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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6210-5]

RIN 2060-AH74

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Source Categories: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the EPA

has promulgated standards (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 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.

The rule applies to pulp and paper production processes included under

the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 26.

In this action, the EPA is taking direct final action amending the

interim NESHAP for chloroform emissions from mills which have enrolled

in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP) to

include, as a compliance alternative, meeting the baseline Best

Available Technology (BAT) requirements for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-

dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and adsorbable organic halides (AOX). This

standard could apply instead of the present, exclusive requirement of

no increase in application rate of chlorine or hypochlorite above a

specified baseline.

DATES: Effective Date. These amendments will be effective without

further notice on February 26, 1999, unless the EPA receives adverse

comments by January 27, 1999. Should the Agency receive such comments,

the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties having adverse comments on this

action may submit these comments in writing (in duplicate, if possible)

to Docket No. A-92-40 at the following address: Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a

separate copy of the comments also be sent to the contact person listed

below.

Today's document and other materials related to this direct final

rulemaking are available for review in the docket. Copies of this

information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling

(202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Silverman, Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202) 260-7716. For

technical information regarding the NESHAP, contact Mr. Stephen Shedd,

Emissions Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5397 or e-

mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. Entities potentially

regulated by this action include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category SIC code entities

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

Industry......................... 26 Pulp mills and

integrated mills (mills

that manufacture pulp

and paper/paperboard)

that chemically pulp

wood fiber.

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

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. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be

regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the

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

Code of Federal Regulations.

Information contacts. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of

[[Page 71386]]

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 and 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

Applicability 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, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-2187

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 (Fax)

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 94105, (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 a network of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution

control. Information regarding the basis and purpose of this rule and

other relevant documents can be found on the pulp and paper page of the

EPA's Unified Air Toxics website (UATW) at ``www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/

pulppg.html''. For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line at

(919) 541-5384.

Docket. Docket A-92-40 contains the supporting information for the

original NESHAP and this action. Today's notice and other materials

related to this proposal are available for review in the docket. The

docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m.

and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays at the

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500,

Washington, DC 20460. Copies of docket information also may be obtained

by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

I. Description of Amendments

In today's action, the EPA is amending certain regulatory text in

the NESHAP regarding the interim standard for chloroform emissions from

bleaching systems at mills that have enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program (VATIP). The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the PROPOSED

RULES section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate

document that will serve as the proposal to this action if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be effective on February 26, 1999

without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 27,

1999. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule

will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute

a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, the EPA

has promulgated standards (63 FR 18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce HAP

emissions from the pulp and paper production source category. This rule

is known as the Pulp and Paper 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. Both the air and

effluent standards work together to reduce pollutant releases to air

and water. There are close connections throughout the rule between the

CAA NESHAP for air emissions and the Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent

limitations guidelines for aqueous discharges.

An instance where this connection is particularly close is the

standards for bleaching systems. Reducing chlorine used to bleach pulp

will reduce HAP emissions from the bleach plant equipment vents and the

wastewater treatment system, and will also reduce pollutants discharged

in the water. The maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard

for bleaching system chloroform emissions requires mills to achieve the

BAT requirements for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic

compounds, and AOX, in order to ensure that the removals represented by

the MACT technology are attained. See 40 CFR 63.445(d)(1)(ii); 63 FR

18527 and 18551. This is because the control technologies upon which

the BAT effluent limitations guidelines are based are identical to the

control technologies used to comply with MACT; therefore, compliance

with BAT will control air emissions to the MACT level of control. Id.

