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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL--6157-1]

RIN 2060-AH74

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; interpretation and technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has

promulgated standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S (63 FR 18504, April

15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the

pulp and paper production source category. This rule is known as

[[Page 49456]]

the Pulp and Paper national emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) and is the air component of the integrated air and

water rules for the pulp and paper industry, commonly known as the Pulp

and Paper Cluster Rules.

Today's action makes interpretive amendments to certain regulatory

text in the NESHAP regarding the applicability of a 10 percent excess

emissions allowance for condensate treatment systems. The EPA is making

these amendments in response to inquiries received since publication of

the final standards on April 15, 1998.

DATES: These amendments are effective September 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Air Docket. Docket A-92-40, containing the supporting

information for the original NESHAP and this action, is available for

public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,

or by calling (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above

address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emissions Standards

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5397. For questions

on compliance and applicability determinations, contact Mr. Seth

Heminway, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460, telephone number (202) 564-7017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

The entities potentially affected by this action include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

Industry.................................. Pulp mills and integrated

mills (mills that

manufacture pulp and paper/

paperboard) that chemically

pulp wood fiber using the

kraft process.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the

amendments to the regulation affected by this action. To determine

whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in 63, subparts A and S of Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Informational Contacts

If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to

a particular situation, or questions about compliance approaches,

permitting, enforcement and rule determinations, please contact the

appropriate regional representative below:

Region I:

Greg Roscoe, Chief, Air Pesticides & Toxics Enforcement Office, Office

of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal Building

(SEA), Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3221 Technical Contact for

Applicabilty Determination, Susan Lancey, (617) 565-3587, (617) 565-

4940 Fax

Region II:

Mosey Ghaffari, Air Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3925, (212) 637-3998 Fax

Region III:

Makeba Morris, U.S. EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2187

Region IV:

Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 100 Alabama

Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9131

Region V:

Christina Prasinos (AE-17J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson

Street, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-6819 (312) 353-8289

Region VI:

Michelle Kelly, Air Enforcement Branch (6EN-AA), U.S. EPA, Region VI,

Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733 (214) 665-7580,

(214) 665-7446 Fax

Region VII:

Gary Schlicht, Air Permits and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII,

ARTD/APCO, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7097

Region VIII:

Tami Thomas-Burton, Air Toxics Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region VIII,

Suite 500, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466 (303) 312-6581, (303)

312-6064 Fax

Region IX:

Ken Bigos, U.S. EPA, Region IX, A-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA (415) 744-1240

Region X:

Andrea Wallenweber, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760, (206) 553-0404

Fax

Technology Transfer Network

The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic

bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange

in various areas of air pollution control. New air regulations are now

being posted on the TTN through the world wide web at ``http://

www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line

at (919) 591-5384.

Outline

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations

II. Administrative

III. Legal Authority

I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations

In today's action, the EPA is amending Sec. 63.446(g) to make clear

the EPA's original intent regarding the applicability of the 10 percent

excess emissions allowance to control devices used to treat kraft pulp

mill condensates to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.446(e)(3)

through (e)(5). The EPA made clear in the April 15, 1998 preamble at 63

FR 18529-30 that based on data submitted by the pulp and paper

industry, EPA has concluded that some allowance for excess emissions is

part of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor level of

control. EPA did not qualify this statement by saying that only

particular technologies would require some type of allowance for excess

emissions.

The EPA had previously shown (61 FR 9390-91, March 8, 1996) that

the MACT floor level of control for pulping condensates at both

bleached and unbleached kraft mills is treating the condensate streams

to remove 92 percent of the HAP content (measured as methanol), or

equivalently, to achieve an outlet concentration of less than 330 and

210 parts per million by weight (ppmw) measured as methanol or remove

9.2 and 5.9 pounds of methanol per air dried ton of pulp (10.2 and 6.6

pounds of methanol per oven dried ton of pulp (ODP) basis in the final

rule) across the control device, respectively

[[Page 49457]]

for bleached and unbleached wastewater streams. The MACT floor control

technology basis for these treatment options is steam stripping. Since

steam stripping is the MACT floor control technology basis for the

treatment requirements, the EPA also based the excess emissions

allowance on steam stripping and determined that to be 10 percent.

