Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 430

[FRL-5535-5]

RIN 2060-AD03 and 2040-AB53

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category;

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On December 17, 1993, EPA proposed standards to reduce the

discharge of water pollutants and emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry (58 FR 66078). This

document describes the Agency's goals for environmental improvement in

this industry, announces a framework for the final wastewater

standards, and presents the preliminary results of detailed analyses

for a portion of this industry.

DATES: Comments on this notice are solicited and will be accepted until

August 14, 1996. Comments are to be submitted in triplicate, and also

in electronic format (diskettes) if possible.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Mr. David Hoadley at the

following address: Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The framework and preliminary results of detailed analyses being

announced today are based on data and information in the EPA Water

Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, room M2616, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-3027. The Docket staff

requests that interested parties call for an appointment before

visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

mework and preliminary results of detailed analyses being

announced today are based on data and information in the EPA Water

Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, room M2616, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-3027. The Docket staff

requests that interested parties call for an appointment before

visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding wastewater

standards, contact Mr. Donald Anderson at the following address:

Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202) 260-7189, or Mr. Ronald

Jordan also at this address, telephone number (202) 260-7115. For

questions regarding air emissions standards, contact Ms. Penny

Lassiter, Emissions Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number

(919) 541-5396.

Contents of This Notice

I. Summary of Notices for this Regulation

II. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals

III. Anticipated Schedule for Issuing Final Wastewater Standards

A. Schedule for Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories

B. Scheduled for Proposed Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving

Sulfite Subcategories

C. Schedule for the Remaining Proposed Subcategories

IV. Post-Proposal Data Gathering

V. Regulatory Framework and Preliminary Results

A. Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

1. Preliminary Conclusion Regarding Technology Basis for BAT

2. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

3. Technology Options for BAT

4. Framework for PSES

5. Pollutant Parameters

6. Best Management Practices

7. Costs for Options A and B

8. Effluent Reduction Benefits

9. Revised Effluent Limitations

a. Changes to Statistical Methodology

b. Revised Effluent Limitations Being Considered

10. Conventional Pollutant Limitations (BPT and BCT)

11. Technology Options for NSPS

12

tal Improvements

3. Technology Options for BAT

4. Framework for PSES

5. Pollutant Parameters

6. Best Management Practices

7. Costs for Options A and B

8. Effluent Reduction Benefits

9. Revised Effluent Limitations

a. Changes to Statistical Methodology

b. Revised Effluent Limitations Being Considered

10. Conventional Pollutant Limitations (BPT and BCT)

11. Technology Options for NSPS

12. Revised Economic Impact Results

a. Revisions to the Economic Analysis

b. Economic Impacts of BAT Options A and

c. Cost-Effectiveness

B. Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

1. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Technology Basis for BAT

2. Technology Options for BAT

3. Costs

4. Effluent Reduction Benefits

5. Revised Effluent Limitations for BAT and PSES

6. Conventional Pollutant Limitations

7. Technology Options and Revised Effluent Limitations for NSPS

8. Economic Impacts

a. Costs and Impacts

b. Cost-Effectiveness

VI. Environmental Assessment

VII. Best Management Practices

VIII. Pretreatment Standards

IX. Implementation Issues

A. Permit Limits for Multiple Subcategory Mills

B. New Sources

C. Monitoring

D. BMPs as NPDES Permit Special Conditions

E. Relationship Between the Cluster Rules and Project XL

F. Summary of Changes to Methods for Analysis of Pulp and Paper

Industry Wastewaters

1. Method 1624, Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution

GC/MS

2. Method 1650, AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric

3. Method 1653, Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and

Isotope Dilution GC/MS

4. Method NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253, Color

G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

X. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

A. Advanced Technology Tiers

1. Definition of Incentives-Related BAT Limitations or NSPS by

Tier

a. Tier I BAT Limitations

b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS

c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS

2. Basis for Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and NSPS

3. Legal Authority to Establish Incentives-Related BAT

Limitations and NSPS

B

alysis

X. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

A. Advanced Technology Tiers

1. Definition of Incentives-Related BAT Limitations or NSPS by

Tier

a. Tier I BAT Limitations

b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS

c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS

2. Basis for Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and NSPS

3. Legal Authority to Establish Incentives-Related BAT

Limitations and NSPS

B. Incentives Available Prior to Achievement of Incentives-

Related BAT

1. Extended Compliance Schedules

C. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology

BAT Limitations and NSPS

1. Greater certainty regarding permit limits and requirements

2. Reduced effluent monitoring

3.Reduced penalties

4. Reduced inspections

5. Public recognition programs

6. Fast-track permit modification

D. Solicitations of Comments on Incentives Program

E. Alternative Incentives Programs and Provisions Suggested by

Stakeholders

I. Summary of Notices for This Regulation

Today's notice announces the Agency's current thinking, based on

preliminary detailed evaluation of the supplemented record and

stakeholder discussions, regarding the technology bases to be

considered for setting final effluent limitations and standards for a

portion (i.e., certain subcategories) of this industry. These

subcategories are the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite subcategories. Today's notice continues the public

review and participation process that began with the proposed

rulemaking and continued with additional notices.

On December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078), EPA proposed integrated air and

water rules that included limitations and standards to reduce the

discharge of toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in

wastewaters and emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp,

paper, and paperboard industry. 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

d integrated air and

water rules that included limitations and standards to reduce the

discharge of toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in

wastewaters and emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp,

paper, and paperboard industry. 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, which is updated periodically to

include other new information and analyses. EPA did not solicit comment

on the new air and water data in either notice. EPA solicits comment on

the information and data announced in those prior notices, on the

information and approach discussed in this notice, on other newly

docketed information, and on the preliminary results of the detailed

analyses presented in this notice.

On March 8, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice

pertaining to the air portions of the proposed rules, announced the

availability of supplemental information, and proposed additional

sources to be covered by the rulemaking (61 FR 9383). The comment

period for that notice closed on April 8, 1996

mation, and on the preliminary results of the detailed

analyses presented in this notice.

On March 8, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice

pertaining to the air portions of the proposed rules, announced the

availability of supplemental information, and proposed additional

sources to be covered by the rulemaking (61 FR 9383). The comment

period for that notice closed on April 8, 1996.

The Agency has held numerous meetings on these proposed integrated

rules with many of the stakeholders from the pulp and paper industry,

including a trade association (American Forest and Paper Association,

or AF&PA), numerous individual companies, consultants and vendors,

environmental groups, labor unions, and other interested parties.

Materials have been added to the Air and Water Dockets to document

these meetings and to make available for public review new information

received at those meetings.

II. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals

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 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.

EPA's long-term goals include improved air quality, improved water

quality, the elimination of fish consumption advisories downstream of

mills, and 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 work together

appropriately to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, pollutant discharges

for existing and new sources

ies downstream of

mills, and 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 work together

appropriately to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, pollutant discharges

for 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 generation of air emissions and

hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. This combination of regulation,

research, pilot projects, and incentives will foster continuous

environmental improvement with each mill investment cycle.

III. Anticipated Schedule for Issuing Final Wastewater Standards

A. Schedule for Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and

Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories

EPA will promulgate final effluent limitations and standards for

the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard industrial category in stages

consisting of several subcategories at a time. For the following

reasons, EPA intends to promulgate final effluent limitations and

standards for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory and the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory before

promulgating such limitations and standards for any other proposed

subcategory.

Under the consent decree entered in the case Environmental Defense

Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No

ons, EPA intends to promulgate final effluent limitations and

standards for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory and the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory before

promulgating such limitations and standards for any other proposed

subcategory.

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 and standards for those subcategories by this date.

However, EPA believes that regulating the discharge of dioxins and

furans from those mills remains a very high priority and for this

reason plans to promulgate effluent limitations and standards for mills

in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory and the

proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory before it finalizes limitations

and standards for the other proposed subcategories.