The CWA rules also create a voluntary incentive program--the

Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program--to encourage mills to

install systems to achieve pollutant reductions at levels surpassing

BAT requirements. The MACT standards, in a number of instances,

establish alternatives to encourage mills to make this election. Of

direct relevance here, the MACT standards for chloroform emissions from

bleaching systems are structured to accommodate mills that have made

the binding election to participate in the incentives program. Thus,

MACT for chloroform emissions from participating fiber lines at such

mills' bleaching systems is established in two parts. Under the

incentives program, mills must achieve, among other requirements, the

ultimate VATIP limitations for the tier they select by the dates

prescribed in the rule, as well as enforceable interim milestones

imposed

[[Page 71387]]

by the permit writer. See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (2), (3), and (4). For

example, by April 16, 2004, all VATIP mills must achieve interim BAT

limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT limitations. See 40 CFR

430.24(b)(3). As explained above, achievement of those limitations

equals MACT. See 63 FR 18528 and Sec. 63.440(d)(ii)(A). There is also

an interim MACT standard which takes effect on April 15, 2001 (and is

in effect until the ultimate MACT standard takes effect on April 15,

2004): VATIP fiber lines are not allowed to increase their application

rates of chlorine or hypochlorite above the average rates determined

for the 3-month period prior to June 15, 1998 (so called ``anti-

backsliding'' provision). See Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) at 63 FR 18617.

It is this last provision that is affected by the present rule.

This amendment creates a third alternative to the interim MACT

standards in Sec. 63.440(d)(3) for chloroform emissions from bleach

plants at VATIP facilities. Specifically, the amendment provides an

alternative to the current exclusive requirement of no increase in

chlorine or hypochlorite application rate. Under the alternative, mills

participating in the incentives program would be required to comply

with the baseline BAT provisions for two of the regulated pollutant

parameters, specifically the chlorinated dioxin regulated under the

rules (namely, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD) and AOX.

The CWA requirements would be expressed as permit conditions imposed as

a form of best professional judgment milestones required by 40 CFR

430.24(b)(2). (If the permitting authority determines that the mill can

achieve the baseline limitations for TCDD and AOX sooner than April 15,

2001, then it may impose a more expeditious deadline.) Section

430.24(e) requires compliance with the baseline BAT limit for TCDD to

be demonstrated at the bleach plant itself, and requires that TCDD be

below the analytical minimum level of 10 parts per quadrillion.

Compliance with the baseline AOX limitation is measured at end-of-pipe,

and must reflect the end-of-pipe AOX contribution from pulp production

bleached in the participating fiber line.

Control of TCDD and (to a lesser degree) AOX in bleaching plant

effluent will likewise assure that chloroform air emissions are

incidentally controlled during the transition period prior to April 15,

2004. This is because, first, control of TCDD and AOX will likewise

control formation of other chlorinated compounds given the similarities

of formation mechanisms of chlorinated organic compounds. Second, as

the EPA noted when promulgating the Cluster Rules, control of

chlorinated chemicals to BAT levels will almost certainly mean that

mills will be applying some type of MACT technology such as process

substitution. See 63 FR 18528. This conclusion holds true for control

of TCDD (and AOX) to BAT levels. The Agency thus expects that to

achieve the TCDD limit, there will have to be at least reduced usage,

if not elimination, of hypochlorite usage, and very careful control and

minimized use of elemental chlorine, or use of chlorine dioxide, or

other alternative bleaching chemicals. This process substitution will

in turn control chloroform formation and hence potential emission. See

63 FR 18527.

Thus, today's amendment is consistent with the basis for the

existing bleaching system MACT standards for chloroform emissions: MACT

and BAT to control bleaching system emissions are the same. By applying

BAT-types of technologies to TCDD and AOX, therefore, will also achieve

interim control of chloroform emissions. Although elemental chlorine

usage could increase under this alternative, the EPA does not expect

that it will increase significantly, since other chlorinated

constituents in water discharges similarly would increase and the TCDD

or AOX limits could be exceeded.

