.0034

Trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................. (0.015)(16.3)/y 0.0011

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
18712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J

[PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.118)(5.7)/y ...................... 0.0028

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.037)(5.7)/y ...................... 0.00088

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart K—Fine and Lightweight

Papers from Purchased Pulp

Subcategory

§ 430.110 Applicability; description of the

fine and lightweight papers from purchased

pulp subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the production of: fine paper at

nonintegrated mills; and lightweight

paper at nonintegrated mills.

§ 430.111 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section, the general

definitions, abbreviations, and methods

of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401

and § 430.01 of this part shall apply to

this subpart.

(b) Cotton fiber furnish subdivision

mills are those mills where significant

quantities of cotton fibers (equal to or

greater than 4 percent of the total

product) are used in the production of

fine papers.

(c) Wood fiber furnish subdivision

mills are those mills where cotton fibers

are not used in the production of fine

papers.

§ 430.112 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:

SUBPART K

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—wood fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 8.2 4.25 2.4

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 11.0 5.9 3.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 17.4 9.1 5.1

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 24.3 13.1 7.2
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18713

SUBPART K—Continued

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 24.1 13.2 7.37

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21.6 10.6 6.0

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp— electrical grade papers

subdivision

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38.0 20.9 11.7

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 34.2 16.7 9.5

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.113 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.102 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 430.114 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART K

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—wood fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0018 (0.029)(15.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00064 (0.010)(15.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0051 (0.029)(42.3)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0018 (0.010)(42.3)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0059 (0.029)(48.7)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0020 (0.010)(48.7)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp—electrical grade papers

subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0093 (0.029)(76.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0032 (0.010)(76.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.115 New source performance standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations. Also, for non-continuous

dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where provided. Concentration limitations will only apply to

non-continuous dischargers. Only facilities where chlorophenolic-containing biocides are used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol limitations. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify

to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18715

SUBPART K

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—wood fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(Annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.5 1.9 1.0

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 2.3 1.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0018 (0.047)(9.4)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00064 (0.016)(9.4)/y

y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.8 4.2 2.2

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 9.5 4.9 2.6

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0051 (0.039)(31.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0018 (0.014)(31.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 13.7 6.7 4.5

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12.0 5.2 3.2

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0059 (0.037)(38.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0020 (0.013)(38.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp—electrical grade papers subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 24.1 11.7 7.9

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21.1 9.2 5.6

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0093 (0.033)(66.8)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0032 (0.012)(66.8)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenoliccontaining biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must

be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART K

[PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—wood fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(15.2)/y .................... 0.0020

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(15.2)/y .................... 0.00064

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K

[PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(42.3)/y .................... 0.0056
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18717

SUBPART K—Continued

[PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(42.3)/y .................... 0.0018

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K

[PSES for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(48.7)/y .................... 0.0065

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(48.7)/y .................... 0.0032

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K

[PSES for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp—electrical grade papers subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(76.9)/y .................... 0.010

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(76.9)/y .................... 0.0032

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.117 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART K

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—wood fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.052)(9.4)/y ...................... 0.0020

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.016)(9.4)/y ...................... 0.0064

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
18718 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART K

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulp—cotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.044)(31.1)/y .................... 0.0056

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.014)(31.1)/y .................... 0.0018

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.041)(38.2)/y .................... 0.0065

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.013)(38.2)/y .................... 0.0020

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp—electrical grade papers subdivision]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.037)(66.8)/y .................... 0.010

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.012)(66.8)/y .................... 0.0032

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart L—Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven,

and Paperboard From Purchased Pulp

Subcategory

§ 430.120 Applicability; description of the

tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard

from purchased pulp subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting from

the production of tissue papers at nonintegrated mills, filter and non-woven

papers at non-integrated mills, and

paperboard at non-integrated mills. The

production of electrical grades of board

and matrix board is not included in this

subpart.

§ 430.121 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the

general definitions, abbreviations, and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR

part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall

apply to this subpart.

§ 430.122 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), except that non-continuous

dischargers shall not be subject to the

maximum day and average of 30

consecutive days limitations but shall

be subject to annual average effluent

limitations:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18719

SUBPART L

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 11.4 6.25 3.49

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.25 5.0 2.84

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 29.6 16.3 9.1

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 26.6 13.0 7.4

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L

[BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous

dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers (Annual average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.5 3.6 2.0

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 2.8 1.6

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.123 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT): The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified for conventional pollutants

(which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in

§ 430.122 of this subpart for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 430.124 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)

but shall be subject to concentration

limitations. Concentration limitations

are only applicable to non-continuous

dischargers. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:
18720 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUBPART L

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0028 (0.029)(22.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00096 (0.010)(22.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART L

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0072 (0.029)(59.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 (0.010)(59.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART L

[BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0016 (0.029)(12.9)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00054 (0.010)(12.9)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.125 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS),

except that non-continuous dischargers

shall not be subject to the maximum day

and average of 30 consecutive days

effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS,

but shall be subject to annual average

effluent limitations. Also, for noncontinuous dischargers, concentration

limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where

provided. Concentration limitations will

only apply to non-continuous

dischargers. Only facilities where

chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

used shall be subject to

pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

limitations. Permittees not using

chlorophenolic-containing biocides

must certify to the permit-issuing

authority that they are not using these

biocides:

SUBPART L

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.0 3.4 2.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 6.0 2.6 1.6

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18721

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0028 (0.035)(19.1)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00096 (0.012)(19.1)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 17.1 8.3 5.6

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15.0 6.6 4.0

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0072 (0.037)(47.5)/y

Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 (0.013)(47.5)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L

[NSPS for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of

product

Continuous dischargers

Non-continuous dischargers

(annual

average)

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of

daily values

for 30 consecutive

days

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.0 1.9 1.3

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3.5 1.5 0.9

pH ............................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) (1)

Maximum for any 1 day

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product

Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0016 (0.033)(11.2)/y

Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00054 (0.012)(11.2)/y

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times.

(1) Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-
18722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must

be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART L

[PSES for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(22.9)/y .................... 0.0031

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(22.9)/y .................... 0.00096

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L

[PSES for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.032)(59.9)/y .................... 0.0080

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.010)(59.9)/y .................... 0.0025

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L

[PSES for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.032)(12.9)/y .................... 0.0017

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.010)(12.9)/y .................... 0.00054

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.127 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing

biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART L

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.038)(19.1)/y .................... 0.0031

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.012)(19.1)/y .................... 0.00096

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18723

SUBPART L

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................................. (0.040)(47.5)/y .................... 0.0080

Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................ (0.013)(47.5)/y .................... 0.0025

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L

[PSNS for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maximum for any 1 day

Milligrams/liter (mg/l)

Kg/kkg (or

pounds per

1,000 lb) of

product a

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ (0.037)(11.2)/y .................... 0.0017

Trichlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... (0.012)(11.2)/y .................... 0.00054

y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

aThe following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Appendix A to Part 430—Methods 1650

and 1653

Method 1650—Adsorbable Organic Halides

by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration

1.0 Scope and Application

1.1 This method is for determination of

adsorbable organic halides (AOX) associated

with the Clean Water Act; the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act; the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act; and other

organic halides amenable to combustion and

coulometric titration. The method is

designed to meet the survey and monitoring

requirements of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).

1.2 The method is applicable to the

determination of AOX in water and

wastewater. This method is a combination of

several existing methods for organic halide

measurements (References 1 through 7).

1.3 The method can be used to measure

organically-bound halides (chlorine,

bromine, iodine) present in dissolved or

suspended form. Results are reported as

organic chloride (Cl-

). The detection limit of

the method is usually dependent on

interferences rather than instrumental

limitations. A method detection limit (MDL;

Reference 8) of 6.6 μg/L, and a minimum

level (ML; Section 18) of 20 μg/L, can be

achieved with no interferences present.

1.4 This method is for use by or under the

supervision of analysts experienced in the

use of a combustion/micro-coulometer. Each

laboratory that uses this method must

demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable

results using the procedures described in

Section 9.2.

1.5 Any modification of the method

beyond those expressly permitted (Section

9.1.2) is subject to application and approval

of an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR

136.4 and 136.5.

2.0 Summary of Method

2.1 Sample preservation: Residual

chlorine that may be present is removed by

the addition of sodium thiosulfate. Samples

are adjusted to a pH < 2 and maintained at

0 to 4°C until analysis.

2.2 Sample analysis: Organic halide in

water is determined by adsorption onto

granular activated carbon (GAC), washing the

adsorbed sample and GAC to remove

inorganic halide, combustion of the sample

and GAC to form the hydrogen halide, and

titration of the hydrogen halide with a microcoulometer, as shown in Figure 1.

2.3 Micro-coulometer.

2.3.1 This detector operates by

maintaining a constant silver-ion

concentration in a titration cell. An electric

potential is applied to a solid silver electrode

to produce silver ions in the cell. As

hydrogen halide produced from the

combustion of organic halide enters the cell,

it is partitioned into an acetic acid electrolyte

where it precipitates as silver halide. The

current produced is integrated over the

combustion period. The electric charge is

proportional to the number of moles of

halogen captured in the cell (Reference 6).

2.3.2 The mass concentration of organic

halides is reported as an equivalent

concentration of organically bound chloride

(Cl¥).

3.0 Definitions

3.1 Adsorbable organic halides is defined

as the analyte measured by this method. The

nature of the organo-halides and the presence

of semi-extractable material will influence

the amount measured and interpretation of

results.

3.2 Definitions for terms used in this

method are given in the glossary at the end

of the method (Section 18).

4.0 Interferences

4.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and

other sample processing hardware may yield

elevated readings from the micro-coulometer.

All materials used in the analysis shall be

demonstrated to be free from interferences

under the conditions of analysis by running

method blanks initially and with each

sample batch (samples started through the

adsorption process in a given eight-hour

shift, to a maximum of 20 samples). Specific

selection of reagents and purification of

solvents may be required.

4.2 Glassware is cleaned by detergent

washing in hot water, rinsing with tap water

and distilled water, capping with aluminum

foil, and baking at 450°C for at least one hour.

For some glassware, immersion in a chromate

cleaning solution prior to detergent washing

may be required. If blanks from glassware

without cleaning or with fewer cleaning steps

show no detectable organic halide, the

cleaning steps that do not eliminate organic

halide may be omitted.

4.3 Most often, contamination results

from methylene chloride vapors in

laboratories that perform organic extractions.

Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

systems that are shared between the

extraction laboratory and the laboratory in

which organic halide measurements are

performed transfer the methylene chloride

vapors to the air in the organic halide

laboratory. Exposure of the activated carbon
18724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

used in the analysis results in contamination.

Separate air handling systems, charcoal

filters, and glove boxes can be used to

minimize this exposure.

4.4 Activated carbon.

4.4.1 The purity of each lot of activated

carbon must be verified before each use by

measuring the adsorption capacity and the

background level of halogen (Section 9.5).

The stock of activated carbon should be

stored in its granular form in a glass

container that is capped tightly. Protect

carbon at all times from sources of halogen

vapors.

4.4.2 Inorganic substances such as

chloride, chlorite, bromide, and iodide will

adsorb on activated carbon to an extent

dependent on their original concentration in

the aqueous solution and the volume of

sample adsorbed. Treating the activated

carbon with a solution of nitrate causes

competitive desorption of inorganic halide

species. However, if the inorganic halide

concentration is greater than 2,000 times the

organic halide concentration, artificially high

results may be obtained.

4.4.3 Halogenated organic compounds

that are weakly adsorbed on activated carbon

are only partially recovered from the sample.

These include certain alcohols and acids

such as chloroethanol and chloroacetic acid

that can be removed from activated carbon by

the nitrate wash.

4.5 Polyethylene gloves should be worn

when handling equipment surfaces in contact

with the sample to prevent transfer of

contaminants that may be present on the

hands.

5.0 Safety

5.1 The toxicity or carcinogenicity of

each reagent used in this method has not

been precisely determined; however, each

chemical substance should be treated as a

potential health hazard. Exposure to these

substances should be reduced to the lowest

possible level. The laboratory is responsible

for maintaining a current awareness file of

OSHA regulations regarding the safe

handling of the chemicals specified in this

method. A reference file of material safety

data sheets (MSDSs) should be made

available to all personnel involved in the

chemical analysis. Additional information on

laboratory safety can be found in References

9 through 11.

5.2 This method employs strong acids.

Appropriate clothing, gloves, and eye

protection should be worn when handling

these substances.

5.3 Field samples may contain high

concentrations of toxic volatile compounds.

Sample containers should be opened in a

hood and handled with gloves that will

prevent exposure.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

Note: Brand names, suppliers, and part

numbers are for illustrative purposes only.

No endorsement is implied. Equivalent

performance may be achieved using

apparatus and materials other than those

specified here, but demonstration of

equivalent performance that meets the

requirements of this method is the

responsibility of the laboratory.

6.1 Sampling equipment.

6.1.1 Bottles: 100- to 4000-mL, amber

glass, sufficient for all testing (Section 8.2).

Detergent water wash, chromic acid rinse,

rinse with tap and distilled water, cover with

aluminum foil, and heat to 450°C for at least

one hour before use.

6.1.2 PTFE liner: Cleaned as above and

baked at 100 to 200°C for at least one hour.

6.1.3 Bottles and liners must be lot

certified to be free of organic halide by

running blanks according to this method.

6.2 Scoop for granular activated carbon

(GAC): Capable of precisely measuring 40 mg

(±5 mg) GAC (Dohrmann Measuring Cup

521–021, or equivalent).

6.3 Batch adsorption and filtration

system.

6.3.1 Adsorption system: Rotary shaker,

wrist action shaker, ultrasonic system, or

other system for assuring thorough contact of

sample with activated carbon. Systems

different from the one described below must

be demonstrated to meet the performance

requirements in Section 9 of this method.

6.3.1.1 Erlenmeyer flasks: 250- to 1500-

mL with ground-glass stopper, for use with

rotary shaker.

6.3.1.2 Shake table: Sybron Thermolyne

Model LE ‘‘Big Bill’’ rotator/shaker, or

equivalent.

6.3.1.3 Rack attached to shake table to

permit agitation of 16 to 25 samples

simultaneously.

6.3.2 Filtration system (Figure 2).

6.3.2.1 Vacuum filter holder: Glass, with

fritted-glass support (Fisher Model 09–753E,

or equivalent).

6.3.2.2 Polycarbonate filter: 0.40 to 0.45

micron, 25-mm diameter (Micro Separations

Inc, Model K04CP02500, or equivalent).

6.3.2.3 Filter forceps: Fisher Model 09–

753–50, or equivalent, for handling filters.

Two forceps may better aid in handling

filters. Clean by washing with detergent and

water, rinsing with tap and deionized water,

and air drying on aluminum foil.

6.3.2.4 Vacuum flask: 500- to 1500-mL

(Fisher 10–1800, or equivalent).

6.3.2.5 Vacuum Source: A pressure/

vacuum pump, rotary vacuum pump, or

other vacuum source capable of providing at

least 610 mm (24 in.) Hg vacuum at 30 L/min

free air displacement.

6.3.2.6 Stopper and tubing to mate the

filter holder to the flask and the flask to the

pump.

6.3.2.7 Polyethylene gloves: (Fisher 11–

394–110–B, or equivalent).

6.4 Column adsorption system.

6.4.1 Adsorption module: Dohrmann AD–

2, Mitsubishi TXA–2, or equivalent with

pressurized sample and nitrate-wash

reservoirs, adsorption columns, column

housings, gas and gas pressure regulators,

and receiving vessels. For each sample

reservoir, there are two adsorption columns

connected in series. A small steel funnel for

filling the columns and a rod for pushing out

the carbon are also required. A schematic of

the column adsorption system is shown in

Figure 3.

6.4.2 Adsorption columns: Pyrex, 5 ± 0.2

cm long × 2 mm ID, to hold 40 mg of granular

activated carbon (GAC).

6.4.3 Cerafelt: Johns-Manville, or

equivalent, formed into plugs using stainless

steel borer (2 mm ID) with ejection rod

(available from Dohrmann or Mitsubishi) to

hold 40 mg of granular activated carbon

(GAC). Caution: Handle Cerafelt with gloves.

6.4.4 Column holders: To support

adsorption columns.

6.5 Combustion/micro-coulometer

system: Commercially available as a single

unit or assembled from parts. At the time of

the writing of this method, organic halide

units were commercially available from the

Dohrmann Division of Rosemount Analytical,

Santa Clara, California; Euroglas BV, Delft,

the Netherlands; and Mitsubishi Chemical

Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

6.5.1 Combustion system: Older systems

may not have all of the features shown in

Figure 4. These older systems may be used

provided the performance requirements

(Section 9) of this method are met.

6.5.1.1 Combustion tube: Quartz, capable

of being heated to 800 to 1000 °C and

accommodating a boat sampler. The tube

must contain an air lock for introduction of

a combustion boat, connections for purge and

combustion gas, and connection to the microcoulometer cell.

6.5.1.2 Tube furnace capable of

controlling combustion tube in the range of

800 to 1000 °C.

6.5.1.3 Boat sampler: Capable of holding

35 to 45 mg of activated carbon and a

polycarbonate filter, and fitting into the

combustion tube (Section 6.5.1.1). Some

manufacturers offer an enlarged boat and

combustion tube for this purpose. Under a

time-controlled sequence, the boat is first

moved into an evaporation zone where water

and other volatiles are evaporated, and then

into the combustion zone where the carbon

and all other organic material in the boat are

burned in a flowing oxygen stream. The

evolved gases are transported by a nonreactive carrier gas to the micro-coulometer

cell.

6.5.1.4 Motor driven boat sampler:

Capable of advancing the combustion boat

into the furnace in a reproducible time

sequence. A suggested time sequence is as

follows:

A. Establish initial gas flow rates: 160 mL/

min CO2; 40 mL/min O2.

B. Sequence start.

C. Hold boat in hatch for five seconds to

allow integration for baseline subtraction.

D. Advance boat into vaporization zone.

E. Hold boat in vaporization zone for 110

seconds.

F. Establish gas flow rates for combustion:

200 mL/min O2; 0 mL/min CO2; advance boat

into pyrolysis zone (800°C).

G. Hold boat in pyrolysis zone for six

minutes.