B. Scheduled for Proposed Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite

Subcategories

EPA is evaluating the comments and preliminary new data affecting

the proposed dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite subcategories. The

Agency anticipates that the final effluent limitations 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

ased 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 is

working with these companies as their efforts progress.

For these reasons, EPA does not expect to promulgate final effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for these proposed subcategories

in 1996. 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 chlorinated organic compounds (e.g.,

chloroform) in air emissions and wastewaters. EPA encourages mills in

these subcategories to undertake and expeditiously complete

developmental work that will facilitate installation of alternative

process technologies that achieve these pollution prevention goals.

C. Schedule for the Remaining Proposed Subcategories

EPA is assessing comments and data received since proposal for the

remaining eight proposed subcategories. These eight proposed

subcategories are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2) Semi-Chemical; (3)

Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; (5) Secondary Fiber Deink;

rnative

process technologies that achieve these pollution prevention goals.

C. Schedule for the Remaining Proposed Subcategories

EPA is assessing comments and data received since proposal for the

remaining eight proposed subcategories. These eight proposed

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 information from an

industry-sponsored survey of secondary fiber non-deink mills. The

Agency also has received additional data from mills in other proposed

subcategories, including semi-chemical, unbleached kraft, and secondary

fiber deink. EPA plans to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for these subcategories after promulgation of the final

rules for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory

and the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory.

IV. Post-Proposal Data Gathering

EPA has gathered a substantial amount of new information and data

since proposal. Much of this information was collected with the

cooperation and support of 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 U.S. EPA also has gathered

additional information from pulp and paper mills primarily in Canada

and Europe. Some of the new information and data were generated through

field sampling and related efforts at individual mills in the U.S.,

Canada, and Europe. The following paragraphs summarize some of these

data gathering efforts

t (NCASI), and with the

assistance of many individual mills in the U.S. EPA also has gathered

additional information from pulp and paper mills primarily in Canada

and Europe. Some of the new information and data were generated through

field sampling and related efforts at individual mills in the U.S.,

Canada, and Europe. The following paragraphs summarize some of these

data gathering efforts.

For the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory,

EPA has new data for several technologies, including: complete chlorine

dioxide substitution (without oxygen delignification); oxygen

delignification (OD) or extended cooking plus complete chlorine dioxide

substitution; extended cooking plus OD plus complete chlorine dioxide

substitution; OD plus ozone bleaching plus complete substitution with

chlorine dioxide; and totally chlorine-free (TCF) processes. EPA has a

combination of bleach plant and end-of-pipe data for these

technologies. (See the record at Document Control Number (DCN) 13951.)

For the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, EPA has new bleach

plant data for elemental chlorine-free processes and TCF processes. EPA

also has information on trials for alternative processes beyond

existing technologies for products that cannot be made with TCF

processes. For example, EPA has data from trials using OD plus complete

chlorine dioxide substitution for selected products.

For the proposed dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite

subcategories, EPA has information on trials for alternative processes

beyond existing technologies (e.g., reduction in use of hypochlorite,

chlorine dioxide substitution with OD and without OD). EPA also has a

preliminary evaluation of minimum hypochlorite usage necessary to

maintain product quality.

EPA has new information on several topics related to compliance

cost estimation, such as process information and data for selected

bleached chemical pulp mills and costs of process technology unit

operations at selected mills

rite,

chlorine dioxide substitution with OD and without OD). EPA also has a

preliminary evaluation of minimum hypochlorite usage necessary to

maintain product quality.

EPA has new information on several topics related to compliance

cost estimation, such as process information and data for selected

bleached chemical pulp mills and costs of process technology unit

operations at selected mills. This information has been used by the

Agency to verify its cost curves. EPA also has new information on best

management practices, recovery systems, and equipment availability.

V. Regulatory Framework and Preliminary Results

A. Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

For this subcategory and all others addressed in the proposal, the

Agency proposed numerical effluent limitations guidelines and standards

based on certain model technologies. Although EPA similarly will employ

model technologies to calculate the final effluent limitations

guidelines and standards, individual mills will be free to use any

combination of technologies that will result in compliance with the

final effluent limitations and standards.

1. Preliminary Conclusion Regarding Technology Basis for BAT

After re-evaluating technologies for mills in the proposed bleached

papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, EPA has determined that two

technology options identified in the proposal merit careful

consideration for effluent limitations based on best available

technology economically achievable (BAT) and pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES). These options include both in-plant process

technologies (e.g., chemical substitution) and end-of-pipe biological

treatment technologies (e.g., activated sludge systems). The first of

these options is complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine

dioxide for chlorine as the key process technology

echnology economically achievable (BAT) and pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES). These options include both in-plant process

technologies (e.g., chemical substitution) and end-of-pipe biological

treatment technologies (e.g., activated sludge systems). The first of

these options is complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine

dioxide for chlorine as the key process technology. The second of these

options is the technology basis from proposal, which includes oxygen

delignification (OD) or extended cooking with complete (100 percent)

substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine as the key process

technologies. Although the final detailed analysis and decisions are

not yet complete, the post-proposal analysis to date has demonstrated

to the Agency that the first option--complete (100 percent)

substitution of chlorine dioxide--should be given equal weight as a

possible technology basis for the BAT effluent limitations and for PSES

for this proposed subcategory. EPA anticipates that comments on this

notice will assist in the final decision.

EPA's preliminary evaluation of information and data for these two

BAT/PSES options indicates that both options appear to reduce dioxins

and furans in wastewaters to concentrations at or below the current

analytical minimum levels. EPA also anticipates that both technology

options would reduce discharges of dioxin such that the number of

dioxin-based fish consumption advisories related to discharges from

these facilities are likely to be substantially reduced or eliminated

over time (depending on stream hydrodynamics of each site).

The incremental environmental benefits that the Agency can

attribute to the use of extended delignification (e.g., OD or extended

cooking) in addition to complete (100 percent) substitution include

reduced chronic toxicity to some aquatic life species

charges from

these facilities are likely to be substantially reduced or eliminated

over time (depending on stream hydrodynamics of each site).

The incremental environmental benefits that the Agency can

attribute to the use of extended delignification (e.g., OD or extended

cooking) in addition to complete (100 percent) substitution include

reduced chronic toxicity to some aquatic life species. This reduced

chronic toxicity is probably attributable to a reduction in mass

loadings of certain nonchlorinated compounds that are indirectly

measured by the bulk analytical parameter chemical oxygen demand (COD).

The reduced chronic toxicity also may reflect an incremental reduction

in the potential for formation of dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) and furan

(2,3,7,8 TDCF), which at many mills is no longer measurable by current

analytical methods at the end-of-pipe, and a reduction in mass loadings

of all chlorinated compounds which can be measured by the bulk

analytical parameter adsorbable organic halides (AOX).

EPA is continuing to carefully review and analyze the information

and data pertinent to establishing effluent limitations guidelines and

standards under the Clean Water Act. This includes an analysis of

compliance costs and economic achievability. Results of these and other

analyses, presented in preliminary form below, will be carefully

considered along with comments in preparing the final rule.

2. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

EPA is considering including compliance and enforcement incentives

in the final regulations to recognize the achievements of those mills

that use technology options more advanced than the technology option

ultimately selected as BAT

nted in preliminary form below, will be carefully

considered along with comments in preparing the final rule.

2. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

EPA is considering including compliance and enforcement incentives

in the final regulations to recognize the achievements of those mills

that use technology options more advanced than the technology option

ultimately selected as BAT. If EPA chooses as the basis for the final

BAT limitations and PSES complete (100 percent) substitution of

chlorine dioxide for chlorine, without OD or extended cooking,

qualifying technologies might include processes employing extended

delignification (e.g., OD, extended cooking), ozone-based bleaching

sequences, totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching, process wastewater

flow reduction (i.e., technologies which move mills toward closed loop

operation), or other combinations of technologies. Many of these

technologies also would qualify for incentives if EPA includes an

extended delignification process as part of BAT. All of these

technologies are already being implemented at some mills while further

developmental work is ongoing to improve the performance of these

technologies.

