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

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 chlorine-free (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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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

Sec. 430.20 and Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 18506]]

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

[[Page 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 non-hazardous 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 three-

year 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

[[Page 18508]]

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 deg.F and a

minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a

boiler, lime kiln, or recovery

[[Page 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 volume-low 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

Secs. 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-by-case 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, semi-chemical 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

[[Page 18510]]

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 deg.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 deg.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 closed-vent 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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) Semi-annual Summary

Reports. Exceedance and summary reports are not required

[[Page 18512]]

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)

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

Types of facilities covered including Promulgation

Final codified subpart Final subcategorization previous subcategories (with previous 40 schedule

scheme CFR part 430 subparts noted) (phase)*

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

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

B....................... Bleached Papergrade Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached I **

Kraft and Soda. Kraft (H), Fine Bleached Kraft (I), Soda

(P).

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-, Blow Pit Wash

and Sodium-based pulps. Drum Wash

Ammonium-based pulps..

Specialty grade pulps.

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

Ammonia

Sodium

G....................... Mechanical Pulp......... Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), II

Groundwood-Coarse, Molded, News (N),

Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-

Chemi-Mechanical (L).

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

specific subpart.

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

Fine Papers

Tissue Papers

Newsprint

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

Deink. Wastepaper (E).

Corrugating Medium

Non-Corrugating Medium

Wastepaper-Molded Products (W)

Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR

Part 431, Subpart A)

K....................... Fine and Lightweight Non integrated Fine Papers (R)............. II

Papers from Purchased Wood Fiber Furnish

Pulp. Cotton Fiber Furnish

Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X)

Lightweight Papers

Lightweight Electrical Papers

[[Page 18513]]

L....................... Tissue, Filter, Non- Non integrated............................. II

Woven, and Paperboard Tissue Papers (S)

from Purchased Pulp. Filter and Non-Woven (Y)

Paperboard (Z)

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

* 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)

Semi-Chemical; (3) Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; (5)

Secondary Fiber Deink; (6) Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; (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.

[[Page 18514]]

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,

[[Page 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 sodium-based 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

direct-and 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 non-deinked) 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

[[Page 18516]]

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 ``de-characterized'' 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 chlorine-derivative 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 industry-initiated 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 re-evaluate 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 18518]]

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

[[Page 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 non-wood fiber

pulping mills; and papermaking systems. With regard to wood yard

operations, tall oil recovery systems, and pulping systems at

mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood 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

[[Page 18520]]

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 cost-effective 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

[[Page 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 x 96/199) route their vents to

the NCG collection system and 41 percent (35/41 x 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

[[Page 18522]]

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 low-flow 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 non-segregated

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 18524]]

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 magnesium-based 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 calcium-based 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

[[Page 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 semi-chemical 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 Sec. 63.445 (a)-(c) of today's rule. However,

Sec. 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 typi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.