H. Return gas flow rates to initial values;

retract boat into hatch to cool and to allow

remaining HX to be swept into detector

(approximately two minutes).

I. Stop integration at 10 minutes after

sequence start.

Note: If the signal from the detector does

not return to baseline, it may be necessary to

extend the pyrolysis time.The sequence

above may need to be optimized for each

instrument.

6.5.1.5 Absorber: Containing sulfuric acid

to dry the gas stream after combustion to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18725

prevent backflush of electrolyte is highly

recommended.

6.5.2 Micro-coulometer system: Capable

of detecting the equivalent of 0.2 μg of Cl¥

at a signal-to-noise ratio of 2; capable of

detecting the equivalent of 1 μg of Cl¥ with

a relative standard deviation less than 10%,

and capable of accumulating a minimum of

the equivalent of 500 μg of Cl¥ before a

change of electrolyte is required.

6.5.2.1 Micro-coulometer cell: The three

cell designs presently in use are shown in

Figure 1. Cell operation is described in

Section 2.

6.5.2.2 Cell controller: Electronics

capable of measuring the small currents

generated in the cell and accumulating and

displaying the charge produced by hydrogen

halides entering the cell. A strip-chart

recorder is desirable for display of

accumulated charge.

6.6 Miscellaneous glassware: nominal

sizes are specified below; other sizes may be

used, as necessary.

6.6.1 Volumetric flasks: 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-,

100-, and 1000-mL.

6.6.2 Beakers: 100-, 500-, and 1000-mL.

6.6.3 Volumetric pipets: 1- and 10-mL

with pipet bulbs.

6.6.4 Volumetric micro-pipets: 10-, 20-,

50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-μL with pipet control

(Hamilton 0010, or equivalent).

6.6.5 Graduated cylinders: 10-, 100-, and

1000-mL.

6.7 Micro-syringes: 10-, 50-, and 100-μL.

6.8 Balances.

6.8.1 Top-loading, capable of weighing

0.1 g.

6.8.2 Analytical, capable of weighing 0.1

mg.

6.9 pH meter.

6.10 Wash bottles: 500- to 1000-mL, PTFE

or polyethylene.

6.11 Strip-chart recorder: suggested but

not required—useful for determining end of

integration (Section 11.4.2).

7.0 Reagents and Standards

7.1 Granular activated carbon (GAC): 75

to 150 μm (100 to 200 mesh); (Dohrmann,

Mitsubishi, Carbon Plus, or equivalent), with

chlorine content less than 1 μg Cl¥ per scoop

(< 25 μg Cl¥ per gram), adsorption capacity

greater than 1000 μg Cl¥ (as 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol) per scoop (>25,000 μg/g),

inorganic halide retention of less than 1 μg

Cl- per scoop in the presence of 10 mg of

inorganic halide (< 20 μg Cl¥ per gram in the

presence of 2500 mg of inorganic halide), and

that meets the other test criteria in this

method.

7.2 Reagent water: Water in which

organic halide is not detected by this method.

7.2.1 Preparation: Reagent water may be

generated by:

7.2.1.1 Activated carbon: Pass tap water

through a carbon bed (Calgon Filtrasorb-300,

or equivalent).

7.2.1.2 Water purifier: Pass tap water

through a purifier (Millipore Super Q, or

equivalent).

7.2.2 pH adjustment: Adjust the pH of the

reagent water to < 2 with nitric acid for all

reagent water used in this method, except for

the acetic acid solution (Section 7.13).

7.3 Nitric acid (HNO3): Concentrated,

analytical grade.

7.4 Sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (100

μg/mL of Cl¥): Dissolve 0.165g NaCl in 1000

mL reagent water. This solution is used for

cell testing and for the inorganic halide

rejection test.

7.5 Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) solution

(100 μg/mL of Cl¥): Dissolve 0.1509 g NH4Cl

in 1000 mL reagent water.

7.6 Sulfuric acid: Reagent grade (specific

gravity 1.84).

7.7 Oxygen: 99.9% purity.

7.8 Carbon Dioxide: 99.9% purity.

7.9 Nitrate stock solution: In a 1000-mL

volumetric flask, dissolve 17g of NaNO3 in

approximately 100 mL of reagent water, add

1.4 mL nitric acid (Section 7.3) and dilute to

the mark with reagent water.

7.10 Nitrate wash solution: Dilute 50 mL

of nitrate stock solution (Section 7.9) to 1000

mL with reagent water.

7.11 Sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3)

solution (1 N): Weigh 79 grams of Na2S2O3

in a 1-L volumetric flask and dilute to the

mark with reagent water.

7.12 Trichlorophenol solutions.

Note: The calibration solutions in this

section employ 100-mL volumes. For

determinations requiring a larger or smaller

volume, increase or decrease the size of the

volumetric flasks commensurately. For

example, if a 1-L sample is to be analyzed,

use 1000-mL flasks (Sections 7.12.3.1 and

7.12.4) and 10 times the volume of reagent

water (Sections 7.12.3.1 and 7.12.4). The

volume of stock solution added to the

calibration solutions and precision and

recovery (PAR) test solution remain as

specified (Sections 7.12.3.2 and 7.12.4) so

that the same amount of chloride is delivered

to the coulometric cell regardless of the

volume of the calibration and PAR solutions.

7.12.1 Methanol: HPLC grade.

7.12.2 Trichlorophenol stock solution

(1.0 mg/mL of Cl¥): Dissolve 0.186 g of 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol in 100 mL of halide-free

methanol.

7.12.3 Trichlorophenol calibration

solutions.

7.12.3.1 Place approximately 90 mL of

reagent water in each of five 100-mL

volumetric flasks.

7.12.3.2 Using a calibrated micro-syringe

or micro-pipets, add 2, 5, 10, 30, and 80 μL

of the trichlorophenol stock solution (Section

7.12.2) to the volumetric flasks and dilute

each to the mark with reagent water to

produce calibration solutions of 2, 5, 10, 30,

and 80 μg Cl¥ per 100 mL of solution (20,

50, 100, 300, and 800 μg/L).

7.12.3.3 Some instruments may have a

calibration range that does not extend to 800

μg/L (80 μg of Cl¥). For those instruments,

a narrower dynamic range may be used.

However, if the concentration of halide in a

sample exceeds that range, the sample must

be diluted to bring the concentration within

the range calibrated.

7.12.4 Trichlorophenol precision and

recovery (PAR) test solution (10 μg/L of Cl¥):

Partially fill a 100-mL volumetric flask, add

10 μL of the stock solution (Section 7.12.2),

and dilute to the mark with reagent water.

7.13 Acetic acid solution: Containing 30 to

70% acetic acid in deionized water, per the

instrument manufacturer’s instructions.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and

Storage

8.1 Sample preservation.

8.1.1 Residual chlorine: If the sample is

known or suspected to contain free chlorine,

the chlorine must be reduced to eliminate

positive interference that may result from

continued chlorination reactions. A

knowledge of the process from which the

sample is collected may be of value in

determining whether dechlorination is

necessary. Immediately after sampling, test

for residual chlorine using the following

method or an alternative EPA method

(Reference 12):

8.1.1.1 Dissolve a few crystals of

potassium iodide in the sample and add

three to five drops of a 1% starch solution.

A blue color indicates the presence of

residual chlorine.

8.1.1.2 If residual chlorine is found, add

1 mL of sodium thiosulfate solution (Section

7.11) for each 2.5 ppm of free chlorine or

until the blue color disappears. Do not add

an excess of sodium thiosulfate. Excess

sodium thiosulfate may cause decomposition

of a small fraction of the OX.

8.1.2 Acidification: Adjust the pH of

aqueous samples to < 2 with nitric acid.

Acidification inhibits biological activity and

stabilizes chemical degradation, including

possible dehalogenation reactions that may

occur at high pH. Acidification is necessary

to facilitate thorough adsorption.

8.1.3 Refrigeration: Maintain samples at a

temperature of 0 to 4° C from time of

collection until analysis.

8.2 Collect the amount of sample

necessary for analysis (Section 11) and all QC

tests (Section 9) in an amber glass bottle of

the appropriate size (Section 6.1.1).

8.3 Analyze samples no less than three

days nor more than six months after

collection.

9.0 Quality Control

9.1 Each laboratory that uses this method

is required to operate a formal quality

assurance program. The minimum

requirements of this program consist of an

initial demonstration of laboratory capability,

an ongoing analysis of standards and blanks

as tests of continued performance, and

analysis of matrix spike and matrix spike

duplicate (MS/MSD) samples to assess

accuracy and precision. Laboratory

performance is compared to established

performance criteria to determine if the

results of analyses meet the performance

characteristics of the method.

9.1.1 The laboratory shall make an initial

demonstration of the ability to produce

acceptable results with this method. This

ability is demonstrated as described in

Section 9.2.

9.1.2 The laboratory is permitted to

modify this method to improve separations

or lower the costs of measurements, provided

that all performance specifications are met.

Each time a modification is made to the

method, the laboratory is required to repeat

the procedures in Sections 9.2.2 and 10 to

demonstrate continued method performance.

If the detection limit of the method will be

affected by the modification, the laboratory

should demonstrate that the MDL (40 CFR
18726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

136, Appendix B) is less than or equal to the

MDL in this method or one-third the

regulatory compliance level, whichever is

higher.

9.1.3 The laboratory shall spike 10% of

the samples with known concentrations of

2,4,6-trichlorophenol to monitor method

performance and matrix interferences

(interferences caused by the sample matrix).

This test is described in Section 9.3. When

results of these spikes indicate atypical

method performance for samples, the

samples are diluted to bring method

performance within acceptable limits.

9.1.4 Analyses of blanks are required to

demonstrate freedom from contamination.

The procedures and criteria for analysis of

blanks are described in Section 9.4.

9.1.5 The laboratory shall, on an ongoing

basis, demonstrate through the analysis of the

precision and recovery (PAR) standard that

the analysis system is in control. These

procedures are described in Section 9.10.

9.1.6 The laboratory shall perform quality

control tests on the granular activated carbon.

These procedures are described in Section

9.5.

9.1.7 Samples are analyzed in duplicate

to demonstrate precision. These procedures

are described in Section 9.6.

9.2 Initial demonstration of laboratory

capability.

9.2.1 Method Detection Limit (MDL): To

establish the ability to detect AOX, the

laboratory should determine the MDL per the

procedure in 40 CFR 136, Appendix B using

the apparatus, reagents, and standards that

will be used in the practice of this method.

An MDL less than or equal to the MDL in

Section 1.3 should be achieved prior to the

practice of this method.

9.2.2 Initial precision and recovery (IPR):

To establish the ability to generate acceptable

precision and recovery, the laboratory shall

perform the following operations:

9.2.2.1 Analyze four aliquots of the PAR

standard (Section 7.12.4) and a method blank

according to the procedures in Sections 9.4

and 11.

9.2.2.2 Using the blank-subtracted results

of the set of four analyses, compute the

average percent recovery (X) and the

standard deviation of the percent recovery (s)

for the results.

9.2.2.3 The average percent recovery shall

be in the range of 81 to 114 μg/L and the

standard deviation shall be less than 8 μg/L.

If X and s meet these acceptance criteria,

system performance is acceptable and

analysis of blanks and samples may begin. If,

however, s exceeds the precision limit or X

falls outside the range for recovery, system

performance is unacceptable. In this case,

correct the problem and repeat the test.

9.3 Matrix spikes: The laboratory shall

spike a minimum of 10% of samples from a

given matrix type (e.g., C-stage filtrate,

produced water, treated effluent) in duplicate

(MS/MSD). If only one sample from a given

matrix type is analyzed, an additional two

aliquots of that sample shall be spiked.

9.3.1 The concentration of the analytes

spiked into the MS/MSD shall be determined

as follows:

9.3.1.1 If, as in compliance monitoring,

the concentration of OX is being checked

against a regulatory concentration limit, the

spiking level shall be at that limit or at one

to five times higher than the background

concentration determined in Section 9.3.2,

whichever concentration is higher.

9.3.1.2 If the concentration of OX is not

being checked against a regulatory limit, the

spike shall be at the concentration of the

precision and recovery standard (PAR;

Section 7.12.4) or at one to five times higher

than the background concentration

determined in Section 9.3.2, whichever

concentration is higher.

9.3.2 Analyze one sample out of each

batch of 10 samples from each site to

determine the background concentration of

AOX. If necessary, prepare a solution of

2,4,6-trichlorophenol appropriate to produce

a level in the sample one to five times the

background concentration. Spike two

additional sample aliquots with spiking

solution and analyze them to determine the

concentration after spiking.

9.3.2.1 Compute the percent recovery of

each analyte in each aliquot:

% Recovery 100 (Found Background)

T is the true value of the spike

= −

T

where:

9.3.2.2 Compute the relative percent

difference (RPD) between the two results (not

between the two recoveries) as described in

Section 12.4.

9.3.2.3 If the RPD is less than 20%, and

the recoveries for the MS and MSD are

within the range of 78 to 116%, the results

are acceptable.

9.3.2.4 If the RPD is greater than 20%,

analyze two aliquots of the precision and

recovery standard (PAR).

9.3.2.4.1 If the RPD for the two aliquots

of the PAR is greater than 20%, the analytical

system is out of control. In this case, repair

the problem and repeat the analysis of the

sample batch, including the MS/MSD.

9.3.2.4.2 If, however, the RPD for the two

aliquots of the PAR is less than 20%, dilute

the sample chosen for the MS/MSD by a

factor of 2–10 (to remain within the working

range of the analytical system) and repeat the

MS/MSD test. If the RPD is still greater than

20%, the result may not be reported for

regulatory compliance purposes. In this case,

choose another sample for the MS/MSD and

repeat analysis of the sample batch.

9.3.2.5 If the percent recovery for both the

MS and MSD are less than 78% or greater

than 116%, analyze the precision and

recovery (PAR) standard.

9.3.2.5.1 If the recovery of the PAR is

outside the 78 to 116% range, the analytical

system is out of control. In this case, repair

the problem and repeat the analysis of the

sample batch, including the MS/MSD.

9.3.2.5.2 If the recovery of the PAR is

within the range of 78 to 116%, dilute the

sample, MS, and MSD by a factor of 2–10 (to

remain within the working range of the

analytical system) and re-analyze. If the

results of the dilute analyses remain outside

of the acceptable range, these results may not

be reported for regulatory compliance

purposes. In this case, choose another sample

for the MS/MSD and repeat the analysis of

the sample batch.

9.4 Blanks.

9.4.1 Reagent water blanks: Analyzed to

demonstrate freedom from contamination.

9.4.1.1 Analyze a reagent water blank

with each batch of samples. The blank must

be analyzed immediately preceding

calibration verification to allow for blank

subtraction and to demonstrate freedom from

contamination and memory effects, and must

include all details of the procedure to be

followed when analyzing samples.

9.4.1.2 Prepare the reagent water blank

using a volume of reagent water equivalent

to the volume used for sample preparation

(Section 11.1). If using the micro-column

procedure, adsorb the method blank using

two columns, as described in Section 11.

Combust the GAC from each column

separately, as described in Section 11.

9.4.1.3 If the result from the blank from

the batch method or the sum of the results

from two columns is more than 20 μg/L,

analysis of samples is halted until the source

of contamination is eliminated and a blank

shows no evidence of contamination at this

level.

9.4.2 Nitrate-washed GAC blanks:

Analyzed daily to demonstrate that the GAC

is free from contamination.

9.4.2.1 Nitrate-washed GAC blank for the

batch procedure: Analyze a batch nitratewashed GAC blank by adding a scoop of dry

GAC to the assembled filter apparatus

containing the polycarbonate membrane and

washing the GAC with the nitrate wash

solution (Section 7.10) using the procedure

in Section 11.2.6.

9.4.2.2 Nitrate-washed GAC blank for the

column procedure: Analyze a column nitratewashed GAC blank by assembling two carbon

columns in series and washing the columns

with the nitrate wash solution (Section 7.10)

using the procedure in Section 11.3.4.2.

Analyze the GAC in each column separately.

The results of the second analysis must be

within ±0.2 μg Cl¥ of the first. A difference

greater than 0.2 μg Cl¥ indicates a lack of

homogeneity in the GAC that could introduce

unacceptable variability. If the difference

exceeds this amount, the GAC should be

replaced.

9.4.3 The result for the reagent water

blank (Section 9.4.1) shall not exceed the

result for the nitrate wash blank (Section

9.4.2.1 or 9.4.2.2) by more than 0.5 μg Cl¥.

9.5 Granular activated carbon (GAC)

batch testing: Each lot number or batch of

activated carbon received from a supplier is

tested once before use to ensure adequate

quality. Use only GAC that meets the test

criteria below.

9.5.1 Contamination test: Analyze a scoop

of GAC. Reject carbon if the amount of OX

exceeds 1 μg (25 μg Cl¥/g).

9.5.2 Inorganic chloride adsorption test:

Attempt to adsorb NaCl from 100 mL of a

solution containing 100 mg/L in reagent

water. Wash with nitrate solution and

analyze. The amount of halide should be less

than 1 μg Cl¥ larger than the blank. A larger

amount indicates significant uptake of

inorganic chloride by the carbon. Reject

carbon if the 1 μg level is exceeded.

9.6 Samples that are being used for

regulatory compliance purposes shall be

analyzed in duplicate.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18727

9.6.1 The procedure for preparing

duplicate sample aliquots is described in

Section 11.5.

9.6.2 Calculate the RPD by following the

same procedure described in Section 12.4.

9.6.3 If the RPD is greater than 20%, the

analyses must be repeated.

9.6.4 If the RPD remains greater than

20%, the result may not be reported for

regulatory compliance purposes.

9.7 The specifications in this method can

be met if the apparatus used is calibrated

properly and maintained in a calibrated state.

The standards used for calibration (Section

10), calibration verification (Section 9.9), and

for initial (Section 9.2.2) and ongoing

(Section 9.10) precision and recovery should

be identical, so that the most precise results

will be obtained.

9.8 Depending on specific program

requirements, field duplicates may be

collected to determine the precision of the

sampling technique.

9.9 At the beginning and end of each

eight-hour shift during which analyses are

performed, system performance and

calibration are verified. Verification of

system performance and calibration may be

performed more frequently, if desired.