EPA is considering establishing two sets of incentives for further

environmental improvements. The structure, with some variations, would

apply regardless of the baseline BAT technology options ultimately

selected. The first set of incentives would provide interested mills

with additional time--up to 15 years beyond the effective date of these

rules--to meet limitations more stringent than those based on the

baseline BAT. This set of incentives would be available to any mill

that voluntarily selects, as its BAT, technologies that can achieve

more stringent effluent limits set forth in the incentives approach.

The various incentives-related BAT limitations and standards would be

codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and would represent BAT

limitations for any mill choosing to participate in the incentives

program

of incentives would be available to any mill

that voluntarily selects, as its BAT, technologies that can achieve

more stringent effluent limits set forth in the incentives approach.

The various incentives-related BAT limitations and standards would be

codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and would represent BAT

limitations for any mill choosing to participate in the incentives

program. The second set of incentives, which could include various

monitoring, enforcement, and public recognition elements, would be

available only after compliance with the more stringent incentive-

related BAT limits and standards is achieved. Any incentives adopted by

EPA would be intended to encourage mills to investigate, develop, and

implement technologies that are more advanced and that achieve more

stringent limitations and standards than the technologies now being

considered as the basis for baseline BAT limitations.

EPA has already received suggestions from several stakeholders on

possible incentives. Details regarding the possible incentives are

discussed in Section X of this notice. EPA solicits comments on this

approach and invites specific ideas for incentives. EPA solicits

comments on extending this approach to indirect dischargers. Such

comments and suggestions would be considered as EPA formulates the

final rule for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite subcategories.

3. Technology Options for BAT

As noted above, the post-proposal analysis focuses on two process

technology options. The first option, referred to as Option A, employs

conventional pulping processes followed by complete (100 percent)

substitution for elemental chlorine by chlorine dioxide. This is an

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technology

kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite subcategories.

3. Technology Options for BAT

As noted above, the post-proposal analysis focuses on two process

technology options. The first option, referred to as Option A, employs

conventional pulping processes followed by complete (100 percent)

substitution for elemental chlorine by chlorine dioxide. This is an

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technology.

The second option, referred to as Option B, employs oxygen

delignification (OD) and/or extended cooking (EC), followed by complete

(100 percent) substitution which reduces the lignin content of

unbleached pulp beyond that typically provided through conventional

pulping processes. The effectiveness of pulping processes in removing

lignin is indicated by the unbleached pulp kappa number. A kappa number

typical of unbleached pulp from traditional pulping processes for

softwoods is approximately 30 and for hardwoods is approximately 20.

Extended delignification processes (such as OD or EC) typically produce

unbleached softwood pulps with an approximate kappa number of 15

(approximately 10 for hardwoods). Option B also is an ECF technology.

In analyzing performance for Option B, the Agency is considering

performance data for mills with OD and/or EC. This analysis differs

from proposal when the Agency distinguished between extended

delignification sequences with only OD or EC, and sequences with both

OD and EC.

This notice presents EPA's preliminary analysis of data pertaining

to Option A and compares it to Option B. In addition to obtaining and

analyzing data pertaining to Options A and B, the Agency also has

endeavored to obtain and analyze additional data for TCF process

technologies as a possible BAT technology. TCF technologies typically

incorporate OD while relying on peroxide and/or ozone, rather than

chlorine-containing compounds, to accomplish pulp bleaching and

brightening. Only one U.S

tion B. In addition to obtaining and

analyzing data pertaining to Options A and B, the Agency also has

endeavored to obtain and analyze additional data for TCF process

technologies as a possible BAT technology. TCF technologies typically

incorporate OD while relying on peroxide and/or ozone, rather than

chlorine-containing compounds, to accomplish pulp bleaching and

brightening. Only one U.S. bleached papergrade kraft mill employs a TCF

process, and it produces a market pulp of somewhat less than full

market pulp brightness. Since proposal of this rule, the U.S. bleached

papergrade kraft TCF mill has achieved higher brightness targets, but

still less than full market brightness pulp of approximately 90 ISO.

EPA obtained bleach plant performance data from this mill, but because

the mill discharges to territorial seas under Section 301(m) of the

Clean Water Act and thus does not employ secondary treatment, end-of-

pipe data reflecting the performance of biological treatment were not

available. European TCF mills have achieved at or near full market

brightness pulps for limited periods. However, EPA consistently

requested but obtained only limited process and pollutant removal

performance data for TCF mills in Europe. The limited range of

papergrade TCF products currently produced and sold in the U.S. market

indicates that TCF technology is not yet available to make the full

range of products produced by ECF or similar chlorine-based processes.

Nonetheless, EPA continues to strongly encourage further development

and implementation of TCF technologies and products. It is also

probable that all TCF mills would qualify for the advanced technology

incentives program described below; this should provide an opportunity

to stimulate production and U.S. market share for TCF products.

The Agency considered other technology options in developing the

proposed regulations for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and

soda subcategory

F technologies and products. It is also

probable that all TCF mills would qualify for the advanced technology

incentives program described below; this should provide an opportunity

to stimulate production and U.S. market share for TCF products.

The Agency considered other technology options in developing the

proposed regulations for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and

soda subcategory. However, for reasons cited in the proposal, these

technologies were not selected as the underlying process technologies

for the proposed effluent limitations based on BAT, and have not been

further pursued as options for the final rule.

4. Framework for PSES

In the proposal, EPA discussed three options for pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) for four proposed subcategories,

including bleached papergrade kraft and soda. These options primarily

concern end-of-pipe limitations for indirect dischargers. The

conclusions in the discussion of BAT technology options also apply to

technology options for bleach plant limits for indirect dischargers.

See Section VIII of today's notice for a discussion of PSES options.

5. Pollutant Parameters

In the proposed regulations, EPA included both in-process (bleach

plant) and end-of-pipe BAT limitations and PSES for mills that bleach

chemical pulps covered in four proposed subcategories, including

bleached papergrade kraft and soda.

The parameters proposed to be controlled at the bleach plant were

2,3,7,8 TCDD (``dioxin''), 2,3,7,8 TCDF (``furan''), 12 specific

chlorinated phenolic compounds, and the volatile organic pollutants

chloroform, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and acetone.

With respect to the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite subcategories, EPA is considering codifying limits

for all of these pollutants except for methylene chloride, MEK, and

acetone

), 2,3,7,8 TCDF (``furan''), 12 specific

chlorinated phenolic compounds, and the volatile organic pollutants

chloroform, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and acetone.

With respect to the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and

papergrade sulfite subcategories, EPA is considering codifying limits

for all of these pollutants except for methylene chloride, MEK, and

acetone. Based on EPA's most current data, the presence of these

pollutants or the levels at which they are found does not appear to be

directly related to any of the pollution prevention process

technologies being considered (extended delignification processes, such

as extended cooking or oxygen delignification, or bleaching process

changes, such as complete substitution for elemental chlorine by

chlorine dioxide and elimination of hypochlorite). Acetone and MEK

generally are amenable to biological treatment, while other forms of

end-of-pipe physical treatment, for the concentrations levels involved,

are likely to be costly. Methylene chloride has been found to be a

sample and laboratory contaminant in certain cases. Therefore, EPA

cannot at this time identify a pollution prevention basis for setting

effluent limitations and standards for these pollutants for these

proposed subcategories.

The parameters proposed to be controlled at the end-of-pipe were

adsorbable organic halides (AOX), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and,

for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory only,

color. EPA received comments asserting that neither AOX nor COD is an

appropriate parameter to be controlled because, among other reasons

cited, these parameters are not directly related to environmental

effects or effluent toxicity. Commenters also asserted that color

should not be controlled because it is an aesthetic concern more

appropriately addressed in individual permits based on applicable water

quality standards

sserting that neither AOX nor COD is an

appropriate parameter to be controlled because, among other reasons

cited, these parameters are not directly related to environmental

effects or effluent toxicity. Commenters also asserted that color

should not be controlled because it is an aesthetic concern more

appropriately addressed in individual permits based on applicable water

quality standards.