Therefore, the MACT floor-level of control is a combination of

treatment requirements and an excess emissions allowance. The

discussion in the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice at 61 FR 9390

further states that ``The rule would allow mills to: (1) Choose any

wastewater treatment device as long as the device achieves one of the

three parameters . . .'' (percent removal, ppmw outlet concentration,

or mass per ODP removal).

The April 15, 1998 preamble and the March 8, 1996 supplemental

notice clearly show that the EPA's intent was to provide mills

flexibility in what control technology is used and what treatment

option (set out at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5)) is selected to

comply with the MACT requirements for condensate treatment. Since the

MACT requirements are a combination of treatment requirements and a

downtime allowance, it is reasonable to interpret that any control

device meeting the MACT requirements would be permissible--and this in

fact is what EPA intended. However, the rule language is at variance

with this preamble language because it limits the availability of the

10 percent excess emissions allowance to steam strippers complying only

with the 92 percent methanol removal option. Since this rule language

does not reflect EPA's intent (as shown in the preambles, as just

discussed), EPA is correcting the rule language in today's notice.

The preamble to the final NESHAP at 63 FR 18529-30 describes excess

emission allowances to include periods when the control device is

inoperable and when the operating parameter values established during

the initial performance test cannot be maintained at the appropriate

level. The preamble further explains that the 10 percent excess

emissions for condensate treatment includes periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction allowances of the General Provisions to part

63. Since the MACT floor (both the treatment level and the excess

emissions allowance) was based on steam stripping, the EPA discussed in

the preamble likely problems that would necessitate an excess emissions

allowance in the context of steam stripping operations. These were

given as steam stripper downtime as a result of damage to the steam

stripping system and loss of treatment efficiency resulting primarily

from contamination of condensate with carryover of fiber or black

liquor, steam supply downtime, and combustion control device downtime.

(Control device downtime is a factor because the steam stripper should

not be operated during periods when the stripper system vents cannot be

routed to a control device). The EPA believes that these types of

problems would necessitate this same downtime allowance, even with

control devices other than steam strippers. An exception to this is

where a mill elects to treat the condensate by discharging it below the

liquid surface of a biological treatment system (see Sec. 63.446(e)(2))

that is part of their wastewater treatment plant. These types of

biological treatment systems are different than steam strippers and

other control devices in terms of their excess emissions allowance

needs for several reasons. First, steam strippers and most other

control devices are typically located in or near the process, may be

integrated into part of the process, and treat primarily, and usually

exclusively, condensates. All of these factors make the control device

vulnerable to downtime periods, even at the best operating mills. A

similar concept of downtime does not translate to biological wastewater

treatment systems, which accept wastewaters from all over the mill and

must be up and running at all times to comply with National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the Clean Water

Act. Second, at steam strippers and other in-process type condensate

control devices, periods when the operating parameter values

(established during the initial performance test) cannot be maintained

at the appropriate level count toward the 10 percent excess emissions

allowance; however, for reasons set forth in the preamble at 63 FR

18523-24, biological wastewater treatment units are provided a unique

set of parameter excursion provisions at Sec. 63.453(p). Therefore,

since the reasons for providing the 10 percent excess emissions

allowance do not fit the biological wastewater treatment scenario and

since the rule sets forth separate operating parameter excursion

provisions for biological wastewater treatment, the EPA believes that

it is reasonable to interpret the rule such that the 10 percent excess

emissions allowance does not apply to biological wastewater treatment

and is correcting the rule in today's action to reflect this

interpretation.