9.9.1 If performance and calibration are

verified at the beginning and end of each

shift (or more frequently), samples analyzed

during that period are considered valid.

9.9.2 If performance and calibration are

not verified at both the beginning and end of

a shift (or more frequently), samples analyzed

during that period must be reanalyzed.

9.9.3 If calibration is verified at the

beginning of a shift, recalibration using the

five standards described in Section 10.6 is

not necessary; otherwise, the instrument

must be recalibrated prior to analyzing

samples (Section 10).

9.9.4 Cell maintenance and other changes

to the analytical system that can affect system

performance may not be performed during

the eight-hour (or shorter) shift.

9.10 Calibration verification and ongoing

precision and recovery: Calibration and

system performance are verified by the

analysis of the 100 μg/L PAR standard.

9.10.1 Analyze a blank (Section 9.4) and

analyze the PAR standard (Section 7.12.4)

immediately thereafter at the beginning and

end of each shift. Compute the concentration

of organic halide in the blank and in the PAR

standard using the procedures in Section 12.

The blank shall be less than 2 μg Cl¥ (20 μg/

L equivalent).

9.10.2 Subtract the result for the blank

from the result of the PAR standard using the

procedures in Section 12, and compute the

percent recovery of the blank-subtracted PAR

standard. The percent recovery shall be in

the range of 78 to 116%.

9.10.3 If the recovery is within this range,

the analytical process is in control and

analysis of blanks and samples may proceed.

If, however, the recovery is not within the

acceptable range, the analytical process is not

in control. In this event, correct the problem

and repeat the ongoing precision and

recovery test (Section 9.10), or recalibrate

(Sections 10.5 through 10.6).

9.10.4 If the recovery is not within the

acceptable range for the PAR standard

analyzed at the end of the eight-hour shift,

correct the problem, repeat the ongoing

precision and recovery test (Section 9.10), or

recalibrate (Sections 10.5 through 10.6), and

reanalyze the sample batch that was analyzed

during the eight-hour shift.

9.10.5 If the recovery is within the

acceptable range at the end of the shift, and

samples are to be analyzed during the next

eight-hour shift, the end of shift verification

may be used as the beginning of shift

verification for the subsequent shift,

provided the next eight-hour shift begins as

the first shift ends.

9.11 It is suggested but not required that

the laboratory develop a statement of data

quality for AOX and develop QC charts to

form a graphic demonstration of method

performance. Add results that pass the

specification in Section 9.10.2 to initial and

previous ongoing data. Develop a statement

of data quality by calculating the average

percent recovery (R) and the standard

deviation of percent recovery (sr). Express the

accuracy as a recovery interval from R ¥ 2sr

to R + 2sr. For example, if R=95% and sr=5%,

the accuracy is 85 to 105%.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

10.1 Assemble the OX system and

establish the operating conditions necessary

for analysis. Differences between various

makes and models of instruments will

require different operating procedures.

Laboratories should follow the operating

instructions provided by the manufacturer of

their particular instrument. Sensitivity,

instrument detection limit, precision, linear

range, and interference effects must be

investigated and established for each

particular instrument. Calibration is

performed when the instrument is first set up

and when calibration cannot be verified

(Section 9.9).

10.2 Cell performance test: Inject 100 μL

of the sodium chloride solution (10 μg Cl¥;

Section 7.4) directly into the titration cell

electrolyte. Adjust the instrument to produce

a reading of 10 μg Cl¥.

10.3 Combustion system test: This test

can be used to assure that the combustion/

micro-coulometer systems are performing

properly without introduction of carbon.

This test should be used during initial

instrument setup and when instrument

performance indicates a problem with the

combustion system.

10.3.1 Designate a quartz boat for use

with the ammonium chloride (NH4Cl)

solution only.

10.3.2 Inject 100 μL of the NH4Cl solution

(Section 7.5) into this boat and proceed with

the analysis.

10.3.3 The result shall be between 9.5

and 10.5 μg Cl¥. If the recovery is not

between these limits, the combustion or

micro-coulometer systems are not performing

properly. Check the temperature of the

combustion system, verify that there are no

leaks in the combustion system, confirm that

the cell is performing properly (Section 10.2),

and then repeat the test.

10.4 Trichlorophenol combustion test:

This test can be used to assure that the

combustion/micro-coulometer systems are

performing properly when carbon is

introduced. It should be used during

instrument setup and when it is necessary to

isolate the adsorption and combustion steps.

10.4.1 Inject 10 μL of the 1 mg/mL

trichlorophenol stock solution (Section

7.12.2) onto one level scoop of GAC in a

quartz boat.

10.4.2 Immediately proceed with the

analysis to prevent loss of trichlorophenol

and to prevent contamination of the carbon.

10.4.3 The result shall be between 9.0

and 11.0 μg Cl¥. If the recovery is not

between these limits, the combustion/microcoulometer system shall be adjusted and the

test repeated until the result falls within

these limits.

10.5 Background level of Cl¥: Determine

the average background level of Cl¥ for the

entire analytical system as follows:

10.5.1 Using the procedure in Section 11

(batch or column) that will be used for the

analysis of samples, determine the

background level of Cl¥ in each of three

portions of reagent water. The volume of

reagent water used shall be the same as the

volume used for analysis of samples.

10.5.2 Calculate the average (mean)

concentration of Cl¥ and the standard

deviation of the concentration.

10.5.3 The sum of the average

concentration plus two times the standard

deviation of the concentration shall be less

than 20 μg/L. If not, the water or carbon shall

be replaced, or the adsorption system moved

to an area free of organic halide vapors, and

the test (Section 10.5) shall be repeated. Only

after this test is passed may calibration

proceed.

10.6 Calibration by external standard: A

calibration line encompassing the calibration

range is developed using solutions of 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol.

10.6.1 Analyze each of the five

calibration solutions (Section 7.12.3) using

the procedure in Section 11 (batch or

column) that will be used for the analysis of

samples, and the same procedure that was

used for determination of the system

background (Section 10.5). Analyze these

solutions beginning with the lowest

concentration and proceeding to the highest.

Record the response of the micro-coulometer

to each calibration solution.

10.6.2 Prepare a method blank as

described in Section 9.4. Subtract the value

of the blank from each of the five calibration

results, as described in Section 12.

10.6.3 Calibration factor (ratio of response

to concentration) Using the blank subtracted

results, compute the calibration factor at each

calibration point, and compute the average

calibration factor and the relative standard

deviation (coefficient of variation; Cv) of the

calibration factor over the calibration range.

10.6.4 Linearity: The Cv of the calibration

factor shall be less than 20%; otherwise, the

calibration shall be repeated after adjustment

of the combustion/micro-coulometer system

and/or preparation of fresh calibration

standards.

10.6.5 Using the average calibration

factor, compute the percent recovery at each

calibration point. The recovery at each

calibration point shall be within the range of

80 to 111%. If any point is not within this

range, a fresh calibration standard shall be
18728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

prepared for that point, this standard shall be

analyzed, and the calibration factor (Section

10.6.3) and calibration linearity (Section

10.6.4) shall be computed using the new

calibration point. All points used in the

calibration must meet the 80 to 111%

recovery specification.

11.0 Procedure

11.1 Sample dilution: Many samples will

contain high concentrations of halide. If

analyzed without dilution, the microcoulometer can be overloaded, resulting in

frequent cell cleaning and downtime. The

following guidance is provided to assist in

estimating dilution levels.

11.1.1 Paper and pulp mills that employ

chlorine bleaching: Samples from pulp mills

that use a chlorine bleaching process may

overload the micro-coulometer. To prevent

system overload, the maximum volume

suggested for paper industry samples that

employ halide in the bleaching process is 100

mL. An adsorption volume as small as 25 mL

may be used, provided the concentration of

AOX in the sample can be measured reliably,

as defined by the requirements in Section

9.11. To minimize volumetric error, an

adsorption volume less than 25 mL may not

be used. If AOX cannot be measured reliably

in a 100-mL sample volume, a sample

volume to a maximum of 1000 mL must be

used. The sample and adsorption volumes

are suggested for paper industry samples

employing chlorine compounds in the

bleaching process:

Paper or pulp mill stream

Sample

volume

(mL)*

Adsorption

volume

(mL)

Evaporator condensate .................................................................................................................................................. 100.0 100

Process water ................................................................................................................................................................ 100.0 100

Pulp mill effluent ............................................................................................................................................................. 30.0 50

Paper mill effluent .......................................................................................................................................................... 10.0 25

Combined mill effluent ................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 25

Combined bleach effluent .............................................................................................................................................. 1.0 25

C-stage filtrate ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.5 25

E-stage filtrate ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.5 25

*Assumes dilution to final volume of 100 mL. All sample aliquots (replicates, diluted samples) must be analyzed using the same fixed final volume (sample volume plus reagent water, as needed).

11.1.2 Sample dilution procedure.

11.1.2.1 Partially fill a precleaned

volumetric flask with pH < 2 reagent water,

allowing for the volume of sample to be

added.

11.1.2.2 Mix sample thoroughly by

tumbling or shaking vigorously.

11.1.2.3 Immediately withdraw the

required sample aliquot using a pipet or

micro-syringe.

Note: Because it will be necessary to rinse

the pipet or micro-syringe (Section 11.1.2.5),

it may be necessary to pre-calibrate the pipet

or micro-syringe to assure that the exact

volume desired will be delivered.

11.1.2.4 Dispense or inject the aliquot

into the volumetric flask.

11.1.2.5 Rinse the pipet or syringe with

small portions of reagent water and add to

the flask.

11.1.2.6 Dilute to the mark with pH < 2

reagent water.

11.1.3 All samples to be reported for

regulatory compliance monitoring purposes

must be analyzed in duplicate, as described

in Section 11.5.

11.1.4 Pulp and Paper in-process

samples: The concentration of organic halide

in in-process samples has been shown to be

20 to 30% greater using the micro-column

adsorption technique than using the batch

adsorption technique. For this reason, the

micro-column technique shall be used for

monitoring in-process samples. Examples of

in-process samples include: combined bleach

plant effluent, C-stage filtrate, and E-stage

filtrate.

11.2 Batch adsorption and filtration.

11.2.1 Place the appropriate volume of

sample (diluted if necessary), preserved as

described in Section 8, into an Erlenmeyer

flask.

11.2.2 Add 5 mL of nitrate stock solution

to the sample aliquot.

11.2.3 Add one level scoop of activated

carbon that has passed the quality control

tests in Section 9.

11.2.4 Shake the suspension for at least

one hour in a mechanical shaker.

11.2.5 Filter the suspension through a

polycarbonate membrane filter. Filter by

suction until the liquid level reaches the top

of the carbon.

11.2.6 Wash the inside surface of the

filter funnel with 25 mL (±5 mL) of nitrate

wash solution in several portions. After the

level of the final wash reaches the top of the

GAC, filter by suction until the cake is barely

dry. The time required for drying should be

minimized to prevent exposure of the GAC

to halogen vapors in the air, but should be

sufficient to permit drying of the cake so that

excess water is not introduced into the

combustion apparatus. A drying time of

approximately 10 seconds under vacuum has

been shown to be effective for this operation.

11.2.7 Carefully remove the top of the

filter holder, making sure that no carbon is

lost. This operation is most successfully

performed by removing the clamp, tilting the

top of the filter holder (the funnel portion)

to one side, and lifting upward.

11.2.8 Using a squeeze bottle or microsyringe, rapidly rinse the carbon from the

inside of the filter holder onto the filter cake

using small portions of wash solution. Allow

the cake to dry under vacuum for no more

than 10 seconds after the final rinse.

Immediately turn the vacuum off.

11.2.9 Using tweezers, carefully fold the

polycarbonate filter in half, then in fourths,

making sure that no carbon is lost.

11.3 Column adsorption.

11.3.1 Column preparation: Prepare a

sufficient number of columns for one day’s

operation as follows:

11.3.1.1 In a glove box or area free from

halide vapors, place a plug of Cerafelt into

the end of a clean glass column.

11.3.1.2 Fill the glass column with one

level scoop (approximately 40 mg) of

granular activated carbon that has passed the

quality control tests in Section 9.

11.3.1.3 Insert a Cerafelt plug into the

open end of the column to hold the carbon

in place.

11.3.1.4 Store the columns in a glass jar

with PTFE lined screw-cap to prevent

infiltration of halide vapors from the air.

11.3.2 Column setup.

11.3.2.1 Install two columns in series in

the adsorption module.

11.3.2.2 If the sample is known or

expected to contain particulates that could

prevent free flow of sample through the

micro-columns, a Cerafelt plug is placed in

the tubing ahead of the columns. If a

measurement of the OX content of the

particulates is desired, the Cerafelt plug can

be washed with nitrate solution, placed in a

combustion boat, and processed as a separate

sample.

11.3.3 Adjusting sample flow rate:

Because the flow rate used to load the sample

onto the columns can affect the ability of the

GAC to adsorb organic halides, the flow rate

of the method blank is measured, and the gas

pressure used to process samples is adjusted

accordingly. The flow rate of the blank,

which is composed of acidified reagent water

and contains no particulate matter, should be

greater than the flow rate of any sample

containing even small amounts of particulate

matter.

11.3.3.1 Fill the sample reservoir with the

volume of reagent water chosen for the

analysis (Section 9.4.1.2) that has been

preserved and acidified as described in

Section 8. Cap the reservoir.

11.3.3.2 Adjust the gas pressure per the

manufacturer’s instructions. Record the time

required for the entire volume of reagent

water to pass through both columns. The

flow rate must not exceed 3 mL/min over the

duration of the time required to adsorb the

volume. If this flow rate is exceeded, adjust

gas pressure, prepare another blank, and

repeat the adsorption.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18729

11.3.3.3 Once the flow rate for the blank

has been established, the same adsorption

conditions must be applied to all subsequent

samples during that eight-hour shift, or until

another method blank is processed,

whichever comes first. To aid in overcoming

breakthrough problems, a lower gas pressure

(and, therefore, flow rate) may be used for

processing of samples, if desired. If the

sample adsorption unit is disassembled or

cleaned, the flow rate must be checked before

processing additional samples.

11.3.3.4 Elute the pair of columns with 2

mL of nitrate wash solution. The flow rate of

nitrate wash solution must not exceed 3 mL/

min.

11.3.3.5 Separate the columns and mark

for subsequent analysis.

11.3.4 The adsorption of sample volumes

is performed in a similar fashion. Fill the

sample reservoir with the sample volume

chosen for the analysis (Section 11.1), that

has been preserved as described in Section 8.

All analyses must be performed with this

volume (sample volume plus reagent water,

as needed) in order to maintain a flow rate

no greater than that determined for the blank

(see Section 11.3.3).

11.3.4.1 Use the same gas pressure for

sample adsorption as is used for the blank.

11.3.4.2 Elute the columns with 2 mL of

the nitrate wash solution.

11.3.4.3 Separate the columns and mark

for subsequent analysis.

11.3.5 If it is desirable to make

measurements at levels lower than can be

achieved with the sample volume chosen, or

if the instrument response of an undiluted

sample is less than three times the

instrument response of the blank (Section

12.6.3), a larger sample volume must be used.

11.4 Combustion and titration.

11.4.1 Polycarbonate filter and GAC from

batch adsorption.

11.4.1.1 Place the folded polycarbonate

filter containing the GAC in a quartz

combustion boat, close the airlock, and

proceed with the automated sequence.

11.4.1.2 Record the signal from the microcoulometer for a minimum integration time

of 10 minutes and determine the

concentration of Cl¥ from calibration data,

per Section 12.

11.4.2 Columns from column adsorption.

11.4.2.1 Using the push rod, push the

carbon and the Cerafelt plug(s) from the first

column into a combustion boat. Proceed with

the automated sequence.

11.4.2.2 Record the signal from the microcoulometer for a minimum integration time

of 10 minutes and determine the

concentration of Cl¥ for the first column

from calibration data, per Section 12.

11.4.2.3 Repeat the automated sequence

with the second column.

11.4.2.4 Determine the extent of

breakthrough of organic halides from the first

column to the second column, as described

in Section 12.

11.4.3 The two columns that are used for

the method blank must be combusted

separately, as is done for samples. 11.5

Duplicate sample analysis: All samples to be

reported for regulatory compliance purposes

must be analyzed in duplicate. This

requirement applies to both the batch and

column adsorption procedures. In addition, if

it is necessary to dilute the sample for the

purposes of reducing breakthrough or

maintaining the concentration within the

calibration range, a more or less dilute

sample must be analyzed. The adsorption

volumes used for analysis of undiluted

samples, diluted samples, and all replicates

must be the same as the volume used for QC

tests and calibration (Sections 9 and 10).

11.5.1 Using results from analysis of one

sample volume (Section 11.4) and the

procedure in Section 11.1.2, determine if the

dilution used was within the calibration

range of the instrument and/or if

breakthrough exceeded the specification in

Section 12.3.1. If the breakthrough criterion

was exceeded or the sample was not within

the calibration range, adjust the dilution

volume as needed. If the breakthrough

criterion was not exceeded and the sample

dilution was within the calibration range, a

second volume at the same dilution level

may be used.

11.5.2 Adsorb the sample using the same

technique (batch or column) used for the first

sample volume. Combust the GAC from the

second volume as described in Section 11.4,

and calculate the results as described in

Section 12. Compare the results of the two

analyses as described in Section 12.4.

11.5.3 Duplicate analyses are not required

for method blanks, as different dilution levels

are not possible.

11.5.4 Duplicate analyses of the PAR

standard used for calibration verification

(Section 9.10) are not required.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations

12.1 Batch Adsorption Method: Calculate

the blank-subtracted concentration of

adsorbable organic halide detected in each

sample (in micrograms of chloride per liter)

using the following equation:

AOX g L C B

V ( / ) ( ) μ = −

Where:

C=μg Cl¥ from micro-coulometer for the

sample

B=μg Cl¥ from micro-coulometer for the

reagent water blank (Section 9.4.1)

V = volume of sample in liters

This calculation is performed for each of

the two dilution levels analyzed for each

sample.