EPA continues to believe that AOX is a valid measure of the total

chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting from the bleaching

of pulps. Although statistically significant relationships between AOX

and a broad range of specific chlorinated organic compounds have not

been established, trends in concentration changes, however, have been

observed between AOX and specific pollutants, including dioxin, furan,

and chlorinated phenolic compounds. Even though dioxin and furan are no

longer measurable at the end-of-pipe at many mills, the potential for

formation of these pollutants continues to exist at pulp and paper

mills as long as any chlorine-containing compounds (including chlorine

dioxide) are used in the bleaching process. Final effluent AOX loading

is an appropriate measure of the performance of in-process and end-of-

pipe technologies in reducing the mass of chlorinated organic

pollutants such as dioxin and furan found in wastewaters discharged by

this industry. Thus, EPA expects that process changes and treatment

technologies implemented to reduce AOX discharges at the end of the

pipe will in turn further reduce the likelihood of the formation and

discharge of these chlorinated organic pollutants. The analytical

method for this bulk parameter is also very reliable and affords

significant savings in monitoring costs over analytical methods for

individual pollutants, which are substantially more expensive.

With regard to COD, the Agency notes that chronic sub-lethal

aquatic toxicity has been found from wastewaters discharged by both

bleached and unbleached pulp mills

organic pollutants. The analytical

method for this bulk parameter is also very reliable and affords

significant savings in monitoring costs over analytical methods for

individual pollutants, which are substantially more expensive.

With regard to COD, the Agency notes that chronic sub-lethal

aquatic toxicity has been found from wastewaters discharged by both

bleached and unbleached pulp mills. Some evidence indicates that this

toxicity is associated at least in part with families of non-

chlorinated organic materials. Some of these materials are probably

wood extractive constituents found in pulping liquors and are

refractory or resistant to rapid biological degradation, and thus are

not measurable by the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

analytical method. Several studies indicate that as wastewater COD is

reduced, indices of these chronic toxicity effects also are reduced. In

addition, final effluent COD loading is an appropriate measure of the

performance of in-process and end-of-pipe technologies in reducing the

mass of non-chlorinated pollutants found in wastewaters discharged by

this industry. EPA also has found that COD is an appropriate parameter

for use by mills for self-monitoring to evaluate the performance of

spent pulping liquor spill prevention programs (BMPs), as noted in

Section V.A.6 below. The analytical method for this bulk parameter also

is very reliable and affords significant savings in monitoring costs

over analytical methods for individual pollutants.

In evaluating comments on the proposal EPA has endeavored to obtain

additional data that would supplement the current COD data base for

setting final effluent limitations and standards. This supplemented

data base would allow EPA to determine the need and, if appropriate,

the basis for COD loadings allowances from other contributing sources

on-site at mills, such as paper machines and semi-chemical pulping

comments on the proposal EPA has endeavored to obtain

additional data that would supplement the current COD data base for

setting final effluent limitations and standards. This supplemented

data base would allow EPA to determine the need and, if appropriate,

the basis for COD loadings allowances from other contributing sources

on-site at mills, such as paper machines and semi-chemical pulping. EPA

has received very limited (and, for some operations, insufficient) data

to characterize COD loadings from these mill operations. Further, EPA

has received only limited additional data to determine the combined

performance of well designed and operated spill prevention programs

(BMPs), process changes, and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems

in removing COD. Moreover, data that are now available indicate a

significant

range of values that may not accurately reflect the best performance of

these technologies. (See the record at DCN 13958.) EPA solicits

additional data that would further define the best performance of these

technologies and provide a basis for EPA to assess the need for

allowances for other on-site sources of COD and to develop such

allowances if appropriate. EPA will evaluate any COD data and public

comments received in response to this notice in establishing final

limits and standards for this parameter for ECF and TCF mills. EPA also

is considering whether it is appropriate that final COD limits and

standards for ECF and TCF mills in the proposed bleached papergrade

kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite subcategories should be deferred

and developed concurrently with BAT COD limits that may be developed

for other subcategories in a later rulemaking.

With regard to color, the Agency notes that some mills receive

limitations for color in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits where stream water quality requires such

limitations

ft and soda and papergrade sulfite subcategories should be deferred

and developed concurrently with BAT COD limits that may be developed

for other subcategories in a later rulemaking.

With regard to color, the Agency notes that some mills receive

limitations for color in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits where stream water quality requires such

limitations. The Agency is considering not promulgating a technology-

based limit for color, but rather deferring control of color to

individual permits where necessary to implement water quality standards

under CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).

6. Best Management Practices

In the proposed regulations, EPA included provisions for leak and

spill prevention, containment, and control through best management

practices (BMPs). The public comments on the proposal generally support

the use of BMPs, although some commenters challenged the details of

these provisions. EPA plans to incorporate BMPs into the final rule

with substantial restructuring of the program that was proposed. EPA

anticipates that the BMPs in the final rule will apply to mills in the

proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite

subcategories. EPA also anticipates that the revised BMPs also will

apply, as proposed, to mills in other chemical pulping subcategories

(e.g., semi-chemical, unbleached kraft). Additional details about BMPs

are presented in Section VII of today's notice.

7. Costs for Options A and B

EPA has used additional cost information and data to update its

costing methodology. EPA has used costs for recently installed

equipment at U.S. mills as well as vendor information to update cost

curves and model algorithms for both capital costs and operation and

maintenance (O&M) costs. EPA has updated mill specific information and

has estimated compliance costs for Options A and B. EPA used these

revised cost estimates to estimate economic impacts; the revised

economic results are discussed in Section V.A.12 of today's notice

U.S. mills as well as vendor information to update cost

curves and model algorithms for both capital costs and operation and

maintenance (O&M) costs. EPA has updated mill specific information and

has estimated compliance costs for Options A and B. EPA used these

revised cost estimates to estimate economic impacts; the revised

economic results are discussed in Section V.A.12 of today's notice.

Reports included in the record contain detailed cost information (see

DCN 13953).

Much of the cost data EPA is considering was submitted by AF&PA.

One of the most significant sources of differences in costs developed

by AF&PA and EPA are the assumptions regarding the impact on recovery

boiler operation. EPA has investigated the differing assumptions and

revised its cost analysis for selected boiler capacity and related

recovery cycle components. EPA's preliminary findings are that

relatively inexpensive boiler upgrades will accommodate OD filtrate

streams and other increases in heat load. EPA's analysis of each mill

in this proposed subcategory indicates that boiler replacement will not

be necessary with the installation of OD as defined in Option B.

The Agency's revisions to the costing methodology to reflect new

information about the recovery cycle include, where appropriate, boiler

upgrades, pulping process modifications, black liquor oxidation, and

evaporator upgrades. Additional information about these cost components

is presented in the record (see DCN 13959).

EPA also relied on new data and information to revise costs for

BMPs. The new data were used to revise design assumptions and cost

model algorithms for developing mill-specific costs for BMP upgrades. A

significant increase in costs for BMPs resulted.

EPA also revised its analysis for changes in the cost of chemicals

and other raw materials used in pulp mills and bleach plants. Costs for

some of these raw materials and chemicals have increased while costs

for other raw materials and chemicals have decreased

ons and cost

model algorithms for developing mill-specific costs for BMP upgrades. A

significant increase in costs for BMPs resulted.

EPA also revised its analysis for changes in the cost of chemicals

and other raw materials used in pulp mills and bleach plants. Costs for

some of these raw materials and chemicals have increased while costs

for other raw materials and chemicals have decreased. The net effect of

these changes on total option costs varies among mills.