Finally, since promulgation of the NESHAP, the EPA has become aware

that there is some confusion over what is meant in the rule by the term

``biological treatment'' since the industry uses the term to refer to

two different types of units. Today's action provides guidance but no

rule changes to clarify how the rule applies to these two types of

units. The issue has been raised by companies considering anaerobic

biological treatment systems instead of steam strippers to comply with

the condensate treatment requirements. The term, as used in the rule

(see Secs. 63.446(e)(2); 63.453(j) and (p); and 63.457(l)), refers to

systems installed as part of the mill's wastewater treatment system

primarily for purposes of complying with NPDES requirements under the

Clean Water Act. The units are characteristically open to the

atmosphere, require modeling in lieu of direct air emissions

measurement during the initial performance test, and handle all of the

mill's wastewater. These biological treatment systems are different

than in-process type biological treatment systems, such as enclosed

anaerobic treatment systems that can be directly measured for air

emissions during the initial performance test and that would be

installed primarily to treat condensate streams subject to the final

pulp and paper NESHAP. This type of anaerobic system would be used

instead of a steam stripper to comply with the treatment requirements

at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5) and thus, the excess emissions

allowance at Sec. 63.446(g) would apply, but (correspondingly) the

operating parameter excursion provisions for biological wastewater

treatment systems at Sec. 63.453(p) would not apply. Also, it is

important to note that since this anaerobic treatment system is serving

the same function as a steam stripper (i.e. treatment of pulping

condensates), it meets the rule definition of low volume high

concentration system equipment and is thus subject to all of the

pulping system requirements at Sec. 63.443.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information requirements of the previously promulgated NESHAP

were submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on April 27, 1998 under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from

Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

[[Page 49458]]

Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information requirements are

not effective until OMB approves them.

Today's amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on the

information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes

are interpretations of requirements and are not additional

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the

proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject

to the OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The

Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely

to lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

The NESHAP subpart S rule published on April 15, 1998, was

considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and a regulatory

impact analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments published today

interpret the rule. The OMB has evaluated this action, and determined

it to be nonsignificant; thus it did not require their review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

Today's action is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking

requirements and therefore is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. However, for the reasons discussed in the April 15, 1998 Federal

Register (63 FR 18611-12), this rule does not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities. The changes to the rule in

today's action do not add new control requirements to the April 15,

1998 rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), the EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-

effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the

rule.

The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

While the final rule published on April 15, 1998 does not create

mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, EPA involved State

and local governments in its development. Because the final regulation

imposes costs to the private sector in excess of $100 million, the EPA

pursued the preparation of an unfunded mandates statement and the other

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Because today's

action interprets the requirements of the final rule, today's action

does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal governments.

Today's action does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to today's action.

F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines

(1) economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or

safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.

Today's action is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection of

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that

[[Page 49459]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published on

April 15, 1998 does not create mandates upon tribal governments.

Because today's action interprets the requirements of the final rule,

today's action does not create a mandate on tribal governments.

Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary

consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,

sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards

bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary

consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal

agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations

when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does not involve any new technical standards or the

incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore,

consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to this

action.

I. Immediate Effective Date

The EPA is making today's action effective immediately. The EPA has

determined that the rule changes being made in today's action are

interpretive rules which are not subject to notice and comment

requirements. In addition, the rule change is a type of technical

correction, since it amends the rule to be consistent with EPA's

intentions stated in the rule's preamble. Notice and opportunity for

comment is not required for such technical corrections. The EPA has

also determined that this rule may be made effective in less than 30

days because it is interpretive, and relieves restrictions. See 5

U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) and (2).

J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which

the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding

and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and

public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to

the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency

promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated

previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the

reasons therefor, and established an effective date of September 16,

1998. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of

the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

III. Legal Authority

These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 112,

114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412,

7414, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Pulp mills,

Cluster Rules.

Dated: September 6, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry

2. Section 63.446 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as

follows:

Sec. 263.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * *

(g) For each control device (e.g. steam stripper system or other

equipment serving the same function) used to treat pulping process

condensates to comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs

(e)(3) through (e)(5) of this section, periods of excess emissions

reported under Sec. 63.455 shall not be a violation of paragraphs (d),

(e)(3) through (e)(5), and (f) of this section provided that the time

of excess emissions (including periods of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-

annual reporting period does not exceed 10 percent. The 10 percent

excess emissions allowance does not apply to treatment of pulping

process condensates according to paragraph (e)(2) of this section (e.g.

the biological wastewater treatment system used to treat multiple

(primarily non-condensate) wastewater streams to comply with the Clean

Water Act).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-24837 Filed 9-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P