12.2 Column Adsorption Method:

Calculate the blank-subtracted concentration

of adsorbable organic halide detected in each

sample (in micrograms of chloride per liter)

using the following equation:

AOX g L

C C B B

V ( / ) μ = [ ] ( ) 1 2 1 2 + − + ( )

Where:

C1=μg C1¥ from micro-coulometer for first

column from the sample

C2=μg C1¥ from micro-coulometer for second

column from the sample

B1=μg from micro-coulometer for first

column from the reagent water blank

(Section 9.4.1)

B2=μg C1¥ from micro-coulometer for second

column from the reagent water blank

(Section 9.4.1)

V=volume of sample in liters

12.3 Percent breakthrough: For each

sample analyzed by the column method,

calculate the percent breakthrough of halide

from the first column to the second column,

using the following equation:

%Breakthrough = C1

( )( ) C B

B C B

2 2

1 2 2

− 100

[ ] ( ) − + − ( )

12.3.1 For samples to be reported for

regulatory compliance purposes, the percent

breakthrough must be less than or equal to

25% for both of the two analyses performed

on each sample (see Section 11.5).

12.3.2 If the breakthrough exceeds 25%,

dilute the affected sample further,

maintaining the amount of halide at least

three times higher than the level of blank,

and reanalyze the sample. Ensure that the

sample is also analyzed at a second level of

dilution that is at least a factor of 2 different

(and still higher than three times the blank).

12.4 Relative percent difference (RPD):

Calculate the relative percent difference

between the results of the two analyses of

each sample, using the following equation:

RPD

AOX AOX

AOX AOX = ( ) −

[ ] ( ) +

200 1 2

1 2

12.5 High concentrations of AOX: If the

amount of halide from either analysis

exceeds the calibration range, dilute the

sample and reanalyze, maintaining at least a

factor of 2 difference in the dilution levels of

the two portions of the sample used.

12.6 Low concentrations of AOX: The

blank-subtracted final result from the batch

procedure or the sum of the blank-subtracted

results from the two carbon columns should

be significantly above the level of the blank.

12.6.1 If the instrument response for a

sample exceeds the instrument response for

the blank by a factor of at least 3, the result

is acceptable.

12.6.2 If the instrument response for a

sample is less than three times the

instrument response for the blank, and the

sample has been diluted, analyze a less dilute

aliquot of sample.

12.6.3 If the instrument response of an

undiluted sample containing AOX above the

minimum level is less than three times the

instrument response for the blank, the result

is suspect and may not be used for regulatory

compliance purposes. In this case, find the

cause of contamination, correct the problem,

and reanalyze the sample under the corrected

conditions.

12.7 Report results that meet all of the

specifications in this method as the mean of

the blank-subtracted values from Section 12.1

or 12.2 for the two analyses at different

dilution levels, in μg/L of Cl¥ (not as 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol), to three significant figures.

Report the RPD of the two analyses. For

samples analyzed by the column procedure,

also report the percent breakthrough.
18730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

13.0 Method Performance

The specifications contained in this

method are based on data from a single

laboratory and from a large-scale study of the

pulp and paper industry.

14.0 Pollution Prevention

14.1 The solvents used in this method

pose little threat to the environment when

recycled and managed properly.

14.2 Standards should be prepared in

volumes consistent with laboratory use to

minimize the volume of expired standards to

be disposed.

15.0 Waste Management

15.1 It is the laboratory’s responsibility to

comply with all federal, state, and local

regulations governing waste management,

particularly the hazardous waste

identification rules and land disposal

restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and

land by minimizing and controlling all

releases from fume hoods and bench

operations. Compliance with all sewage

discharge permits and regulations is also

required.

15.2 Samples preserved with HCl or

H2SO4 to pH <2 are hazardous and must be

neutralized before being disposed, or must be

handled as hazardous waste. Acetic acid and

silver acetate solutions resulting from cell

flushing must be disposed of in accordance

with all applicable federal, state, and local

regulations.

15.3 For further information on waste

management, consult ‘‘The Waste

Management Manual for Laboratory

Personnel,’’ and ‘‘Less is Better: Laboratory

Chemical Management for Waste Reduction,’’

both available from the American Chemical

Society’s Department of Government

Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th

Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

16.0 References

16.1 ‘‘Total Organic Halide, Methods

450.1—Interim,’’ Prepared by Stephen Billets

and James J. Lichtenberg, USEPA, Office of

Research and Development, Physical and

Chemical Methods Branch, EMSL-Cincinnati,

Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4–81–056

(1981).

16.2 Method 9020, USEPA Office of Solid

Waste, ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Waste, SW–846,’’ Third Edition, 1987.

16.3 ‘‘Determination of Adsorbable

Organic Halogens (AOX),’’ ‘‘German

Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water,

Waste Water and Sludge—General

Parameters of Effects and Substances,’’

Deutsche Industrie Norm (DIN) Method 38

409, Part 14, DIN German Standards Institute,

Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1987).

16.4 ‘‘Water Quality: Determination of

Adsorbable Organic Halogens (AOX),’’

International Organization for Standard/Draft

International Standardization (ISO/DIS)

Method 9562 (1988).

16.5 ‘‘Organically Bound Chlorine by the

AOX Method,’’ SCAN–W 9:89, Secretariat,

Scandinavian Pulp, Paper and Board Testing

Committee, Box 5604, S–11486, Stockholm,

Sweden (1989).

16.6 Method 5320, ‘‘Dissolved Organic

Halogen,’’ from ‘‘Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater,’’

5320, American Public Health Association,

1015 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005

(1989).

16.7 ‘‘Canadian Standard Method for the

Determination of Adsorbable Organic Halides

(AOX) in Waters and Wastewaters,’’

Environment Canada and The Canadian Pulp

and Paper Association (1990).

16.8 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B.

16.9 ‘‘Working with Carcinogens,’’

DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, Publication 77–

206, (Aug 1977).

16.10 ‘‘OSHA Safety and Health

Standards, General Industry’’ OSHA 2206, 29

CFR 1910 (Jan 1976).

16.11 ‘‘Safety in Academic Chemistry

Laboratories,’’ ACS Committee on Chemical

Safety (1979).

16.12 ‘‘Methods 330.4 and 330.5 for Total

Residual Chlorine,’’ USEPA, EMSLCincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA–4–

79–020 (March 1979).

16.13 ‘‘Validation of Method 1650:

Determination of Organic Halide,’’ Analytical

Technologies Inc., ERCE Contract 87–3410,

November 15, 1990. Available from the EPA

Sample Control Center, DynCorp, 300 N. Lee

St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (703–519–1140).

17.0 Figures

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18731
18732 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18733
18734 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18735

18.0 Glossary of Definitions and Purposes

These definitions and purposes are specific

to this method but have been conformed to

common usage as much as possible.

18.1 Units of weight and measure and

their abbreviations.

18.1.1 Symbols.

°C degrees Celsius

μg microgram

μL microliter

< less than

> greater than

% percent

18.1.2 Alphabetical characters.

cm centimeter

g gram

h hour

ID inside diameter

in inch

L liter

m meter

mg milligram

min minute

mL milliliter

mm millimeter

N normal; gram molecular weight of solute

divided by hydrogen equivalent of solute,

per liter of solution

OD outside diameter

ppb part-per-billion

ppm part-per-million

ppt part-per-trillion

psig pounds-per-square inch gauge

v/v volume per unit volume

w/v weight per unit volume

18.2 Definitions and acronyms (in

alphabetical order).

Analyte: AOX tested for by this method.

Calibration standard (CAL): A solution

prepared from a secondary standard and/or

stock solution which is used to calibrate the

response of the instrument with respect to

analyte concentration.

Calibration verification standard (VER):

The mid-point calibration standard (CS3) that

is used to verify calibration.

Field blank: An aliquot of reagent water or

other reference matrix that is placed in a

sample container in the laboratory or the

field, and treated as a sample in all respects,

including exposure to sampling site

conditions, storage, preservation, and all

analytical procedures. The purpose of the

field blank is to determine if the field or

sample transporting procedures and

environments have contaminated the sample.

IPR: Initial precision and recovery; four

aliquots of the diluted PAR standard

analyzed to establish the ability to generate

acceptable precision and accuracy. An IPR is

performed prior to the first time this method

is used and any time the method or

instrumentation is modified.

Laboratory blank: See Method blank.

Laboratory control sample (LCS): See

Ongoing precision and recovery sample

(OPR).

Laboratory reagent blank: See Method

blank.

May: This action, activity, or procedural

step is neither required nor prohibited.

May not: This action, activity, or

procedural step is prohibited.

Method blank: An aliquot of reagent water

that is treated exactly as a sample including

exposure to all glassware, equipment,

solvents, reagents, internal standards, and

surrogates that are used with samples. The

method blank is used to determine if analytes

or interferences are present in the laboratory

environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Minimum level (ML): The level at which

the entire analytical system must give a

recognizable signal and acceptable

calibration point for the analyte. It is

equivalent to the concentration of the lowest

calibration standard, assuming that all

method-specified sample weights, volumes,

and cleanup procedures have been

employed.

Must: This action, activity, or procedural

step is required.

OPR: Ongoing precision and recovery

standard; a laboratory blank spiked with a

known quantity of analyte. The OPR is

analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose is

to assure that the results produced by the

laboratory remain within the limits specified

in this method for precision and recovery.

PAR: Precision and recovery standard;

secondary standard that is diluted and spiked

to form the IPR and OPR.

Preparation blank: See Method blank.

Primary dilution standard: A solution

containing the specified analytes that is

purchased or prepared from stock solutions

and diluted as needed to prepare calibration

solutions and other solutions.

Quality control check sample (QCS): A

sample containing all or a subset of the

analytes at known concentrations. The QCS

is obtained from a source external to the

laboratory or is prepared from a source of

standards different from the source of

calibration standards. It is used to check

laboratory performance with test materials

prepared external to the normal preparation

process.

Reagent water: Water demonstrated to be

free from the analyte of interest and

potentially interfering substances at the

method detection limit for the analyte.

Relative standard deviation (RSD): The

standard deviation multiplied by 100,

divided by the mean.

RSD: See Relative standard deviation.

Should: This action, activity, or procedural

step is suggested but not required.

Stock solution: A solution containing an

analyte that is prepared using a reference

material traceable to EPA, the National

Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),

or a source that will attest to the purity and

authenticity of the reference material.

VER: See Calibration verification standard.

Method 1653—Chlorinated Phenolics in

Wastewater by In Situ Acetylation and

GCMS

1.0 Scope and Application

1.1 This method is for determination of

chlorinated phenolics (chlorinated phenols,

guaiacols, catechols, vanillins,

syringaldehydes) and other compounds

associated with the Clean Water Act; the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;

and the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;

and that are amenable to in situ acetylation,

extraction, and analysis by capillary column

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

(GCMS). This method is based on existing

methods for determination of

chlorophenolics in pulp and paper industry

wastewaters (References 1 and 2).

1.2 The chemical compounds listed in

Table 1 may be determined in waters and,

specifically, in in-process streams and

wastewaters associated with the pulp and

paper industry. The method is designed to

meet the survey and monitoring requirements

of the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

1.3 The detection limit of this method is

usually dependent on the level of

interferences rather than instrumental

limitations. The method detection limits

(MDLs) in Table 2 typify the minimum

quantity that can be detected with no

interferences present.

1.4 The GCMS portions of this method

are for use only by persons experienced with

GCMS or under the close supervision of such

qualified persons. Laboratories unfamiliar

with analyses of environmental samples by

GCMS should run the performance tests in

Reference 3 before beginning.

1.5 Any modification of the method

beyond those expressly permitted is subject

to the application and approval of alternative

test procedures under 40 CFR Parts 136.4 and

136.5.

2.0 Summary of Method

2.1 A 1000-mL aliquot of water is spiked

with stable isotopically labeled analogs of the

compounds of interest and an internal

standard. The solution is adjusted to neutral

pH, potassium carbonate buffer is added, and

the pH is raised to 9–11.5. The

chlorophenolics are converted in situ to

acetates by the addition of acetic anhydride.

After acetylation, the solution is extracted

with hexane. The hexane is concentrated to

a final volume of 0.5 mL, an instrument

internal standard is added, and an aliquot of

the concentrated extract is injected into the

gas chromatograph (GC). The compounds are

separated by GC and detected by a mass

spectrometer (MS). The labeled compounds

and internal standard serve to correct the

variability of the analytical technique.

2.2 Identification of a pollutant

(qualitative analysis) is performed by

comparing the relative retention time and

mass spectrum to that of an authentic

standard. A compound is identified when its

relative retention time and mass spectrum

agree.

2.3 Quantitative analysis is performed in

one of two ways by GCMS using extracted

ion-current profile (EICP) areas: (1) For those

compounds listed in Table 1 for which

standards and labeled analogs are available,

the GCMS system is calibrated and the

compound concentration is determined using

an isotope dilution technique; (2) for those

compounds listed in Table 1 for which

authentic standards but no labeled

compounds are available, the GCMS system

is calibrated and the compound

concentration is determined using an internal

standard technique.

2.4 Quality is assured through

reproducible calibration and testing of the

extraction and GCMS systems.
18736 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

3.0 Definitions

3.1 Chlorinated phenolics are the

chlorinated phenols, guaiacols, catechols,

vanillins, syringaldehydes and other

compounds amenable to in situ acetylation,

extraction, and determination by GCMS

using this method.

3.2 Definitions for other terms used in

this method are given in the glossary at the

end of the method (Section 20.0).

4.0 Interferences

4.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and

other sample processing hardware may yield

artifacts and/or elevated baselines, causing

misinterpretation of chromatograms and

spectra. All materials used in the analysis

shall be demonstrated to be free from

interferences under the conditions of analysis

by running method blanks initially and with

each sample batch (samples started through

the extraction process on a given eight-hour

shift, to a maximum of 20). Specific selection

of reagents and purification of solvents by

distillation in all-glass systems may be

required. Glassware and, where possible,

reagents are cleaned by using solvent rinse

and baking at 450 °C for a minimum of one

hour.

4.2 Interferences co-extracted from

samples will vary considerably from source

to source, depending on the diversity of the

site being sampled. Industry experience

suggests that high levels of non-chlorinated

phenols may cause poor recovery of the

compounds of interest, particularly in

samples collected in the vicinity of a source

of creosote, such as a wood-preserving plant

(Reference 1).

4.3 The internal standard, 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol, has been reported to be an

anaerobic degradation product of 2,3,4,5-

tetrachlorophenol and/or pentachlorophenol

(Reference 1). When an interference with this

or another compound occurs, labeled

pentachlorophenol or another labeled

compound may be used as an alternative

internal standard; otherwise, the internal

standards and reference compounds must be

used as specified in this method.

4.4 Blank contamination by

pentachlorophenol has been reported

(Reference 1) to be traceable to potassium

carbonate; it has also been reported that this

contamination may be removed by baking

overnight at 400 to 500 °C.

4.5 Catechols are susceptible to

degradation by active sites on injection port

liners and columns, and are subject to

oxidation to the corresponding chloro-obenzoquinones (Reference 2). A small

amount of ascorbic acid may be added to

samples to prevent auto-oxidation (Reference

2; also see Section 11.1.6). For pulp and

paper industry samples, ascorbic acid may be

added to treated effluent samples only.

5.0 Safety

5.1 The toxicity or carcinogenicity of

each compound or reagent used in this

method has not been precisely determined;

however, each chemical compound should

be treated as a potential health hazard.

Exposure to these compounds should be

reduced to the lowest possible level. The

laboratory is responsible for maintaining a

current awareness file of OSHA regulations

regarding the safe handling of the chemicals

specified in this method. A reference file of

materials safety data sheets (MSDSs) should

be made available to all personnel involved

in these analyses. Additional information on

laboratory safety can be found in References

4 through 6.

5.2 Samples may contain high

concentrations of toxic compounds, and

should be handled with gloves and a hood

opened to prevent exposure.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

Note: Brand names, suppliers, and part

numbers are for illustrative purposes only.

No endorsement is implied. Equivalent

performance may be achieved using

apparatus and materials other than those

specified here, but demonstration of

equivalent performance that meets the

requirements of this method is the

responsibility of the laboratory.

6.1 Sampling equipment for discrete or

composite sampling.

6.1.1 Sample bottles and caps.

6.1.1.1 Sample bottle: Amber glass, 1000-

mL minimum, with screw-cap. If amber

bottles are not available, samples shall be

protected from light.

6.1.1.2 Bottle caps: Threaded to fit

sample bottles. Caps shall be lined with

PTFE.

6.1.1.3 Cleaning bottles: Detergent water

wash, cap with aluminum foil, and bake at

450°C for a minimum of one hour before use.

6.1.1.4 Cleaning liners: Detergent water

wash, reagent water (Section 7.4) and solvent

rinse, and bake at approximately 200°C for a

minimum of 1 hour prior to use.

6.1.1.5 Bottles and liners must be lotcertified to be free of chlorophenolics by

running blanks according to this method. If

blanks from bottles and/or liners without

cleaning or with fewer cleaning steps show

no detectable chlorophenolics, the bottle and

liner cleaning steps that do not eliminate

chlorophenolics may be omitted.

6.1.2 Compositing equipment: Automatic

or manual compositing system incorporating

glass containers cleaned per bottle cleaning

procedure above. Sample containers are kept

at 0 to 4 °C during sampling. Glass or PTFE

tubing only shall be used. If the sampler uses

a peristaltic pump, a minimum length of

compressible silicone rubber tubing may be

used in the pump only. Before use, the tubing

shall be thoroughly rinsed with methanol,

followed by repeated rinsing with reagent

water (Section 7.4) to minimize sample

contamination. An integrating flow meter is

used to collect proportional composite

samples.

6.2 Extraction apparatus.

6.2.1 Bottle or beaker: 1500-to 2000-mL

capacity.

6.2.2 Separatory funnel: 500-to 2000-mL,

glass, with PTFE stopcock.

6.2.3 Magnetic stirrer: Corning Model

320, or equivalent, with stirring bar.

6.3 Polyethylene gloves: For handling

samples and extraction equipment (Fisher

11–394–110–B, or equivalent).

6.4 Graduated cylinders: 1000-mL, 100-

mL, and 10-mL nominal.

6.5 Centrifuge: Capable of accepting 50-

mL centrifuge tubes and achieving 3000

RPM.

6.5.1 Centrifuge tubes.

6.5.1.1 35-mL nominal, with PTFE-lined

screw-cap.