EPA updated its process information for each mill by reviewing

comments on the proposed rule, information gathered by AF&PA and NCASI,

other publicly available information, and by contacting mills directly.

EPA considered process changes and upgrades or renovations either

completed, underway, or committed to as of mid-1995. Costs in this

notice are presented in 1995 dollars. EPA used the updated information

for each mill, along with the costing methodology revisions, to

determine the need for and the sizing of process change unit operations

for Options A and B. The result of this mill-specific costing is

summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.-- Capital, O&M, and Total Annualized Costs for BAT and BMPs

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

Costs Current cost

estimated estimates

at ---------------------

proposal

for

Option B Option A Option B

(proposed

Option 4)

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

Capital ($ million).................... 2,184 998 2,036

O&M ($ million/yr)..................... 11.8 109 (7)

Total Annualized Costs:

(million/yr)......................... 223.2 140 155

($/UBMT)............................. 7.50 4.78 5.27

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

Option 4)

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

Capital ($ million).................... 2,184 998 2,036

O&M ($ million/yr)..................... 11.8 109 (7)

Total Annualized Costs:

(million/yr)......................... 223.2 140 155

($/UBMT)............................. 7.50 4.78 5.27

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

8. Effluent Reduction Benefits

EPA has updated the calculation of effluent reduction benefits for

each bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill to a new baseline of mid-

1995. In addition, EPA has revised and simplified the methodology used

to estimate that baseline. The baseline calculation methodology

revisions along with details of the effluent reduction calculations are

described in the record (see DCN 13592). The following

highlights are changes from the proposal based on comments and new

information.

First, EPA used data characterizing the generation of pollutants by

a variety of pulping and bleaching technologies and information about

the pulping and bleaching technologies at each mill and associated

wastewater flow data to characterize the pollutant loads generated as

of mid-1995. EPA also used data for individual mills from the NCASI

1994 Dioxin Profile (see DCN 13764) to estimate the effluent load of

2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF. The revised baselines, which were found

to be comparable to NCASI's industry-wide estimates, were used to

calculate effluent reduction benefits, summarized in Table 2. These

calculated reduction benefits are virtually the same for both options.

It is interesting to note that the baseline annual discharge loading in

1992 was 70 grams/year of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 341 grams/year of 2,3,7,8

TCDF (total of 411 grams/year). The reduction since 1992 to estimated

discharge loadings of 3-4 grams/year for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 3-4 grams/

year for 2,3,7,8 TCDF in mid-1995 represents a reduction of 95 percent

for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 99 percent for 2,3,7,8 TCDF.

s interesting to note that the baseline annual discharge loading in

1992 was 70 grams/year of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 341 grams/year of 2,3,7,8

TCDF (total of 411 grams/year). The reduction since 1992 to estimated

discharge loadings of 3-4 grams/year for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 3-4 grams/

year for 2,3,7,8 TCDF in mid-1995 represents a reduction of 95 percent

for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 99 percent for 2,3,7,8 TCDF.

Table 2.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Selected Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Mills

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

Estimated Estimated

reductions reductions

Pollutant parameter Baseline from baseline from baseline

discharge attributable attributable

to Option A to Option B

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

2,3,7,8-TCDD (g/yr)............................................. 15 11 12

2,3,7,8-TCDF (g/yr)............................................. 93 89 90

AOX (kkg/yr).................................................... 35,000 24,700 30,600

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

9. Revised Effluent Limitations

a. Changes to Statistical Methodology.

In developing the BAT limitations presented in today's notice, EPA

included the new data discussed in Section IV to calculate the revised

effluent limitations. EPA also made four changes to the proposed

statistical methodology. First, EPA determined that limitations set at

non-detect (ND) levels could be justified in some situations where the

data included detected measurements. In the proposal, EPA had set ND

limitations only when the data were all non-detected measurements or

were detected below the minimum level of the analytical method. In

today's notice, TCDF, chloroform, and AOX have numerical BAT

limitations. The remaining analytes have ND limitations

t

non-detect (ND) levels could be justified in some situations where the

data included detected measurements. In the proposal, EPA had set ND

limitations only when the data were all non-detected measurements or

were detected below the minimum level of the analytical method. In

today's notice, TCDF, chloroform, and AOX have numerical BAT

limitations. The remaining analytes have ND limitations. Second, EPA

determined that the value of half of the sample-specific detection

limit should be substituted for all non-detect measurements. In the

proposal, EPA had used a methodology for substituting a lower value for

anomalously large detection limits. Third, EPA calculated bleach plant

limitations for TCDF and chloroform by aggregating the acid and

alkaline measurements prior to calculating the limitations. In the

proposal, EPA had calculated separate production-normalized mass

limitations for the acid and alkaline streams and then summed the two

for an overall production-normalized mass bleach plant limitation.

Fourth, EPA calculated a concentration-based limitation for TCDF. In

the proposal, EPA had calculated a production-normalized mass-based

limitation for TCDF. Fifth, EPA adjusted for autocorrelation in the AOX

limitations by using BOD autocorrelation factors. In the preamble to

the proposed rules, EPA requested additional AOX data that would allow

for evaluating autocorrelation in daily AOX measurements. The AOX data

that EPA has received are insufficient for the purpose of evaluating

the autocorrelation in Options A and B. Adjustment for positive

autocorrelation appropriately leads to larger numerical values for

limitations. EPA believes that positive autocorrelation is likely to be

present in daily measurements of AOX and has adjusted the AOX monthly

average limitations using observed autocorrelation in BOD measurements.

The numerical values of the AOX daily maximum and monthly average

limitations for both options in today's notice are larger than the

proposed limitations

arger numerical values for

limitations. EPA believes that positive autocorrelation is likely to be

present in daily measurements of AOX and has adjusted the AOX monthly

average limitations using observed autocorrelation in BOD measurements.

The numerical values of the AOX daily maximum and monthly average

limitations for both options in today's notice are larger than the

proposed limitations.

EPA has provided additional documentation in the record on the

changes made to the BAT statistical methodology (see DCN 13963). The

information added to the record also includes the time series analysis

used in calculating the proposed BCT limitations; methodology used to

aggregate data collected from different sample points; errata to the

statistical support document; and the detailed results of the

statistical analyses.

b. Revised Effluent Limitations Being Considered. Table 3 presents

the proposed limitations and the preliminary results of revising bleach

plant effluent limitations for Options A and B.

Table 3.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Bleach Plant Limitations

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

Daily Maximum Limitation Monthly Average Limitation

-------------------------------------------------- a

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

As

As proposed for Option A Option B proposed Option Option

Option B for A B

Option B

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

TCDD.............................. ND ND ND N/A N/A N/A

TCDF (pg/l)....................... 359 24.1 24.1 N/A N/A N/A

(ng/kkg)

Chlorinated Phenolics............. ND b ND ND N/A N/A N/A

Chloroform (g/kkg)...............

ion A Option B proposed Option Option

Option B for A B

Option B

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

TCDD.............................. ND ND ND N/A N/A N/A

TCDF (pg/l)....................... 359 24.1 24.1 N/A N/A N/A

(ng/kkg)

Chlorinated Phenolics............. ND b ND ND N/A N/A N/A

Chloroform (g/kkg)................ 5.06 5.33 5.33 2.01 2.80 c 2.80 c

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

a Where the monitoring frequency was proposed to be once a month, the monthly average limitation would not be

applicable (N/A).

b Limits > ND for two pollutants (trichlorosyringol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol)(mg/kkg).

c Limits based on low air-flow low-flow (pressure or diffusion) pulp washers in bleach plants.

Table 4 presents the proposed limitations and the preliminary

results of revising end-of-pipe effluent limitations for AOX.

Additional data from two mills representing Option A were submitted by

the industry but not with sufficient lead time to allow EPA to complete

all analyses necessary to use that data in this notice. Results of

analyses for these additional data sets will be incorporated as

appropriate in the final rule. Listings of these additional data sets

are provided in the record (see DCNs 13960, 13961).