In addition, and importantly, this amendment achieves BAT level of

control for TCDD and AOX, and interim control of chloroform emissions

during the transition period leading to the ultimate VATIP limits. As

explained earlier, mills participating in the incentives program are

not required to achieve the baseline BAT level control for TCDD or AOX

until April 15, 2004. Mills wishing to use the alternative in today's

rule would have to meet baseline BAT limitations for TCDD and AOX no

later than April 15, 2001. Chloroform emissions will necessarily be

limited incidentally at the same time. The EPA believes that this more

rapid compliance with BAT for TCDD and AOX, make this an appropriate

alternative from an environmental standpoint. Although bleaching

systems at such mills could increase chlorine or hypochlorite usage

(until April 15, 2004 when the final MACT standard takes effect), the

EPA believes the alternative is appropriate in light of the earlier

compliance with BAT limits for TCDD and AOX, as well as the interim

incidental control of chloroform emissions these limits will provide.

Finally, the EPA believes that this amendment is justified to

encourage plants to participate in the incentives program. As noted

throughout the rulemaking, this program has the potential to lead to

significant and long-term decreases in pollutant discharges beyond the

significant reductions required by BAT. See 63 FR 18514. One company

which has stated that it otherwise would elect to participate in the

program has identified the anti-backsliding provision in the MACT rules

as an impediment to doing so because the provision may foreclose

desirable business opportunities. The company has already achieved

control surpassing baseline BAT on a portion of its production so that

the company is in a good position to comply with the conditions

established in this rule, as well as the Tier I VATIP provisions. Since

the EPA views today's amendment as environmentally desirable in the

long term in any case, and also wishes to encourage maximum

participation in the incentives program in order to achieve further

reductions in pollutant discharges, the Agency believes amending the

rules to encourage the VATIP election further supports today's

amendment. The EPA emphasizes that today's amendment is generally

applicable so that any mill meeting the conditions specified can take

advantage of the new MACT compliance alternative.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket

is a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the

public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,

the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency documents,

will serve as the record in case of judicial review. See CAA

Sec. 307(d)(7)(A).

B. 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 the EPA (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from

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

[[Page 71388]]

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 amendments

establish no new information collection requirements. Consequently, the

ICR has not been revised.

C. Executive Order 12866: ``Significant Regulatory Action''

Determination

Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the

regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB

review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines a

``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a

rule that may:

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

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

economy, public health or safety 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 EPA accordingly

prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). Today's amendments provide

an additional means of complying with one of the rule's requirements.

The OMB has evaluated this action and determined it to be

nonsignificant; thus, it did not require OMB review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. The EPA determined that it is not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this action. These

amendments would not result in increased impacts to small entities and

the changes to the rule in today's action do not add new control

requirements to the April 15, 1998 rule. The amendments in fact create

a compliance alternative and to that degree lessen the impact of the

April 15, 1998 rule.

E. 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 today's action 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. The action in fact somewhat lessens the impacts

of the rule, as explained above. Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to today's action.

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, the 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, or EPA consults with those governments.

If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA

to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of the 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 the 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, the EPA involved

State and local governments in its development. Because today's action

amends the existing rule to establish more compliance flexibility to

achieve MACT, today's action does not impose any mandate upon State,

local, or tribal governments.

G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines

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

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

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the 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 Executive Order 13045 because it

does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect children.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation

that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects

the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on those communities unless the

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA

consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of the 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 the EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officals and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

[[Page 71389]]

regulatory policies on matters that 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 amends the rule to establish another means of

complying with MACT standards, 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

Act (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus

standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or

more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations

generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like the EPA to provide

Congress, through the 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.

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. The 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, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: December 18, 1998.

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.

Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From the Pulp and Paper Industry

2. Amend Sec. 63.440 by revising paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) introductory

text and (d)(3)(ii)(B), as follows:

Sec. 63.440 Applicability.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Comply with paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A), (d)(3)(ii)(B), and

(d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

(B) The owner or operator of a bleaching system shall comply with

the requirements specified in either paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B)(1) or

(d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section.

(1) Not increase the application rate of chlorine or hypochlorite

in kilograms (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 Sec. 63.454(c).

(2) Comply with enforceable effluent limitations guidelines for

2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin and adsorbable organic halides at

least as stringent as the baseline BAT levels set out in 40 CFR

430.24(a)(1) as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than

April 16, 2001.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-34306 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P