6.5.1.2 15-mL nominal, conical

graduated, with ground-glass stopper.

6.6 Concentration apparatus.

6.6.1 Kuderna-Danish (K–D)

concentrator tube: 10-mL, graduated (Kontes

K–570050–1025, or equivalent) with

calibration verified. Ground-glass stopper

(size 19/22 joint) is used to prevent

evaporation of extracts.

6.6.2 Kuderna-Danish (K–D) evaporation

flask: 1000-mL (Kontes K–570001–1000, or

equivalent), attached to concentrator tube

with springs (Kontes K–662750–0012).

6.6.3 Snyder column: Three-ball macro

(Kontes K–503000–0232, or equivalent).

6.6.4 Snyder column: Two-ball micro

(Kontes K–469002–0219, or equivalent).

6.6.5 Boiling chips: Approximately 10/40

mesh, extracted with methylene chloride and

baked at 450 °C for a minimum of one hour.

6.6.6 Nitrogen evaporation apparatus:

Equipped with a water bath controlled at 35

to 40 °C (N-Evap, Organomation Associates,

Inc., South Berlin, MA, or equivalent),

installed in a fume hood. This device may be

used in place of the micro-Snyder column

concentrator in Section 6.6.4 above.

6.7 Water bath: Heated, with concentric

ring cover, capable of temperature control

(± 2 °C), installed in a fume hood.

6.8 Sample vials: Amber glass, 1- to 3-mL,

with PTFE-lined screw-cap.

6.9 Balances.

6.9.1 Analytical: Capable of weighing 0.1

mg.

6.9.2 Top loading: Capable of weighing

10 mg.

6.10 pH meter.

6.11 Gas chromatograph: Shall have

splitless or on-column injection port for

capillary column, temperature program with

50°C hold, and shall meet all of the

performance specifications in Section 9.

6.12 Gas chromatographic column: 30 m

(±5 m) × 0.25 mm (±0.02 mm) I.D. × 0.25

micron, 5% phenyl, 94% methyl, 1% vinyl

silicone bonded-phase fused-silica capillary

column (J & W DB–5, or equivalent).

6.13 Mass spectrometer: 70 eV electron

impact ionization, shall repetitively scan

from 42 to 450 amu in 0.95 to 1.00 second,

and shall produce a unit resolution (valleys

between m/z 441–442 less than 10% of the

height of the 441 peak), backgroundcorrected mass spectrum from 50 ng

decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP)

introduced through the GC inlet. The

spectrum shall meet the mass-intensity

criteria in Table 3 (Reference 7). The mass

spectrometer shall be interfaced to the GC

such that the end of the capillary column

terminates within 1 cm of the ion source, but

does not intercept the electron or ion beams.

All portions of the column which connect the

GC to the ion source shall remain at or above

the column temperature during analysis to

preclude condensation of less volatile

compounds.

6.14 Data system: Shall collect and record

MS data, store mass-intensity data in spectral
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18737

libraries, process GCMS data, generate

reports, and compute and record response

factors.

6.14.1 Data acquisition: Mass spectra

shall be collected continuously throughout

the analysis and stored on a mass storage

device.

6.14.2 Mass spectral libraries: Usercreated libraries containing mass spectra

obtained from analysis of authentic standards

shall be employed to reverse search GCMS

runs for the compounds of interest (Section

10.2).

6.14.3 Data processing: The data system

shall be used to search, locate, identify, and

quantify the compounds of interest in each

GCMS analysis. Software routines shall be

employed to compute retention times, and to

compute peak areas at the m/z’s specified

(Table 4). Displays of spectra, mass

chromatograms, and library comparisons are

required to verify results.

6.14.4 Response factors and multi-point

calibrations: The data system shall be used to

record and maintain lists of response factors

(response ratios for isotope dilution) and

multi-point calibration curves (Section 10).

Computations of relative standard deviation

(coefficient of variation) are used for testing

calibration linearity. Statistics on initial

(Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section 9.6)

performance shall be computed and

maintained.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

7.1 Reagents for adjusting sample pH.

7.1.1 Sodium hydroxide: Reagent grade, 6

N in reagent water.

7.1.2 Sulfuric acid: Reagent grade, 6 N in

reagent water.

7.2 Reagents for sample preservation.

7.2.1 Sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3)

solution (1 N): Weigh 79 g Na2S2O3 in a 1–

L volumetric flask and dilute to the mark

with reagent water.

7.2.2 Ascorbic acid solution: Prepare a

solution of ascorbic acid in reagent water at

a concentration of 0.1 g/mL. This solution

must be prepared fresh on each day when

derivatizations will be performed. Therefore,

do not prepare more than will be used that

day. (A 50-mL volume is sufficient for ten

analyses).

7.3 Solvents: Hexane, acetone, and

methanol. Distilled in glass (Burdick and

Jackson, or equivalent).

7.4 Reagent water: Water in which the

compounds of interest and interfering

compounds are not detected by this method.

7.5 Reagents for derivatization.

7.5.1 Potassium carbonate (K2CO3).

7.5.1.1 Purification: Spread in a shallow

baking dish, heat overnight at 400 to 500°C.

7.5.1.2 Solution: Dissolve 150 g purified

K2CO3 in 250 mL reagent water.

7.5.2 Acetic anhydride: Redistilled

reagent grade.

7.6 Analytical standards.

7.6.1 Derivatization: Because the

chlorinated phenolics are determined as their

acetate derivatives after in situ acetylation,

the method requires that the calibration

standards be prepared by spiking the

underivatized materials into reagent water

and carrying the spiked reagent water aliquot

through the entire derivatization and

extraction procedure that is applied to the

field samples.

7.6.2 Standard solutions: Purchased as

solutions or mixtures with certification to

their purity, concentration, and authenticity,

or prepared from materials of known purity

and composition. If chemical purity of a

compound is 98% or greater, the weight may

be used without correction to compute the

concentration of the standard. When not

being used, standards are stored in the dark

at ¥20 to ¥10 °C in screw-capped vials with

PTFE-lined lids. A mark is placed on the vial

at the level of the solution so that solvent

evaporation loss can be detected. The vials

are brought to room temperature prior to use.

7.6.3 If the chemical purity of any

standard does not meet the 98% requirement

above, the laboratory must correct all

calculations, calibrations, etc., for the

difference in purity.

7.7 Preparation of stock solutions:

Prepare chlorovanillins and

chlorosyringaldehydes in acetone, as these

compounds are subject to degradation in

methanol. Prepare the remaining

chlorophenolics in methanol. Prepare all

standards per the steps below. Observe the

safety precautions in Section 5.

7.7.1 Dissolve an appropriate amount of

assayed reference material in a suitable

solvent. For example, weigh 50 mg (±0.1 mg)

of pentachlorophenol in a 10-mL groundglass-stoppered volumetric flask and fill to

the mark with methanol. After the

pentachlorophenol is completely dissolved,

transfer the solution to a 15-mL vial with

PTFE-lined cap.

7.7.2 Stock solutions should be checked

for signs of degradation prior to the

preparation of calibration or performance test

standards and shall be replaced after six

months, or sooner if comparison with quality

control check standards indicates a change in

concentration.

7.8 Labeled compound spiking solution:

From stock solutions prepared as above, or

from mixtures, prepare one spiking solution

to contain the labeled chlorovanillin in

acetone and a second spiking solution to

contain the remaining chlorophenolics,

including the 3,4,5-trichlorophenol sample

matrix internal standard (SMIS), in methanol.

The labeled compounds and SMIS are each

at a concentration of 12.5 μg/mL.

7.9 Secondary standards for calibration:

Using stock solutions (Section 7.7), prepare

one secondary standard containing the

chlorovanillins and chlorsyringaldehydes

listed in Table 1 in acetone and a second

secondary standard containing the remaining

chlorophenolics in methanol. The

monochlorinated phenol, guaiacol, and

catechol are included at a concentration of 25

μg/mL; the trichlorinated catechols,

tetrachlorinated guaiacol and catechol,

pentachlorophenol, 5,6-dichlorovanillin, and

2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde are included at a

concentration of 100 μg/mL; and the

remaining compounds are included at a

concentration of 50 μg/mL, each in their

respective solutions.

7.10 Instrument internal standard (IIS):

Prepare a solution of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl

(DFB) at a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL in

hexane.

7.11 DFTPP solution: Prepare a solution

of DFTPP at 50 μg/mL in acetone.

7.12 Solutions for obtaining authentic

mass spectra (Section 10.2): Prepare mixtures

of compounds at concentrations which will

assure authentic spectra are obtained for

storage in libraries.

7.13 Preparation of calibration solutions.

7.13.1 Into five 1000-mL aliquots of

reagent water, spike 50, 100, 200, 500 and

1000 μL of each of the two solutions in

Section 7.9. Spike 1.00 mL of each of the two

labeled compound spiking solutions (Section

7.8) into each of the five aliquots.

7.13.2 Using the procedure in Section 11,

derivatize and extract each solution, and

concentrate the extract to a final volume of

0.50 mL. This will produce calibration

solutions of nominal 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100

μg/mL of the native chlorophenolics and a

constant concentration of 25 μg/mL of each

labeled compound and the SMIS (assuming

100% derivatization and recovery). As noted

in Section 11.1.6, ascorbic acid is added to

all samples of final effluents to stabilize

chlorocatechols, but is not added to samples

of pulp and paper in-process wastewaters.

Therefore, it is necessary to prepare separate

sets of five initial calibration standards with

and without the addition of ascorbic acid.

Also, in the event that the laboratory is

extracting final effluent samples by both the

stir-bar and separatory funnel procedures

(see Section 11.3), initial calibration

standards should be prepared by both

methods.

7.13.3 These solutions permit the relative

response (labeled to unlabeled) and the

response factor to be measured as a function

of concentration (Sections 10.4 and 10.5).

7.13.4 The nominal 50 μg/mL standard

may also be used as a calibration verification

standard (see Section 9.6).

7.14 Ongoing precision and recovery

(OPR) standard: Used for determination of

initial (Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section

9.6) precision and recovery. This solution is

prepared by spiking 500 μL of each the two

solutions of the secondary calibration

standards (Section 7.9) and 1 mL of each of

the two labeled compound spiking solutions

(Section 7.8) into 1000 mL of reagent water.

7.15 Stability of solutions: All standard

solutions (Sections 7.7 through 7.14) shall be

analyzed within 48 hours of preparation and

on a monthly basis thereafter for signs of

degradation. Standards will remain

acceptable if the peak area at the quantitation

m/z relative to the DFB internal standard

remains within ±15% of the area obtained in

the initial analysis of the standard.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and

Storage

8.1 Collect samples in glass containers

(Section 6.1) following conventional

sampling practices (Reference 9). Aqueous

samples are collected in refrigerated bottles

using automatic sampling equipment.

8.2 Sample preservation.

8.2.1 Residual chlorine: If the sample

contains residual chlorine, the chlorine must

be reduced to eliminate positive interference

resulting from continued chlorination

reactions. Immediately after sampling, test

for residual chlorine using the following
18738 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

method or an alternative EPA method

(Reference 10).

8.2.1.1 Dissolve a few crystals of

potassium iodide in the sample and add

three to five drops of a 1% starch solution.

A blue color indicates the presence of

residual chlorine.

8.2.1.2 If residual chlorine is found, add

1 mL of sodium thiosulfate solution (Section

7.2.1) for each 2.5 ppm of free chlorine or

until the blue color disappears.

8.2.2 Acidification: Adjust pH of all

aqueous samples to <2 with sulfuric acid

(Section 7.1.2). Failure to acidify samples

may result in positive interferences from

continued chlorination reactions.

8.2.3 Refrigeration: Maintain sample

temperature at 0 to 4 °C from time of

collection until extraction, and maintain

extracts at a temperature of 0 to 4°C from

time of extraction until analysis.

8.3 Collect a minimum of 2000 mL of

sample. This will provide a sufficient amount

for all testing. Smaller amounts may be

collected if the stream is known to contain

high levels of chlorophenolics.

8.4 All samples must be acetylated and

extracted within 30 days of collection, and

must be analyzed within 30 days of

acetylation. If labeled compound recoveries

for a sample do not meet the acceptance

criteria in Table 5 and the 30-day holding

time is not met, a new sample must be

collected.

9.0 Quality Control

9.1 Each laboratory that uses this method

is required to operate a formal quality

assurance program (Reference 8). The

minimum requirements of this program

consist of an initial demonstration of

laboratory capability, analysis of samples

spiked with labeled compounds to evaluate

and document data quality, and analysis of

standards and blanks as tests of continued

performance. Laboratory performance is

compared to established performance criteria

to determine if the results of analyses meet

the performance characteristics of the

method.

9.1.1 DFTPP spectrum validity shall be

checked at the beginning of each eight-hour

shift during which analyses are performed.

This test is described in Section 9.2.

9.1.2 The laboratory shall make an initial

demonstration of the ability to generate

acceptable results with this method. This

ability is established as described in Section

9.3.

9.1.3 The laboratory is permitted to

modify this method to improve separations

or lower the costs of measurements, provided

all performance specifications are met. Each

time a modification is made to the method,

the laboratory is required to repeat the

procedures in Sections 10.3 and 9.3.2 to

demonstrate method performance. If the

detection limits for the analytes in this

method will be affected by the modification,

the laboratory should demonstrate that each

MDL (40 CFR 136, Appendix B) is less than

or equal to the MDL in this method or onethird the regulatory compliance level,

whichever is higher.

9.1.4 The laboratory shall spike all

samples with labeled compounds and the

sample matrix internal standard (SMIS) to

monitor method performance. This test is

described in Section 9.4. When results of

these spikes indicate atypical method

performance for samples, the samples are

diluted to bring method performance within

acceptable limits (Section 13).

9.1.5 Analyses of blanks are required to

demonstrate freedom from contamination.

The procedures and criteria for analysis of a

blank are described in Section 9.5.

9.1.6 The laboratory shall, on an ongoing

basis, demonstrate through analysis of the

ongoing precision and recovery standard

(Section 7.14) that the analysis system is in

control. These procedures are described in

Section 9.6.

9.1.7 The laboratory shall maintain

records to define the quality of data that is

generated. Development of accuracy

statements is described in Section 9.4.4 and

9.6.3.

9.2 DFTPP spectrum validity: Inject 1 μL

of the DFTPP solution (Section 7.11) either

separately or within a few seconds of

injection of the OPR standard (Section 9.6)

analyzed at the beginning of each shift. The

criteria in Table 3 shall be met.

9.3 Initial demonstration of laboratory

capability.

9.3.1 Method Detection Limit (MDL): To

establish the ability to detect the analytes in

this method, the laboratory should determine

the MDL per the procedure in 40 CFR 136,

Appendix B using the apparatus, reagents,

and standards that will be used in the

practice of this method. MDLs less than or

equal to the MDLs in Table 2 should be

achieved prior to the practice of this method.

9.3.2 Initial precision and recovery (IPR):

To establish the ability to demonstrate

control over the analysis system and to

generate acceptable precision and accuracy,

the laboratory shall perform the following

operations:

9.3.2.1 Derivatize, extract, concentrate,

and analyze four 1000-mL aliquots of the

ongoing precision and recovery standard

(OPR; Section 7.14), according to the

procedure in Section 11. Separate sets of IPR

aliquots must be prepared with the addition

of ascorbic acid and without.

9.3.2.2 Using results of the four analyses,

compute the average percent recovery (X)

and the relative standard deviation of the

recovery (s) for each compound, by isotope

dilution for pollutants with a labeled analog,

and by internal standard for pollutants with

no labeled analog and for the labeled

compounds and the SMIS.

9.3.2.3 For each compound, compare s

and X with the corresponding limits for

initial precision and recovery in Table 5. If

s and X for all compounds meet the

acceptance criteria, system performance is

acceptable and analysis of blanks and

samples may begin. If, however, any

individual s exceeds the precision limit or

any individual X falls outside the range for

recovery, system performance is

unacceptable for that compound. In this

event, correct the problem and repeat the test

(Section 9.3.2).

9.4 Labeled compound recovery: The

laboratory shall spike all samples with

labeled compounds and the sample matrix

internal standard (SMIS) to assess method

performance on the sample matrix.

9.4.1 Analyze each sample according to

the method beginning in Section 11.

9.4.2 Compute the percent recovery (P) of

the labeled compounds and the SMIS using

the internal standard method (Section 14.3)

with 2,2’-difluorobiphenyl as the reference

compound.

9.4.3 Compare the labeled compound and

SMIS recovery for each compound with the

corresponding limits in Table 5. If the

recovery of any compound falls outside its

warning limit, method performance is

unacceptable for that compound in that

sample. Therefore, the sample is complex.

The sample is diluted and reanalyzed per

Section 13.

9.4.4 As part of the QA program for the

laboratory, it is suggested, but not required,

that method accuracy for samples be assessed

and records maintained. After the analysis of

five samples for which the labeled

compounds pass the tests in Section 9.4.3,

compute the average percent recovery (P) and

the standard deviation of the percent

recovery (sp) for the labeled compounds

only. Express the accuracy assessment as a

percent recovery interval from P¥2sp to P +

2sp for each matrix. For example, if P = 90%

and sp = 10%, the accuracy interval is

expressed as 70 to 110%. Update the

accuracy assessment for each compound on

a regular basis (e.g., after each 20 to 30 new

accuracy measurements).

9.5 Blanks: Reagent water blanks are

analyzed to demonstrate freedom from

contamination.

9.5.1 Extract and concentrate a 1000-mL

reagent water blank with each sample batch

(samples started through the extraction

process on the same eight-hour shift, to a

maximum of 20 samples). Blanks associated

with samples to which ascorbic acid is added

must be prepared with ascorbic acid, and

blanks associated with samples to which

ascorbic acid is not added must be prepared

without ascorbic acid. Analyze the blank

immediately after analysis of the OPR

(Section 7.14) to demonstrate freedom from

contamination.

9.5.2 If any of the compounds of interest

(Table 1) or any potentially interfering

compound is found in an aqueous blank at

greater than 5μg/L (assuming a response

factor of one relative to the sample matrix

internal standard for compounds not listed in

Table 1), analysis of samples is halted until

the source of contamination is eliminated

and a blank shows no evidence of

contamination at this level.