Table 4.-- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda End-of-Pipe AOX

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

As

proposed Option Option

for A (kg/ B (kg/

Option B kkg) kkg)

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

Long-Term Average........................... 0.143 0.413 0.153

Monthly Average Limitation.................. 0.156 0.448 0.162

Daily Maximum Limitation.................... 0.267 0.769 0.236

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

proposed Option Option

for A (kg/ B (kg/

Option B kkg) kkg)

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

Long-Term Average........................... 0.143 0.413 0.153

Monthly Average Limitation.................. 0.156 0.448 0.162

Daily Maximum Limitation.................... 0.267 0.769 0.236

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

Table 5 presents the proposed limitations and the preliminary

results of revising end-of-pipe effluent limitations for COD. The

revised limitations reflect additional data submitted by the industry

since proposal. However, as noted previously in this notice, the

supplemented database upon which the revised limitations are based

includes only limited data to determine the need for and magnitude of

end-of-pipe COD allowances for on-site sources other than pulping and

bleaching (e.g., paper machines, semi-chemical pulping). Therefore,

while the revised COD limitations presented in Table 5 have been

developed reflecting only market pulp operations, EPA intends that

final COD limitations reflect integrated mills, both ECF and TCF. Table

5 includes a range of possible LTA values for an integrated mill based

on the market pulp LTA plus a range of paper machine allowances

(presented as such due to limitations of currently available data). EPA

also is concerned that the limited COD data currently available for

market pulp operations may not represent the best performance of BMPs

and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems. Additional details on

these preliminary revised COD limitations and underlying data sets are

provided in the record (see DCN 13958).

ances

(presented as such due to limitations of currently available data). EPA

also is concerned that the limited COD data currently available for

market pulp operations may not represent the best performance of BMPs

and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems. Additional details on

these preliminary revised COD limitations and underlying data sets are

provided in the record (see DCN 13958).

Table 5.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory End-of-Pipe COD

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

As

proposed Option A (kg/ Option B

for kkg) (kg/kkg)

Option B

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

Long-Term Average:

Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 21.3 38.2 44-61 a 25.5 31-48 a

Mills.

Monthly Average Limitation:

Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 25.4 45.6 b TBD 30.4 b TBD

Mills.

Daily Maximum Limitation:

Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 35.7 64.0 b TBD 42.7 b TBD

Mills.

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

a Market pulp plus range of values for paper machine allowances.

b Derived with same variability factors used for proposed limits.

TBD To Be Developed--insufficient data at this time.

In the proposal, the end-of-pipe ``annual average'' limitation for

non-continuous dischargers was set equal to the long-term average. The

daily maximum limitation applies to both continuous and non-continuous

dischargers. The monthly average limitations apply only to continuous

dischargers.

EPA is considering a change in the regulatory language defining

non-continuous dischargers (see the general definitions section of the

proposed regulation, at Sec. 430.01 (k)). The proposed definition

focuses on wastewaters stored for periods greater than 24 hours and

released on a batch basis

non-continuous

dischargers. The monthly average limitations apply only to continuous

dischargers.

EPA is considering a change in the regulatory language defining

non-continuous dischargers (see the general definitions section of the

proposed regulation, at Sec. 430.01 (k)). The proposed definition

focuses on wastewaters stored for periods greater than 24 hours and

released on a batch basis. Alternative language being considered by EPA

describes the same non-continuous discharge patterns but focuses on

wastewaters stored for periods as required by NPDES authorities and

released on a variable flow or pollutant loading rate basis to protect

receiving water quality. EPA solicits comments, particularly from NPDES

authorities, on whether this change in emphasis is appropriate.

10. Conventional Pollutant Limitations (BPT and BCT)

EPA proposed to revise effluent limitations based on the best

practicable control technology currently available (BPT) for all of the

proposed subcategories, including bleached papergrade kraft and soda.

EPA highlighted several controversial issues concerning the BPT

limitations, their calculation, and their interpretation. EPA also

presented a rationale, methodology, and related controversies for

establishing limitations based on the best conventional pollutant

control technology (BCT).

Although the Agency believes that it has the statutory authority to

revise BPT, the Agency also believes that it has the discretion to

determine whether to revise BPT effluent limitations guidelines in

particular circumstances.

For the final rule, the Agency is currently considering exercising

its discretion not to revise BPT. Where more stringent effluent

limitations for conventional pollutants pass the BCT cost test, EPA

would revise BCT in this rulemaking. EPA is likely to apply this same

discretion and reliance on the BCT cost test to final rules for this

entire industry, not just the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and

soda subcategory

y is currently considering exercising

its discretion not to revise BPT. Where more stringent effluent

limitations for conventional pollutants pass the BCT cost test, EPA

would revise BCT in this rulemaking. EPA is likely to apply this same

discretion and reliance on the BCT cost test to final rules for this

entire industry, not just the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and

soda subcategory. EPA solicits comment on this approach.

The Agency also is carefully reviewing comments claiming that

certain of the data sets used to establish the proposed revised

conventional pollutant effluent limitations do not accurately represent

secondary biological treatment technology. EPA also has received a

suggestion from AF&PA regarding a different approach for identifying

mills having secondary treatment for purposes of performing the BCT

cost reasonableness test. This approach suggests that EPA's secondary

treatment regulations applicable to POTWs (see 40 CFR 133.101(m))

provide a basis for determining which mills performing at levels beyond

secondary treatment should be excluded from EPA's BCT analysis. See the

record at DCN 14047. If EPA were to adopt this approach, datasets for

certain mills asserted to represent more stringent performance than

secondary treatment would be removed from the conventional pollutant

database and the ensuing BCT cost reasonableness test. EPA solicits

comments on this possible approach, particularly with respect to the

use of 40 CFR 133.101(m) for this purpose. In response, EPA has made

some adjustments to the data sets used to characterize effluent

loadings of conventional pollutants typical of secondary biological

treatment as applied in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory. Additional discussion of the BCT datasets and calculations

are in the record (DCN 13954). Table 6

summarizes the changes to the long-term average performance for the BCT

options resulting from these adjustments.

used to characterize effluent

loadings of conventional pollutants typical of secondary biological

treatment as applied in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory. Additional discussion of the BCT datasets and calculations

are in the record (DCN 13954). Table 6

summarizes the changes to the long-term average performance for the BCT

options resulting from these adjustments.

Table 6.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory Long-Term

Average Performance Levels for BCT Options

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

BOD5 TSS

Long- Long-

Term Term

Average Average

(kg/ (kg/

OMMT) OMMT)

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

Proposal Option 1 (average of the best 90%)........... 2.65 4.46

Proposal Option 2 (average of the best 50%)........... 1.57 2.72

Revised Option 1 (average of the best 90%)............ 2.73 4.41

Revised Option 2 (average of the best 50%)............ 1.73 2.73

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

11. Technology Options for NSPS

For New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in the proposed

bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, EPA is considering a

minor revision to the proposed technology option. The likely technology

basis will be Option B, described in Section V.A.3. This option

includes extended delignification generally, including OD and/or

extended cooking to produce softwood pulps with a kappa number of

approximately 15 (approximately 10 for hardwoods) followed by complete

(100 percent) substitution by chlorine dioxide for bleaching.

EPA's data do not indicate performance differences between the

proposed NSPS option (then, Option 5) and the option being considered

today. EPA plans to use performance data from both of these options to

establish NSPS effluent limitations for priority and nonconventional

pollutants for the final rule

rdwoods) followed by complete

(100 percent) substitution by chlorine dioxide for bleaching.

EPA's data do not indicate performance differences between the

proposed NSPS option (then, Option 5) and the option being considered

today. EPA plans to use performance data from both of these options to

establish NSPS effluent limitations for priority and nonconventional

pollutants for the final rule.

