# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-9613

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** April 15, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 18504

## Text

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 no

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-9613. Public record. Not legal advice.