9.6 Calibration verification and ongoing

precision and recovery: At the beginning of

each eight-hour shift during which analyses

are performed, analytical system performance

is verified for all compounds. Analysis of

DFTPP (Section 9.2) and the nominal 50μg/

mL OPR (Section 11.1.5) is used to verify all

performance criteria. Adjustment and/or

recalibration, per Section 10, shall be

performed until all performance criteria are

met. Only after all performance criteria are

met may samples and blanks be analyzed.

9.6.1 Analyze the extract of the OPR

(Section 11.1.5) at the beginning of each

eight-hour shift and prior to analysis of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18739

samples from the same batch. Alternatively,

a separate calibration verification may be

performed using an aliquot of the midpoint

calibration standard from Section 7.13 (with

a nominal concentration of 50μ g/mL). This

alternative may be used to check instrument

performance on failure of an OPR, or when

samples extracted with an OPR aliquot are

not analyzed within the same eight-hour

analysis shift.

9.6.1.1 Retention times: The absolute

retention time of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl shall

be within the range of 765 to 885 seconds,

and the relative retention times of all

pollutants and labeled compounds shall fall

within the limits given in Table 2.

9.6.1.2 GC resolution: The valley height

between 4,6-dichloroguaiacol and 3,4-

dichloroguaiacol at m/z 192 shall not exceed

10% of the height of the taller of the two

peaks.

9.6.1.3 Multiple peaks: Each compound

injected shall give a single, distinct GC peak.

9.6.2 Compute the percent recovery of

each pollutant (Table 1) by isotope dilution

(Section 10.4) for those compounds that have

labeled analogs. Compute the percent

recovery of each pollutant that has no labeled

analog by the internal standard method

(Section 10.5), using the 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal

standard. Compute the percent recovery of

the labeled compounds and the SMIS by the

internal standard method, using the 2,2′-

difluorobiphenyl as the internal standard.

9.6.2.1 For each compound, compare the

recovery with the limits for ongoing

precision and recovery in Table 5. If all

compounds meet the acceptance criteria,

system performance is acceptable and

analysis of blanks and samples may proceed.

If, however, any individual recovery falls

outside of the range given, system

performance is unacceptable for that

compound. In this event, there may be a

problem with the GCMS or with the

derivatization/extraction/concentration

systems.

9.6.2.2 GCMS system: To determine if the

failure of the OPR test (Section 9.6.2.1) is due

to instrument drift, analyze the current

calibration verification extract (Section

7.13.4), calculate the percent recoveries of all

compounds, and compare with the OPR

recovery limits in Table 5. If all compounds

meet these criteria, GCMS performance/

stability is verified, and the failure of the

OPR analysis is attributed to problems in the

derivatization/extraction/concentration of the

OPR. In this case, analysis of the sample

extracts may proceed. However, failure of

any of the recovery criteria in the analysis of

a sample extract requires rederivatization of

that sample (Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2). If,

however, the performance/stability of the

GCMS is not verified by analysis of the

calibration verification extract, the GCMS

requires recalibration and all extracts

associated with the failed OPR must be

reanalyzed.

9.6.3 Add results that pass the

specifications in Section 9.6.2.1 to initial and

previous ongoing data for each compound.

Update QC charts to form a graphic

representation of continued laboratory

performance. Develop a statement of

laboratory accuracy for each pollutant and

labeled compound in each matrix type

(reagent water, C-stage filtrate, E-stage

filtrate, final effluent, etc.) by calculating the

average percent recovery (R) and the standard

deviation of percent recovery (sr). Express

the accuracy as a recovery interval from R¥

2sr to R + 2sr. For example, if R = 95% and

sr = 5%, the accuracy is 85 to 105%.

9.7 The specifications contained in this

method can be met if the apparatus used is

calibrated properly, then maintained in a

calibrated state. The standards used for

calibration (Section 10) and for initial

(Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section 9.6)

precision and recovery should be identical,

so that the most precise results will be

obtained. The GCMS instrument in particular

will provide the most reproducible results if

dedicated to the settings and conditions

required for the analyses of chlorophenolics

by this method.

9.8 Depending on specific program

requirements, field replicates may be

collected to determine the precision of the

sampling technique, and spiked samples may

be required to determine the accuracy of the

analysis when the internal standard method

is used.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

10.1 Assemble the GCMS and establish

the operating conditions in Section 12.

Analyze standards per the procedure in

Section 12 to demonstrate that the analytical

system meets the minimum levels in Table 2,

and the mass-intensity criteria in Table 3 for

50 ng DFTPP.

10.2 Mass-spectral libraries: Detection

and identification of compounds of interest

are dependent upon spectra stored in usercreated libraries.

10.2.1 Obtain a mass spectrum of the

acetyl derivative of each chlorophenolic

compound (pollutant, labeled compound,

and the sample matrix internal standard) by

derivatizing and analyzing an authentic

standard either singly or as part of a mixture

in which there is no interference between

closely eluting components. That only a

single compound is present is determined by

examination of the spectrum. Fragments not

attributable to the compound under study

indicate the presence of an interfering

compound.

10.2.2 Adjust the analytical conditions

and scan rate (for this test only) to produce

an undistorted spectrum at the GC peak

maximum. An undistorted spectrum will

usually be obtained if five complete spectra

are collected across the upper half of the GC

peak. Software algorithms designed to

‘‘enhance’’ the spectrum may eliminate

distortion, but may also eliminate authentic

m/z’s or introduce other distortion.

10.2.3 The authentic reference spectrum

is obtained under DFTPP tuning conditions

(Section 10.1 and Table 3) to normalize it to

spectra from other instruments.

10.2.4 The spectrum is edited by

removing all peaks in the m/z 42 to 45 range,

and saving the five most intense mass

spectral peaks and all other mass spectral

peaks greater than 10% of the base peak

(excluding the peaks in the m/z 42 to 45

range). The spectrum may be further edited

to remove common interfering m/z’s. The

spectrum obtained is stored for reverse

search and for compound confirmation. 10.3

Minimum level: Demonstrate that the

chlorophenolics are detectable at the

minimum level (per all criteria in Section

14). The nominal 5 μg/mL calibration

standard (Section 7.13) can be used to

demonstrate this performance.

10.4 Calibration with isotope dilution:

Isotope dilution is used when (1) labeled

compounds are available, (2) interferences do

not preclude its use, and (3) the quantitation

m/z (Table 4) extracted ion-current profile

(EICP) area for the compound is in the

calibration range. Alternative labeled

compounds and quantitation m/z’s may be

used based on availability. If any of the above

conditions preclude isotope dilution, the

internal standard calibration method (Section

10.5) is used.

10.4.1 A calibration curve encompassing

the concentration range is prepared for each

compound to be determined. The relative

response (pollutant to labeled) vs.

concentration in standard solutions is plotted

or computed using a linear regression. The

example in Figure 1 shows a calibration

curve for phenol using phenol-d5 as the

isotopic diluent. Also shown are the ±10%

error limits (dotted lines). Relative response

(RR) is determined according to the

procedures described below. A minimum of

five data points are employed for calibration.

10.4.2 The relative response of a

pollutant to its labeled analog is determined

from isotope ratio values computed from

acquired data. Three isotope ratios are used

in this process:

Rx = the isotope ratio measured for the pure

pollutant.

Ry = the isotope ratio measured for the

labeled compound.

Rm = the isotope ratio of an analytical

mixture of pollutant and labeled

compounds.

The m/z’s are selected such that Rx>Ry. If

Rm is not between 2Ry and 0.5Rx, the method

does not apply and the sample is analyzed

by the internal standard method.

10.4.3 Capillary columns sometimes

separate the pollutant-labeled pair when

deuterium labeled compounds are used, with

the labeled compound eluted first (Figure 2).

For this case,
18740 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

R area m z

R

area m z

R

area at m z 

area at m z 

x

y

m

= 



 





= 



 





= ( )

( )

















1

2

1

2

1

1 at the retention time of the pollutant (RT

 at the retention time of the labeled compound (RT

at RT

at RT

as measured in the mixture of the pollutant and

labeled compounds (Figure 2), and RR = R

2

1

2

1 m

, ).

, ).

, .

10.4.4 When the pollutant-labeled pair is

not separated (as occurs with carbon-13-

labeled compounds), or when another

labeled compound with interfering spectral

masses overlaps the pollutant (a case which

can occur with isomeric compounds), it is

necessary to determine the contributions of

the pollutant and labeled compound to the

respective EICP areas. If the peaks are

separated well enough to permit the data

system or operator to remove the

contributions of the compounds to each

other, the equations in Section 10.4.3 apply.

This usually occurs when the height of the

valley between the two GC peaks at the same

m/z is less than 70 to 90% of the height of

the shorter of the two peaks. If significant GC

and spectral overlap occur, RR is computed

using the following equation:

RR

R R R

R R R

y m x

m x y

= ( ) − ( ) +

( ) − ( ) +

1

1

Where:

Rx is measured as shown in figure 3A,

Ry is measured as shown in figure 3B,

Rm is measured as shown in figure 3C.

For example, Rx = 46100/4780 = 9.644; Ry

= 2650/43600 = 0.0608; Rm = 49200/48300 =

1.1019; thus, RR = 1.114. 10.4.5 To calibrate

the analytical system by isotope dilution,

analyze a 1-μL aliquot of each of the

calibration standards (Section 7.13) using the

procedure in Section 12. Compute the RR at

each concentration.

10.4.6 Linearity: If the ratio of relative

response to concentration for any compound

is constant (less than 20% coefficient of

variation) over the five-point calibration

range, an averaged relative response/

concentration ratio may be used for that

compound; otherwise, the complete

calibration curve for that compound shall be

used over the five-point calibration range.

10.5 Calibration by internal standard: The

method contains two types of internal

standards, the sample matrix internal

standard (SMIS) and the instrument internal

standard (IIS), and they are used for different

quantitative purposes. The 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol sample matrix internal

standard (SMIS) is used for measurement of

all pollutants with no labeled analog and

when the criteria for isotope dilution

(Section 10.4) cannot be met. The 2,2′-

difluorobiphenyl instrument internal

standard (IIS) is used for determination of the

labeled compounds and the SMIS. The

results are used for intralaboratory statistics

(Sections 9.4.4 and 9.6.3).

10.5.1 Response factors: Calibration

requires the determination of response

factors (RF) for both the pollutants with no

labeled analog and for the labeled

compounds and the SMIS. The response

factor is defined by the following equation:

RF

A C

A C

s is

is s

= ( ) ×

( ) ×

Where:

As=the area of the characteristic mass for the

compound in the daily standard.

Ais=the area of the characteristic mass for the

internal standard.

Cis=the concentration of the internal standard

(μg/mL).

Cs=is the concentration of the compound in

the calibration standard (μg/mL).

When this equation is used to determine

the response factors for pollutant compounds

without labeled analogs, use the area (Ais)

and concentration (Cis) of 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal

standard. When this equation is used to

determine the response factors for the labeled

analogs and the SMIS, use the area (Ais) and

concentration (Cis) of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl as

the internal standard.

10.5.2 The response factor is determined

for at least five concentrations appropriate to

the response of each compound (Section

7.13); nominally, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 μg/

mL. The amount of SMIS added to each

solution is the same (25 μg/mL) so that Cis

remains constant. Likewise, the

concentration of IIS is constant in each

solution. The area ratio (As/Ais) is plotted

versus the concentration ratio (Cs/Cis) for

each compound in the standard to produce

a calibration curve.

10.5.3 Linearity: If the response factor

(RF) for any compound is constant (less than

35% coefficient of variation) over the fivepoint calibration range, an averaged response

factor may be used for that compound;

otherwise, the complete calibration curve for

that compound shall be used over the fivepoint range.

10.6 Combined calibration: By using

calibration solutions (Section 7.13)

containing the pollutants, labeled

compounds, and the internal standards, a

single set of analyses can be used to produce

calibration curves for the isotope dilution

and internal standard methods. These curves

are verified each shift (Section 9) by

analyzing the OPR standard, or an optional

calibration verification (VER) standard.

Recalibration is required only if OPR criteria

(Section 9.6 and Table 5) cannot be met.

11.0 Sample Derivatization, Extraction, and

Concentration

The procedure described in this section

uses a stir-bar in a beaker for the

derivatization. The extraction procedures

applied to samples depend on the type of

sample being analyzed. Extraction of samples

from in-process wastewaters is performed

using a separatory funnel procedure. All

calibrations, IPR, OPR, and blank analyses

associated with in-process wastewater

samples must be performed by the separatory

funnel procedure.

Extraction of samples of final effluents and

raw water may be performed using either the

stir-bar procedure or the separatory funnel

procedure. However, all calibrations, IPR,

OPR, blank, and sample analyses must be

performed using the same procedure. Both

procedures are described below.

11.1 Preparation of all sample types for

stir-bar derivatization.

11.1.1 Allow sample to warm to room

temperature.

11.1.2 Immediately prior to measuring,

shake sample vigorously to insure

homogeneity.

11.1.3 Measure 1000 mL (±10 mL) of

sample into a clean 2000-mL beaker. Label

the beaker with the sample number.

11.1.4 Dilute aliquot(s).

11.1.4.1 Complex samples: For samples

that are expected to be difficult to derivatize,

concentrate, or are expected to overload the

GC column or mass spectrometer, measure an

additional 100 mL (±1 mL) into a clean 2000-

mL beaker and dilute to a final volume of

1000-mL (±50 mL) with reagent water. Label

with the sample number and as the dilute

aliquot. However, to ensure adequate

sensitivity, a 1000-mL aliquot must always be

prepared and analyzed.

11.1.4.2 Pulp and paper industry

samples: For in-process streams such as Estage and C-stage filtrates and other inprocess wastewaters, it may be necessary to

prepare an aliquot at an additional level of

dilution. In this case, dilute 10 mL (±0.1 mL)

of sample to 1000-mL (±50 mL).

11.1.5 QC aliquots: For a batch of samples

of the same type to be extracted at the same

time (to a maximum of 20), place two 1000-

mL (±10 mL) aliquots of reagent water in

clean 2000-mL beakers. Label one beaker as

the blank and the other as the ongoing

precision and recovery (OPR) aliquot.

Because final effluent samples are treated

with ascorbic acid and in-process wastewater

samples are not (see Section 11.1.6), prepare

an OPR aliquot and a blank for the final

effluent and a separate pair for the in-process

samples. Treat these QC aliquots in the same

fashion as the associated samples, adding
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18741

ascorbic acid to the pair associated with the

final effluents, and not adding ascorbic acid

to the pair associated with the in-process

samples.

11.1.6 Ascorbic acid: Added to stabilize

chlorocatechols. However, for pulp and

paper industry in-process streams and other

in-process wastewaters, the addition of

ascorbic acid may convert chloro-o-quinones

to catechols if these quinones are present.

Separate calibration curves must be prepared

with and without the addition of ascorbic

acid (Section 7.13.2).

11.1.6.1 Spike 5 to 6 mL of the ascorbic

acid solution (Section 7.2.2) into each final

effluent sample, and the associated

calibration standards, IPR and OPR aliquots,

and blank.

11.1.6.2 For pulp and paper industry Cstage filtrates, E-stage filtrates, and untreated

effluents, omit the ascorbic acid to prevent

the conversion of chloro-o-quinones to

catechols. Prepare calibration standards, IPR

and OPR aliquots, and blanks associated with

these samples without ascorbic acid as well.

11.1.7 Spike 1000 μL of the labeled

compound spiking solution (Section 7.8) into

the sample and QC aliquots.

11.1.8 Spike 500 μL of the nominal 50 μg/

mL calibration solution (Section 7.13.4) into

the OPR aliquot.

11.1.9 Adjust the pH of the sample

aliquots to between 7.0 and 7.1. For

calibration standards, IPR and OPR aliquots,

and blanks, pH adjustment is not required.

11.1.10 Equilibrate all sample and QC

solutions for approximately 15 minutes, with

occasional stirring.

11.2 Derivatization: Because

derivatization must proceed rapidly,

particularly upon the addition of the K2CO3

buffer, it is necessary to work with one

sample at a time until the derivatization step

(Section 11.2.3) is complete.

11.2.1 Place a beaker containing a sample

or QC aliquot on the magnetic stirrer in a

fume hood, drop a clean stirring bar into the

beaker, and increase the speed of the stirring

bar until the vortex is drawn to the bottom

of the beaker.

11.2.2 Measure 25 to 26 mL of K2CO3

buffer into a graduated cylinder or other

container and 25 to 26 mL of acetic acid into

another.

11.2.3 Add the K2CO3 buffer to the

sample or QC aliquot, immediately (within

one to three seconds) add the acetic

anhydride, and stir for three to five minutes

to complete the derivatization.

11.3 Extraction: Two procedures are

described below for the extraction of

derivatized samples. The choice of extraction

procedure will depend on the sample type.

For final effluent samples, either of two

procedures may be utilized for extraction of

derivatized samples. For samples of inprocess wastewaters, the separatory funnel

extraction procedure must be used.

Note: Whichever procedure is employed,

the same extraction procedure must be used

for calibration standards, IPR aliquots, OPR

aliquots, blanks, and the associated field

samples.

11.3.1 Stir-bar extraction of final

effluents.

11.3.1.1 Add 200 mL (±20 mL) of hexane

to the beaker and stir for three to five

minutes, drawing the vortex to the bottom of

the beaker.

11.3.1.2 Stop the stirring and drain the

hexane and a portion of the water into a 500-

to 1000-mL separatory funnel. Allow the

layers to separate.

11.3.1.3 Drain the aqueous layer back into

the beaker.

11.3.1.4 The formation of emulsions can

be expected in any solvent extraction

procedure. If an emulsion forms, the

laboratory must take steps to break the

emulsion before proceeding. Mechanical

means of breaking the emulsion include the

use of a glass stirring rod, filtration through

glass wool, and other techniques. For

emulsions that resist these techniques,

centrifugation is nearly 100% effective.

If centrifugation is employed to break the

emulsion, drain the organic layer into a

centrifuge tube, cap the tube, and centrifuge

for two to three minutes or until the phases

separate. If the emulsion cannot be

completely broken, collect as much of the

organic phase as possible, and measure and

record the volume of the organic phase

collected.

If all efforts to break the emulsion fail,

including centrifugation, and none of the

organic phase can be collected, proceed with

the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4.2).