For NSPS for conventional pollutants, EPA proposed effluent

limitations based on best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater

treatment. EPA used the treatment system with the lowest long-term

average BOD discharge to characterize the best demonstrated

performance. EPA's position is that the best existing performance can

be achieved (or surpassed) by new facilities as demonstrated by

recently built mills in Canada and Scandinavia. EPA has reviewed

comments and the supplementary information gathered since proposal and

is now considering the best existing performance as characterized by

the average of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the

subcategory. Based on that review of the supplemented database and

other information available to date, EPA believes this may be a more

appropriate representation of the best existing performance for mills

in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory because

the single best mill does not account for all sources of process-

related variability expected in the entire subcategory, including raw

materials (i.e., furnish), process operations, and final products.

12. Revised Economic Impact Results

a. Revisions to the Economic Analysis. The Agency plans to base its

decisions regarding the economic achievability of BAT and other cost

considerations on several revisions since proposal. First, the revised

economic impacts for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory will be based on the revised mill-specific engineering

costs described in Section V.A.7 of today's notice

a. Revisions to the Economic Analysis. The Agency plans to base its

decisions regarding the economic achievability of BAT and other cost

considerations on several revisions since proposal. First, the revised

economic impacts for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory will be based on the revised mill-specific engineering

costs described in Section V.A.7 of today's notice.

EPA also has revised the economic methodology to account for

changes that have occurred in the industry. Some of these changes are

summarized below; additional discussion is in the record (see Section

27.0). At proposal, EPA used both a financial model, which estimated

facility closures and production changes, and a market model, which was

used to estimate price and production effects. Though not fully

integrated, these models validated each other's results. Between 1989

and 1995, the industry underwent a period of intensive capital

investment, some for pollution control, but mostly to increase

production and to change product lines. During this period, a full

industry cycle was completed, with pulp mill revenues peaking in 1988,

falling through 1992, and reaching new heights in 1995 as the capacity

expansions of 1988-1991 were fully exploited. This same period was also

one of considerable industry consolidation, with almost 15 percent of

the facilities being acquired by others in the industry. In addition,

several facilities ceased operation, while several new ones opened. EPA

plans to update its financial profile of facilities that have changed

ownership and to use those updates in the economic analysis.

As a result of the industry's changes, EPA believes that the market

model used at proposal--based on information obtained in the 1989

survey--no longer provides reliable economic information. EPA does not

plan to update the market model, which would only be possible through a

new survey of every mill and all product lines

e changed

ownership and to use those updates in the economic analysis.

As a result of the industry's changes, EPA believes that the market

model used at proposal--based on information obtained in the 1989

survey--no longer provides reliable economic information. EPA does not

plan to update the market model, which would only be possible through a

new survey of every mill and all product lines. Instead, EPA plans to

incorporate some features of the market model, particularly product

supply and demand elasticities, into the financial model.

The financial model will incorporate several additional changes to

bring it up to date. For example, EPA is adjusting the start year of

the model to 1996, which will reflect changes in prices, inflation,

interest rates, and position in the pulp and paper industry cycle.

Additionally, EPA plans to adjust the industry cycle used for the

closure analysis in order to incorporate 1995 financial data. The

revised cycle will be seven years instead of the six year cycle used at

proposal. EPA also plans to adjust interest rates to reflect changes in

industry borrowing costs. EPA used a 7 percent rate in the analyses

reported in this notice.

EPA also plans to incorporate a cost pass-through or price change

parameter into the model to improve estimates of the effects of

closures on pulp and paper production. Although the results presented

in today's notice assume no price increases (as assumed at proposal),

this new feature will provide a more accurate estimate of the degree to

which increased costs are passed through to consumers. Hence, various

assumptions about cost pass-through will be considered when the Agency

makes final decisions about economic impacts.

b. Economic Impacts of BAT Options A and B. The economic impact

analysis will continue to use the three forecasting methods and the

composite scoring technique used at proposal to predict mill closures

ee to

which increased costs are passed through to consumers. Hence, various

assumptions about cost pass-through will be considered when the Agency

makes final decisions about economic impacts.

b. Economic Impacts of BAT Options A and B. The economic impact

analysis will continue to use the three forecasting methods and the

composite scoring technique used at proposal to predict mill closures.

The revised economic impacts discussed in today's notice are based on

an analysis of 85 bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills (76 direct

dischargers and nine indirect dischargers). The compliance costs

summarized here are expressed in 1995 dollars. The Agency has not yet

completed its analysis of the combined impact of all components of the

Cluster Rules (e.g., BAT, BCT, BMP and MACT) for this subcategory. The

Agency plans to estimate economic impacts for the compilation of all

compliance costs and will consider those results in making decisions

for the final rules.

The total annualized costs (expressed as a sum of after-tax, or

private, costs to each mill) for BAT and PSES for Option A are $140

million. One mill is predicted to close with associated losses of

approximately 500 jobs (1.3 percent of bleached papergrade kraft and

soda mills and 0.6 percent of subcategory employment).

For Option B, total annualized costs for BAT and PSES are $155

million. Three mills are predicted to close with associated losses of

approximately 4,100

o each mill) for BAT and PSES for Option A are $140

million. One mill is predicted to close with associated losses of

approximately 500 jobs (1.3 percent of bleached papergrade kraft and

soda mills and 0.6 percent of subcategory employment).

For Option B, total annualized costs for BAT and PSES are $155

million. Three mills are predicted to close with associated losses of

approximately 4,100

jobs (3.5 percent of bleached papergrade kraft mills and about 5

percent of subcategory employment).

c. Cost-Effectiveness. The Agency has revised the cost-

effectiveness analysis for BAT and PSES to reflect the revised

estimates of costs and pollutant reductions. In addition, the Agency

has expanded its cost-effectiveness analysis since proposal to include

two cost bases: pre-tax and after-tax compliance costs. The Agency uses

pre-tax costs, which consider industry compliance costs as well as

reductions in state and federal tax revenues occasioned by these costs,

as a measure of direct social costs. After-tax costs are used to

estimate the direct private costs to the regulated industry. While the

after-tax cost basis was the only result presented for cost-

effectiveness at proposal, both sets of results have been calculated

and presented in the revised cost-effectiveness analysis. The

additional set of results responds to comments and to policy

discussions concerning cost-effectiveness ratios. Although AOX is

likely to have an effluent limit in the final rule (see section V.A.5

of this notice), AOX reductions are not included in the cost-

effectiveness ratios. This remains unchanged since proposal. Additional

details about the cost-effectiveness analysis are in the record (See

Section 26).

For BAT, the cost-effectiveness ratios using pre-tax compliance

costs are $12 (Sec. 1981) per pound-equivalent removed for Option A and

$11 per pound-equivalent removed for Option B

this notice), AOX reductions are not included in the cost-

effectiveness ratios. This remains unchanged since proposal. Additional

details about the cost-effectiveness analysis are in the record (See

Section 26).

For BAT, the cost-effectiveness ratios using pre-tax compliance

costs are $12 (Sec. 1981) per pound-equivalent removed for Option A and

$11 per pound-equivalent removed for Option B. For PSES, the cost-

effectiveness ratios are $12 per pound-equivalent removed for Option A

and $16 per pound-equivalent removed for Option B, and $78 per pound-

equivalent for the increment of Option A to Option B.

The cost-effectiveness ratios for Options A and B are very close

and within the bounds of accuracy of EPA's costing analysis and data

available for loadings estimates. The Agency solicits comment on

whether these differences are meaningful for purposes of comparing the

options. The relative costs for implementing Options A and B will

differ among mills. The cost-effectiveness analysis is not presented as

mill-specific results, but instead, the analysis is conducted on

aggregate annualized compliance costs for direct and indirect

dischargers in this subcategory.