However, use of the dilute aliquot will

sacrifice the sensitivity of the method, and

may not be appropriate in all cases.

11.3.1.5 Drain the organic layer into a

Kuderna-Danish (K–D) apparatus equipped

with a 10-mL concentrator tube. Label the K–

D apparatus. It may be necessary to pour the

organic layer through a funnel containing

anhydrous sodium sulfate to remove any

traces of water from the extract.

11.3.1.6 Repeat the extraction (Section

11.3.1.1 through 11.3.1.5) two more times

using another 200-mL of hexane for each

extraction, combining the extracts in the K–

D apparatus.

11.3.1.7 Proceed with concentration of

the extract, as described in Section 11.4.

11.3.2 Separatory funnel extraction of

either final effluents or in-process

wastewaters.

11.3.2.1 Transfer the derivatized sample

or QC aliquot to a 2-L separatory funnel.

11.3.2.2 Add 200 mL (±20 mL) of hexane

to the separatory funnel. Cap the funnel and

extract the sample by shaking the funnel for

two to three minutes with periodic venting.

11.3.2.3 Allow the organic layer to

separate from the water phase for a minimum

of 10 minutes.

11.3.2.4 Drain the lower aqueous layer

into the beaker used for derivatization

(Section 11.2), or into a second clean 2-L

separatory funnel. Transfer the solvent to a

1000-mL K–D flask. It may be necessary to

pour the organic layer through a funnel

containing anhydrous sodium sulfate to

remove any traces of water from the extract.

11.3.2.5 The formation of emulsions can

be expected in any solvent extraction

procedure. If an emulsion forms, the

laboratory must take steps to break the

emulsion before proceeding. Mechanical

means of breaking the emulsion include the

use of a glass stirring rod, filtration through

glass wool, and other techniques. For

emulsions that resist these techniques,

centrifugation may be required.

If centrifugation is employed to break the

emulsion, drain the organic layer into a

centrifuge tube, cap the tube, and centrifuge

for two to three minutes or until the phases

separate. If the emulsion cannot be

completely broken, collect as much of the

organic phase as possible, and measure and

record the volume of the organic phase

collected. If all efforts to break the emulsion,

including centrifugation, fail and none of the

organic phase can be collected, proceed with

the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4.2).

However, use of the dilute aliquot will

sacrifice the sensitivity of the method, and

may not be appropriate in all cases.

11.3.2.6 If drained into a beaker, transfer

the aqueous layer to the 2-L separatory

funnel (Section 11.3.2.1). Perform a second

extraction using another 200 mL of fresh

solvent.

11.3.2.7 Transfer the extract to the 1000-

mL K–D flask in Section 11.3.2.4.

11.3.2.8 Perform a third extraction in the

same fashion as above.

11.3.2.9 Proceed with concentration of

the extract, as described in Section 11.4.

11.4 Macro concentration: Concentrate

the extracts in separate 1000-mL K–D flasks

equipped with 10-mL concentrator tubes.

Add one to two clean boiling chips to the

flask and attach a three-ball macro-Snyder

column. Prewet the column by adding

approximately 1 mL of hexane through the

top. Place the K–D apparatus in a hot water

bath so that the entire lower rounded surface

of the flask is bathed with steam. Adjust the

vertical position of the apparatus and the

water temperature as required to complete

the concentration in 15 to 20 minutes. At the

proper rate of distillation, the balls of the

column will actively chatter but the

chambers will not flood. When the liquid has

reached an apparent volume of 1 mL, remove

the K–D apparatus from the bath and allow

the solvent to drain and cool for at least 10

minutes. Remove the Snyder column and

rinse the flask and its lower joint into the

concentrator tube with 1 to 2 mL of hexane.

A 5-mL syringe is recommended for this

operation.

11.5 Micro-concentration: Final

concentration of the extracts may be

accomplished using either a micro-Snyder

column or nitrogen evaporation.

11.5.1 Micro-Snyder column: Add a clean

boiling chip and attach a two-ball microSnyder column to the concentrator tube.

Prewet the column by adding approximately

0.5 mL hexane through the top. Place the

apparatus in the hot water bath. Adjust the

vertical position and the water temperature

as required to complete the concentration in

5 to 10 minutes. At the proper rate of

distillation, the balls of the column will

actively chatter but the chambers will not

flood. When the liquid reaches an apparent

volume of approximately 0.2 mL, remove the

apparatus from the water bath and allow to

drain and cool for at least 10 minutes.

Remove the micro-Snyder column and rinse

its lower joint into the concentrator tube with

approximately 0.2 mL of hexane. Adjust to a

final volume of 0.5 mL.

11.5.2 Nitrogen evaporation: Transfer the

concentrator tube to a nitrogen evaporation
18742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

device and direct a gentle stream of clean dry

nitrogen into the concentrator. Rinse the

sides of the concentrator tube with small

volumes of hexane, and concentrate the

extract to a final volume of 0.5 mL.

11.6 Spike each extract with 10 μL of the

2,2′-difluorobiphenyl IIS (Section 7.10) and

transfer the concentrated extract to a clean

screw-cap vial using hexane to rinse the

concentrator tube. Seal the vial with a PTFElined lid, and mark the level on the vial.

Label with the sample number and store in

the dark at ¥20 to ¥10 °C until ready for

analysis.

12.0 GCMS Analysis

12.1 Establish the following operating

conditions:

Carrier gas flow: Helium at 30 cm/sec at 50 °C

Injector temperature: 300 °C

Initial temperature: 50 °C

Temperature program: 8 °C/min to 270 °C

Final hold: Until after 2,6-

dichlorosyringaldehyde elutes

Adjust the GC conditions to meet the

requirements in Section 9.6.1.1 and Table 2

for analyte separation and sensitivity. Once

optimized, the same GC conditions must be

used for the analysis of all standards, blanks,

IPR and OPR aliquots, and samples.

12.2 Bring the concentrated extract

(Section 11.6) or standard (Sections 7.13 and

7.14) to room temperature and verify that any

precipitate has redissolved. Verify the level

on the extract (Sections 7.13, 7.14, and 11.6)

and bring to the mark with solvent if

required.

12.3 Inject a 1-μL volume of the standard

solution or extract using on-column or

splitless injection. For 0.5 mL extracts, this

1-μL injection volume will contain 50 ng of

the DFB internal standard. If an injection

volume other than 1 μL is used, that volume

must contain 50 ng of DFB.

12.4 Start the GC column temperature

ramp upon injection. Start MS data collection

after the solvent peak elutes. Stop data

collection after the 2,6-

dichlorosyringaldehyde peak elutes. Return

the column to the initial temperature for

analysis of the next sample.

13.0 Analysis of Complex Samples

Some samples may contain high levels

(>1000 μg/L) of the compounds of interest,

interfering compounds, and/or other

phenolic materials. Some samples will not

concentrate to 0.5 mL (Section 11.5); others

will overload the GC column and/or mass

spectrometer; others may contain amounts of

phenols that may exceed the capacity of the

derivatizing agent.

13.1 Analyze the dilute aliquot (Section

11.1.4) when the sample will not concentrate

to 0.5 mL. If a dilute aliquot was not

extracted, and the sample holding time

(Section 8.4) has not been exceeded, dilute

an aliquot of sample with reagent water, and

derivatize and extract it (Section 11.1.4).

Otherwise, dilute the extract (Section 14.7.3)

and quantitate it by the internal standard

method (Section 14.3).

13.2 Recovery of the 2,2′-

difluorobiphenyl instrument internal

standard: The EICP area of the internal

standard should be within a factor of two of

the area in the OPR or VER standard (Section

9.6). If the absolute areas of the labeled

compounds and the SMIS are within a factor

of two of the respective areas in the OPR or

VER standard, and the DFB internal standard

area is less than one-half of its respective

area, then internal standard loss in the

extract has occurred. In this case, analyze the

extract from the dilute aliquot (Section

11.1.4).

13.3 Recovery of labeled compounds and

the sample matrix internal standard (SMIS):

SMIS and labeled compound recovery

specifications have been developed for

samples with and without the addition of

ascorbic acid. Compare the recoveries to the

appropriate limits in Table 5.

13.3.1 If SMIS or labeled compound

recoveries are outside the limits given in

Table 5 and the associated OPR analysis

meets the recovery criteria, the extract from

the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4) is analyzed

as in Section 14.7.

13.3.2 If labeled compound or SMIS

recovery is outside the limits given in Table

5 and the associated OPR analysis did not

meet recovery criteria, a problem in the

derivatization/extraction/concentration of the

sample is indicated, and the sample must be

rederivatized and reanalyzed.

14.0 Data Analysis and Calculations

14.1 Qualitative determination:

Identification is accomplished by comparison

of data from analysis of a sample or blank

with data stored in the mass spectral

libraries. Identification of a compound is

confirmed when the following criteria are

met:

14.1.1 The signals for m/z 43 (to indicate

the presence of the acetyl derivative) and all

characteristic m/z’s stored in the spectral

library (Section 10.2.4) shall be present and

shall maximize within the same two

consecutive scans.

14.1.2 Either (1) the background corrected

EICP areas, or (2) the corrected relative

intensities of the mass spectral peaks at the

GC peak maximum shall agree within a factor

of two (0.5 to 2 times) for all m/z’s stored in

the library.

14.1.3 The relative retention time shall be

within the window specified in Table 2.

14.1.4 The m/z’s present in the mass

spectrum from the component in the sample

that are not present in the reference mass

spectrum shall be accounted for by

contaminant or background ions. If the mass

spectrum is contaminated, an experienced

spectrometrist (Section 1.4) shall determine

the presence or absence of the compound.

14.2 Quantitative determination by

isotope dilution: By adding a known amount

of a labeled compound to every sample prior

to derivatization and extraction, correction

for recovery of the pollutant can be made

because the pollutant and its labeled analog

exhibit the same effects upon derivatization,

extraction, concentration, and gas

chromatography. Relative response (RR)

values for sample mixtures are used in

conjunction with calibration curves

described in Section 10.4 to determine

concentrations directly, so long as labeled

compound spiking levels are constant. For

the phenol example given in Figure 1

(Section 10.4.1), RR would be equal to 1.114.

For this RR value, the phenol calibration

curve given in Figure 1 indicates a

concentration of 27 μg/mL in the sample

extract (Cex).

14.2.1 Compute the concentration in the

extract using the response ratio determined

from calibration data (Section 10.4) and the

following equation:

C g mL A C A RR ex n l l ( ) / μ = × ( ) ( ) ×

Where:

Cex = concentration of the pollutant in the

extract.

An = area of the characteristic m/z for the

pollutant.

Cl = concentration of the labeled compound

in the extract.

Al = area of the characteristic m/z for the

labeled compound.

RR = response ratio from the initial

calibration.

14.2.2 For the IPR (Section 9.3.2) and

OPR (Section 9.6), compute the percent

recovery of each pollutant using the equation

in Section 14.6. The percent recovery is used

for the evaluation of method and laboratory

performance, in the form of IPR (Section

9.3.2) and OPR (Section 9.6).

14.3 Quantitative determination by

internal standard: Compute the concentration

using the response factor determined from

calibration data (Section 10.5) and the

following equation:

C g mL A C A RF ex s is is ( ) / μ = × ( ) ( ) ×

Where:

Cex = concentration of the pollutant in the

extract.

As = area of the characteristic m/z for the

pollutant.

Cis = concentration of the internal standard

in the extract (see note below).

Ais = area of the characteristic m/z for the

internal standard.

RF = response factor from the initial

calibration.

Note: When this equation is used to

compute the extract concentrations of native

compounds without labeled analogs, use the

area (Ais) and concentration (Cis) of 3,4,5-

trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal

standard.

For the IPR (Section 9.3.2) and OPR

(Section 9.6), compute the percent recovery

using the equation in Section 14.6.

Note: Separate calibration curves will be

required for samples with and without the

addition of ascorbic acid, and also for both

extraction procedures (stir-bar and separatory

funnel) where applicable.

14.4 Compute the concentration of the

labeled compounds and the SMIS using the

equation in Section 14.3, but using the area

and concentration of the 2,2′-

difluorobiphenyl as the internal standard,

and the area of the labeled compound or

SMIS as As.

14.5 Compute the concentration of each

pollutant compound in the sample using the

following equation:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18743

C g L

C V

V s

ex ex

o

= = ( ) ×( ) μ

Where:

Cs = Concentration of the pollutant in the

sample.

Cex = Concentration of the pollutant in the

extract.

Vex = Volume of the concentrated extract

(typically 0.5 mL).

Vo = Volume of the original sample in liters.

14.6 Compute the recovery of each

labeled compound and the SMIS as the ratio

of concentration (or amount) found to the

concentration (or amount) spiked, using the

following equation:

Percent recovery = Concentration found

Concentration spiked

×100

These percent recoveries are used to assess

method performance according to Sections 9

and 13.

14.7 If the EICP area at the quantitation

m/z for any compound exceeds the

calibration range of the system, three

approaches are used to obtain results within

the calibration range.

14.7.1 If the recoveries of all the labeled

compounds in the original sample aliquot

meet the limits in Table 5, then the extract

of the sample may be diluted by a maximum

of a factor of 10, and the diluted extract

reanalyzed.

14.7.2 If the recovery of any labeled

compound is outside its limits in Table 5, or

if a tenfold dilution of the extract will not

bring the pollutant within the calibration

range, then extract and analyze a dilute

aliquot of the sample (Section 11). Dilute 100

mL, 10 mL, or an appropriate volume of

sample to 1000 mL with reagent water and

extract per Section 11.

14.7.3 If the recoveries of all labeled

compounds in the original sample aliquot

(Section 14.7.1) meet the limits in Table 5,

and if the sample holding time has been

exceeded, then the original sample extract is

diluted by successive factors of 10, the DFB

internal standard is added to give a

concentration of 50 μg/mL in the diluted

extract, and the diluted extract is analyzed.

Quantitation of all analytes is performed

using the DFB internal standard.

14.7.4 If the recoveries of all labeled

compounds in the original sample aliquot

(Section 14.7.1) or in the dilute aliquot

(Section 14.7.2) (if a dilute aliquot was

analyzed) do not meet the limits in Table 5,

and if the holding time has been exceeded,

re-sampling is required.

14.8 Results are reported for all

pollutants, labeled compounds, and the

sample matrix internal standard in standards,

blanks, and samples, in units of μg/L.

14.8.1 Results for samples which have

been diluted are reported at the least dilute

level at which the area at the quantitation m/

z is within the calibration range (Section

14.7).

14.8.2 For compounds having a labeled

analog, results are reported at the least dilute

level at which the area at the quantitation m/

z is within the calibration range (Section

14.7) and the labeled compound recovery is

within the normal range for the method

(Section 13.3).

15.0 Method Performance

15.1 Single laboratory performance for

this method is detailed in References 1, 2,

and 11. Acceptance criteria were established

from multiple laboratory use of the draft

method.

15.2 A chromatogram of the ongoing

precision and recovery standard (Section

7.14) is shown in Figure 4.

16.0 Pollution Prevention

16.1 The solvents used in this method

pose little threat to the environment when

recycled and managed properly.

16.2 Standards should be prepared in

volumes consistent with laboratory use to

minimize the volume of expired standards to

be disposed.

17.0 Waste Management

17.1 It is the laboratory’s responsibility to

comply with all federal, state, and local

regulations governing waste management,

particularly the hazardous waste

identification rules and land disposal

restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and

land by minimizing and controlling all

releases from fume hoods and bench

operations. Compliance with all sewage

discharge permits and regulations is also

required.

17.2 Samples preserved with HCl or

H2SO4 to pH < 2 are hazardous and must be

neutralized before being disposed, or must be

handled as hazardous waste.

17.3 For further information on waste

management, consult ‘‘The Waste

Management Manual for Laboratory

Personnel’’, and ‘‘Less is Better: Laboratory

Chemical Management for Waste Reduction’’,

both available from the American Chemical

Society’s Department of Government

Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th

Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

18.0 References

18.1 ‘‘Chlorinated Phenolics in Water by

In Situ Acetylation/GC/MS Determination,’’

Method CP–86.01, National Council of the

Paper Industry for Air and Stream

Improvement, Inc., 260 Madison Avenue,

New York, NY 10016 (July 1986).

18.2 ‘‘6240-Chlorinated Phenolics

(Interim Standard),’’ Draft Version, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Manchester Laboratory, Manchester,

Washington.

18.3 ‘‘Performance Tests for the

Evaluation of Computerized Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

Equipment and Laboratories,’’ USEPA, EMSL

Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA–600/4–80–025

(April 1980).

18.4 ‘‘Working with Carcinogens,’’

DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, Publication 77–

206 (August 1977).

18.5 ‘‘OSHA Safety and Health

Standards, General Industry,’’ OSHA 2206,

29 CFR 1910 (January 1976).

18.6 ‘‘Safety in Academic Chemistry

Laboratories,’’ ACS Committee on Chemical

Safety (1979).

18.7 ‘‘Interlaboratory Validation of U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency Method

1625A, Addendum Report,’’ SRI

International, Prepared for Analysis and

Evaluation Division (WH–557), USEPA, 401

M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 (January

1985).

18.8 ‘‘Handbook of Analytical Quality

Control in Water and Wastewater

Laboratories,’’ USEPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH

45268, EPA–600/4–79–019 (March 1979).

18.9 ‘‘Standard Practice for Sampling

Water,’’ ASTM Annual Book of Standards,

ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 76 (1980).

18.10 ‘‘Methods 330.4 and 330.5 for Total

Residual Chlorine,’’ USEPA, EMSL,

Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4–70–020

(March 1979).

18.11 ‘‘Determination of Chlorophenolics,

Special Analytical Services Contract 1047,

Episode 1886,’’ Analytical Technologies, Inc.,

Prepared for W. A. Telliard, Industrial

Technology Division (WH–552), USEPA, 401

M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 (June

1990).

18.12 ‘‘Determination of Chlorophenolics

by GCMS, Development of Method 1653,’’

Analytical Technologies, Inc., Prepared for

W. A. Telliard, Industrial Technology

Division (WH–552), USEPA, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, DC 20460 (May 1991).

19.0 Tables and Figures
18744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—CHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDS DETERMINED BY GCMS USING ISOTOPE DILUTION AND INTERNAL STANDARD

TECHNIQUES

Compound

Pollutant Labeled compound

CAS registry EPA–EGD Analog CAS registry EPA–EGD

4-chlorophenol ...................................................................................... 106–48–9 1001

2,4-dichlorophenol ................................................................................ 120–83–2 1002 d3 93951–74–7 1102

2,6-dichlorophenol ................................................................................ 87–65–0 1003

2,4,5-trichlorophenol ............................................................................. 95–95–4 1004

2,4,6-trichlorophenol ............................................................................. 88–06–2 1005

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...................................................................... 58–90–2 1006

pentachlorophenol ................................................................................ 87–86–5 1007 13C6 85380–74–1 1107

4-chloroguaiacol ................................................................................... 16766–30–6 1008 13C6 136955–39–0 1108

3,4-dichloroguaiacol .............................................................................. 77102–94–4 1009

4,5-dichloroguaiacol .............................................................................. 2460–49–3 1010

4,6-dichloroguaiacol .............................................................................. 16766–31–7 1011

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................... 57057–83–7 1012

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................... 60712–44–9 1013

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................... 2668–24–8 1014 13C6 136955–40–3 1114

tetrachloroguaiacol ............................................................................... 2539–17–5 1015 13C6 136955–41–4 1115

4-chlorocatechol ................................................................................... 2138–22–9 1016

3,4-dichlorocatechol .............................................................................. 3978–67–4 1017

3,6-dichlorocatechol .............................................................................. 3938–16–7 1018

4,5-dichlorocatechol .............................................................................. 3428–24–8 1019 13C6 136955–42–5 1119

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol .......................................................................... 56961–20–7 1020

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol .......................................................................... 32139–72–3 1021

tetrachlorocatechol ............................................................................... 1198–55–6 1022 13C6 136955–43–6 1122

5-chlorovanillin ...................................................................................... 19463–48–0 1023 13C6 136955–44–7 1123

6-chlorovanillin ...................................................................................... 18268–76–3 1024

5,6-dichlorovanillin ................................................................................ 18268–69–4 1025

2-chlorosyringaldehyde ......................................................................... 76341–69–0 1026

2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ................................................................... 76330–06–8 1027

trichlorosyringol ..................................................................................... 2539–26–6 1028

Sample matrix internal standard (SMIS)

3,4,5-trichlorophenol ............................................................................. 609–19–8 184

Instrument internal standard (IIS)

2,2’-difluorobiphenyl .............................................................................. 388–82–9 164

TABLE 2.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY AND METHOD DETECTION LIMITS FOR CHLOROPHENOLICS

EGD No.1 Compound

Retention

time mean

(sec) 2

EGD

ref No.

RRT

window 3

Minimum

level 4 (μg/L)

MDL 5

(μg/L)

1001 ............. 4-chlorophenol ......................................................... 691 184 0.651–0.681 1.25 1.11

1003 ............. 2,6-dichlorophenol ................................................... 796 184 0.757–0.779 2.5 1.39

1102 ............. 2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ............................................... 818 164 0.986–0.998

1202 ............. 2,4-dichlorophenol ................................................... 819 1102 0.997–1.006 2.5 0.15

164 ............... 2,2’-difluorobiphenyl (I.S.) ........................................ 825 164 1.000

1108 ............. 4-chloroguaiacol-13C6 ............................................... 900 164 1.077–1.103

1208 ............. 4-chloroguaiacol ....................................................... 900 1108 0.998–1.002 1.25 0.09

1005 ............. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ................................................ 920 184 0.879–0.895 2.5 0.71

1004 ............. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ................................................ 979 184 0.936–0.952 2.5 0.57

1016 ............. 4-chlorocatechol ....................................................... 1004 184 0.961–0.975 1.25 0.59

1011 ............. 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ................................................. 1021 184 0.979–0.991 2.5 0.45

1009 ............. 3,4-dichloroguaiacol ................................................. 1029 184 0.986–0.998 2.5 0.52

184 ............... 3,4,5-trichlorophenol (I.S.) ....................................... 1037 164 1.242–1.272

1010 ............. 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ................................................. 1071 184 1.026–1.040 2.5 0.52

1018 ............. 3,6-dichlorocatechol ................................................. 1084 184 1.037–1.053 2.5 0.57

1006 ............. 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ......................................... 1103 184 1.050–1.078 2.5 0.38

1123 ............. 5-chlorovanillin-13C6 ................................................. 1111 164 1.327–1.367

1223 ............. 5-chlorovanillin ......................................................... 1111 1123 0.998–1.001 2.5 1.01

1013 ............. 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .............................................. 1118 184 1.066–1.090 2.5 0.46

1024 ............. 6-chlorovanillin ......................................................... 1122 184 1.070–1.094 2.5 0.94

1017 ............. 3,4-dichlorocatechol ................................................. 1136 184 1.083–1.105 2.5 0.60

1119 ............. 4,5-dichlorocatechol-13C6 ......................................... 1158 164 1.384–1.424

1219 ............. 4,5-dichlorocatechol ................................................. 1158 1119 0.998–1.001 2.5 0.24

1012 ............. 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol .............................................. 1177 184 1.120–1.160 2.5 0.49

1114 ............. 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol-13C6 ...................................... 1208 164 1.444–1.484

1214 ............. 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol .............................................. 1208 1114 0.998–1.002 2.5 0.25

1021 ............. 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol .............................................. 1213 184 1.155–1.185 5.0 0.44

1025 ............. 5,6-dichlorovanillin ................................................... 1246 184 1.182–1.222 5.0 0.80
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18745

TABLE 2.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY AND METHOD DETECTION LIMITS FOR CHLOROPHENOLICS—Continued

EGD No.1 Compound

Retention

time mean

(sec) 2

EGD

ref No.

RRT

window 3

Minimum

level 4 (μg/L)

MDL 5

(μg/L)

1026 ............. 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ............................................ 1255 184 1.190–1.230 2.5 0.87

1107 ............. pentachlorophenol-13C6 ........................................... 1267 164 1.511–1.561

1207 ............. pentachlorophenol ................................................... 1268 1107 0.998–1.002 5.0 0.28

1020 ............. 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol .............................................. 1268 184 1.208–1.238 5.0 0.53

1115 ............. tetrachloroguaiacol-13C6 ........................................... 1289 164 1.537–1.587

1215 ............. tetrachloroguaiacol ................................................... 1290 1115 0.998–1.002 5.0 0.23

1028 ............. trichlorosyringol ........................................................ 1301 184 1.240–1.270 2.5 0.64

1122 ............. tetrachlorocatechol-13C6 ........................................... 1365 164 1.630–1.690

1222 ............. tetrachlorocatechol ................................................... 1365 1122 0.998–1.002 5.0 0.76

1027 ............. 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ...................................... 1378 184 1.309–1.349 5.0 1.13

1Four digit numbers beginning with 10 indicate a pollutant quantified by the internal standard method; four digit numbers beginning with 11 indicate a labeled compound quantified by the internal standard method; four digit numbers beginning with 12 indicate a pollutant quantified by isotope dilution. 2The retention times in this column are based on data from a single laboratory (reference 12), utilizing the GC conditions in Section 11.

3 Relative retention time windows are estimated from EPA Method 1625.

4The minimum level (ML) is defined as the level at which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte. It is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard, assuming that all method-specified sample

weights, volumes, and cleanup procedures have been employed. 5 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B; from reference 2.

TABLE 3.—DFTPP MASS INTENSITY SPECIFICATIONS 1

Mass Intensity required

51 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 to 82% of m/z 198.

68 ........................................................................................................................................................................... Less than 2% of m/z 69.

69 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11 to 91% of m/z 198.

70 ........................................................................................................................................................................... Less than 2% of m/z 69.

127 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 to 59% of m/z 198.

197 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Less than 1% of m/z 198.

198 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Base peak, 100% abundance.

199 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 to 9% of m/z 198.

275 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 to 30% of m/z 198.

441 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 to 110% of m/z 443.

442 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 to 86% of m/z 198.

443 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 to 24% of m/z 442.

1 Reference 7.

TABLE 4.—CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S OF CHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDS

Compound Primary m/z

4-chlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 128

2,4-dichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................................................ 162

2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 167

2,6-dichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................................................ 162

2,4,5-trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................................ 196

2,4,6-trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................................ 196

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ..................................................................................................................................................................... 232

pentachlorophenol ................................................................................................................................................................................ 266

pentachlorophenol¥13C6 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 272

4-chloroguaiacol ................................................................................................................................................................................... 158

4-chloroguaiacol¥13C6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 164

3,4-dichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 192

4,5-dichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 192

4,6-dichloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 192

3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 226

3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 226

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 226

4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol¥13C6 ................................................................................................................................................................ 234

tetrachloroguaiacol ............................................................................................................................................................................... 262

tetrachloroguaiacol¥13C6 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 268

4-chlorocatechol ................................................................................................................................................................................... 144

3,4-dichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 178

3,6-dichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 178

4,5-dichlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................................................. 178

4,5-dichlorocatechol¥13C6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 184

3,4,5-trichlorocatechol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 212

3,4,6-trichlorocatechol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 212
18746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4.—CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S OF CHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDS—Continued

Compound Primary m/z

tetrachlorocatechol ............................................................................................................................................................................... 248

tetrachlorocatechol¥13C6 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 254

5-chlorovanillin ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 186

5-chlorovanillin¥13C6 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 192

6-chlorovanillin ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 186

5,6-dichlorovanillin ............................................................................................................................................................................... 220

2-chlorosyringaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................................................ 216

2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde .................................................................................................................................................................. 250

trichlorosyringol .................................................................................................................................................................................... 256

Sample Matrix Internal Standard (SMIS)

3,4,5-trichlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................................ 196

Instrument Internal Standard (IIS)

2,2′-difluorobiphenyl ............................................................................................................................................................................. 190

TABLE 5.—ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS 1

EGD No.2 Compound

Test

conc.3

(μg/mL)

Initial precision and

recovery sec. 9.3.2

(percent) Ongoing

recovery

sec. 9.6

(percent)

Labeled compound

and SMIS recovery

sec. 9.4 and 14.6

s X

With

ascorbic

acid P

(%)

Without

ascorbic

acid P

(%)

1001 ................. 4-chlorophenol .............................................................................................. 25 64 72–144 40–236

1202 ................. 2,4-dichlorophenol ........................................................................................ 50 14 84–120 84–118

1102 ................. 2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ................................................................................... 25 54 64–160 56–170 58–135 27–143

1003 ................. 2,6-dichlorophenol ........................................................................................ 50 20 66–148 58–170

1004 ................. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ..................................................................................... 50 14 78–140 82–128

1005 ................. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ..................................................................................... 50 20 72–142 72–146

1006 ................. 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol .............................................................................. 50 14 80–132 82–132

1207 ................. pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................ 100 6 90–111 84–120

1107 ................. pentachlorophenol-13C6 ................................................................................ 25 21 58–169 61–157 8–143 27–167

1208 ................. 4-chloroguaiacol ........................................................................................... 25 20 88–120 88–120

1108 ................. 4-chloroguaiacol-13C6 ................................................................................... 25 104 68–148 64–152 59–121 43–168

1009 ................. 3,4-dichloroguaiaco4 .................................................................................... 50 18 80–126 82–126

1010 ................. 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ..................................................................................... 50 14 82–121 80–128

1011 ................. 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ..................................................................................... 50 16 82–126 86–120

1012 ................. 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................. 50 16 78–130 80–134

1013 ................. 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................. 50 16 64–152 74–140

1214 ................. 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol .................................................................................. 50 14 92–106 88–116

1114 ................. 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol-13C6 .......................................................................... 25 48 66–146 74–140 48–131 51–139

1215 ................. tetrachloroguaiacol ....................................................................................... 100 7 84–115 81–126

1115 ................. tetrachloroguaiacol-13C6 ............................................................................... 25 22 57–173 65–161 35–120 27–161

1016 ................. 4-chlorocatechol ........................................................................................... 25 48 76–140 80–124

1017 ................. 3,4-dichlorocatechol ..................................................................................... 50 24 66–154 78–134

1018 ................. 3,6-dichlorocatechol ..................................................................................... 50 16 78–136 84–126

1219 ................. 4,5-dichlorocatechol ..................................................................................... 50 8 84–118 86–122

1119 ................. 4,5-dichlorocatechol-13C6 ............................................................................. 25 78 68–144 66–142 33–129 0–190

1020 ................. 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol .................................................................................. 100 17 60–166 72–128

1021 ................. 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol 4 ................................................................................ 100 17 74–138 64–149

1222 ................. tetrachlorocatechol ....................................................................................... 100 29 46–234 81–132

1122 ................. tetrachlorocatechol-13C6 ............................................................................... 25 39 48–227 63–152 14–118 0–184

1223 ................. 5-chlorovanillin .............................................................................................. 50 20 94–208 84–118

1123 ................. 5-chlorovanillin-13C6 ..................................................................................... 25 84 68–160 70–144 51–126 32–254

1024 ................. 6-chlorovanillin .............................................................................................. 50 22 82–128 80–126

1025 ................. 5,6-dichlorovanillin ........................................................................................ 100 9 67–146 77–140

1026 ................. 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ................................................................................ 50 28 76–130 72–156

1027 ................. 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ........................................................................... 100 14 82–129 60–183

1028 ................. trichlorosyringol ............................................................................................ 50 18 76–136 66–174

Sample Matrix Internal Standard

184 ................... 3,4,5-trichlorophenol ..................................................................................... 100 47 62–185 68–144 56–116 24–167

1Specifications derived from multi-laboratory testing of draft method.

2Four-digit numbers beginning with 10 indicate a pollutant quantified by the internal standard method; four-digit numbers beginning with 11 indicate a labeled compound quantified by the internal standard method; four-digit numbers beginning with 12 indicate a pollutant quantified by isotope dilution. 3Test concentrations are in units of μg/mL. 4Specification derived from isomer.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18747
18748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18749
18750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 18751

20.0 Glossary of Definitions and Purposes

These definitions and purposes are specific

to this method but have been conformed to

common usage as much as possible.

20.1 Units of weight and measure and

their abbreviations

20.1.1 Symbols.

°C degrees Celsius

μL microliter

< less than

> greater than

% percent

20.1.2 Alphabetical characters.

cm centimeter

g gram

h hour

ID inside diameter

in. inch

L liter

M Molecular ion

m meter

mg milligram

min minute

mL milliliter

mm millimeter

m/z mass-to-charge ratio

N normal; gram molecular weight of solute

divided by hydrogen equivalent of solute,

per liter of solution

OD outside diameter

pg picogram

ppb part-per-billion

ppm part-per-million

ppt part-per-trillion

psig pounds-per-square inch gauge

v/v volume per unit volume

w/v weight per unit volume

20.2 Definitions and acronyms (in

alphabetical order).

Analyte: A chlorophenolic tested for by

this method.

The analytes are listed in Table 1.

Calibration standard (CAL): A solution

prepared from a secondary standard and/or

stock solutions and used to calibrate the

response of the instrument with respect to

analyte concentration.

Calibration verification standard (VER):

The mid-point calibration standard (CS3) that

is used to verify calibration. See Table 4.

Chlorophenolics: collectively, the analytes

listed in Table 1.

CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5: See Calibration

standards and Table 4.

Field blank: An aliquot of reagent water or

other reference matrix that is placed in a

sample container in the laboratory or the

field, and treated as a sample in all respects,

including exposure to sampling site

conditions, storage, preservation, and all

analytical procedures. The purpose of the

field blank is to determine if the field or

sample transporting procedures and

environments have contaminated the sample.

GC: Gas chromatograph or gas

chromatography.

HRGC: High resolution GC.

IPR: Initial precision and recovery; four

aliquots of the diluted PAR standard

analyzed to establish the ability to generate

acceptable precision and accuracy. An IPR is

performed prior to the first time this method

is used and any time the method or

instrumentation is modified.

K–D: Kuderna-Danish concentrator; a

device used to concentrate the analytes in a

solvent.

Laboratory blank: See Method blank.

Laboratory control sample (LCS): See

Ongoing precision and recovery standard

(OPR).

Laboratory reagent blank: See Method

blank.

May: This action, activity, or procedural

step is neither required nor prohibited.

May not: This action, activity, or

procedural step is prohibited.

Method blank: An aliquot of reagent water

that is treated exactly as a sample including

exposure to all glassware, equipment,

solvents, reagents, internal standards, and

surrogates that are used with samples. The

method blank is used to determine if analytes

or interferences are present in the laboratory

environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Minimum level (ML): The level at which

the entire analytical system must give a

recognizable signal and acceptable

calibration point for the analyte. It is

equivalent to the concentration of the lowest

calibration standard, assuming that all

method-specified sample weights, volumes,

and cleanup procedures have been

employed.

MS: Mass spectrometer or mass

spectrometry.

Must: This action, activity, or procedural

step is required.

OPR: Ongoing precision and recovery

standard (OPR); a laboratory blank spiked

with known quantities of analytes. The OPR

is analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose

is to assure that the results produced by the

laboratory remain within the limits specified

in this method for precision and recovery.

PAR: Precision and recovery standard;

secondary standard that is diluted and spiked

to form the IPR and OPR.

Preparation blank: See Method blank.

Primary dilution standard: A solution

containing the specified analytes that is

purchased or prepared from stock solutions

and diluted as needed to prepare calibration

solutions and other solutions.

Quality control check sample (QCS): A

sample containing all or a subset of the

analytes at known concentrations. The QCS

is obtained from a source external to the

laboratory or is prepared from a source of

standards different from the source of

calibration standards. It is used to check

laboratory performance with test materials

prepared external to the normal preparation

process.

Reagent water: Water demonstrated to be

free from the analytes of interest and

potentially interfering substances at the

method detection limit for the analyte.

Relative standard deviation (RSD): The

standard deviation times 100 divided by the

mean.

RF: Response factor. See Section 10.5.1.

RR: Relative response. See Section 10.4.4.

RSD: See Relative standard deviation.

Should: This action, activity, or procedural

step is suggested but not required.

Stock solution: A solution containing an

analyte that is prepared using a reference

material traceable to EPA, the National

Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),

or a source that will attest to the purity and

authenticity of the reference material.

VER: See Calibration verification standard.

[FR Doc. 98–9613 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P