When the costs of Options A and B are compared on a pre-tax,

annualized basis, Option B is slightly less expensive than Option A for

the sum of all direct dischargers in this subcategory. Such a result

might appear counter-intuitive because Option B is a more capital

intensive option. This outcome occurs because, compared to industry

process technologies in place in 1995, implementing oxygen

delignification reduces operating costs at certain mills. At some of

these mills, the operation and maintenance cost savings of Option B are

sufficiently large that they outweigh that option's higher capital

costs

counter-intuitive because Option B is a more capital

intensive option. This outcome occurs because, compared to industry

process technologies in place in 1995, implementing oxygen

delignification reduces operating costs at certain mills. At some of

these mills, the operation and maintenance cost savings of Option B are

sufficiently large that they outweigh that option's higher capital

costs.

In calculating annualized costs, the Agency used fixed assumptions

about discount rates (OMB's preferred 7 percent real rate) and tax

shields (including depreciation and deductions for operation and

maintenance costs), both of which may differ among mills due to the

firms' differing capital (borrowing) costs. The significantly greater

capital costs for Option B may be unachievable within normal compliance

periods for firms with higher borrowing costs or more limited access to

credit.

The Agency notes that there may be additional impacts associated

with mill closures, such as job losses and related displacement costs

(see Record Section 17, DCN 08587, pp. 5-5 to 5-6) that are not part of

the cost-effectiveness calculation, but which are considered by the

Agency when evaluating the economic achievability of options.

B. Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

EPA is considering revisions to the proposed papergrade sulfite

subcategory. EPA received comments that criticized the proposed

effluent limitations for their inapplicability to specialty grade pulps

and to ammonium-based pulping processes. Commenters also asserted that

the proposed technology basis, which was totally chlorine-free (TCF)

bleaching, is not feasible for certain products and processes.

1. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Technology Basis for BAT

EPA is carefully reviewing the demonstration and feasibility of

proposed effluent limitations and standards for all mills in the

proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory

s. Commenters also asserted that

the proposed technology basis, which was totally chlorine-free (TCF)

bleaching, is not feasible for certain products and processes.

1. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Technology Basis for BAT

EPA is carefully reviewing the demonstration and feasibility of

proposed effluent limitations and standards for all mills in the

proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory. Preliminary conclusions are

that certain specialty grade pulps have not been produced using totally

chlorine-free bleaching, and that totally chlorine-free bleaching has

not been demonstrated to be universally applicable to pulps made by

ammonium-based processes. Therefore, the Agency is considering

segmenting this proposed subcategory to better reflect the product

considerations, the variation of manufacturing processes, and the

demonstration and feasibility of pollution prevention process changes.

The segments being considered by EPA are:

(a) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills using

an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite.

(b) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills using

an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite.

(c) Production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills.

Specialty grade sulfite mills are those papergrade mills producing

specialty grade pulp characterized by a high percentage of alpha

cellulose and high brightness. Typical end uses of such pulp include

plastic molding compounds, saturating and laminating products, and

photographic papers.

The technology basis for papergrade sulfite products made by the

first segment (calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based processes) is

likely to be totally chlorine-free bleaching, as proposed.

For the second segment (ammonium-based), EPA has received comments

and data regarding the applicability of TCF bleaching

c molding compounds, saturating and laminating products, and

photographic papers.

The technology basis for papergrade sulfite products made by the

first segment (calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based processes) is

likely to be totally chlorine-free bleaching, as proposed.

For the second segment (ammonium-based), EPA has received comments

and data regarding the applicability of TCF bleaching. The Agency's

preliminary conclusion regarding this information is that TCF bleaching

is not demonstrated and may not be feasible for the full range of

products produced by ammonium-based sulfite mills in the United States.

This conclusion is based primarily on the greater difficulty in

bleaching ammonium-based sulfite pulps (especially those pulps derived

from softwood) without the use of chlorine-containing compounds

compared to other sulfite pulps, and the inability to maintain product

specifications for certain products within this segment using TCF

bleaching. TCF bleaching has not been demonstrated for products with a

high percentage of ammonium-based sulfite pulp that also require low

dirt count and high strength. Laboratory scale data have been submitted

by a firm producing such products indicating that such products can be

produced with elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies.

EPA expects to promulgate bleach plant effluent limitations for

dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic compounds for the ammonium-

based segment. EPA anticipates that it will reserve promulgation of

bleach plant chloroform limitations and end-of-pipe AOX limitations for

this segment until such time that sufficient performance data are

available for a mill with the product quality concerns discussed above.

EPA expects to have data that could serve as the basis of chloroform

and AOX limits for this segment no later than mid-1997.

egment. EPA anticipates that it will reserve promulgation of

bleach plant chloroform limitations and end-of-pipe AOX limitations for

this segment until such time that sufficient performance data are

available for a mill with the product quality concerns discussed above.

EPA expects to have data that could serve as the basis of chloroform

and AOX limits for this segment no later than mid-1997.

For the third possible segment (mills that produce specialty grade

pulps), EPA has received comments and data that indicate key pulp and

product characteristics have not been achieved using TCF bleaching

technologies. Data from a firm producing specialty grade pulps indicate

required product characteristics may be achievable using ECF bleaching

technologies. These results are from limited laboratory scale trials.

The Agency is continuing to work with specialty sulfite pulp

manufacturers as their research efforts progress and therefore does not

expect to promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for this segment of the papergrade sulfite subcategory in

1996. EPA anticipates, however, that alternative bleaching processes

developed as a result of these research efforts should contribute to

substantial reductions from current operating practices in the

generation and release of pollutants including, for example, air

emissions of chloroform and discharge of chlorinated organic compounds

in wastewaters. EPA encourages mills in this segment to undertake and

expeditiously complete developmental work that will facilitate

installation of alternative process technologies that achieve these

pollution prevention goals at the earliest possible date.

2. Technology Options for BAT

For papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of

calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite, the TCF technology option being

considered as the technology basis for limitations is oxygen and

peroxide enhanced extraction, followed by peroxide bleaching

rnative process technologies that achieve these

pollution prevention goals at the earliest possible date.

2. Technology Options for BAT

For papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of

calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite, the TCF technology option being

considered as the technology basis for limitations is oxygen and

peroxide enhanced extraction, followed by peroxide bleaching. Although

still TCF, the technology sequence is a change from proposal, when TCF

was an oxygen stage with peroxide addition, followed by a peroxide

bleaching stage. This change to the TCF bleaching sequence reflects the

more common approach to TCF bleaching within the proposed papergrade

sulfite subcategory, and also reflects the technology basis of the mill

from which performance data have been collected.

For papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of

ammonium sulfite, the technology option being considered as the

technology basis for limitations is complete (100 percent) substitution

of chlorine dioxide for chlorine, peroxide enhanced extraction, and

elimination of hypochlorite. This sequence reflects the results of

laboratory trials showing the ability to produce the full range of

products manufactured by mills in the ammonium segment, with acceptable

final product characteristics.

For production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills,

technology development work is still ongoing. The most likely

technology basis for this segment is oxygen delignification, complete

(100 percent) substitution, and oxygen and peroxide enhanced

extraction.

3. Costs

EPA revised its cost estimates for mills in the subcategory by

using the revised bleaching sequences outlined above. EPA also has

updated equipment cost curves and unit operating costs. The detailed

basis of these revised cost estimates are provided in the record (DCNs

13920, 13947). The preliminary estimates of capital costs for mills in

the first two segments of the papergrade sulfite subcategory are $57.9

million

mates for mills in the subcategory by

using the revised bleaching sequences outlined above. EPA also has

updated equipment cost curves and unit operating costs. The detailed

basis of these revised cost estimates are provided in the record (DCNs

13920, 13947). The preliminary estimates of capital costs for mills in

the first two segments of the papergrade sulfite subcategory are $57.9

million. The preliminary annual operating and maintenance costs are

estimated to be $1.3 million per year. Total annualized costs are

estimated to be $6.6 million per year. These estimates do not include

costs for specialty grade sulfite mills.

4. Effluent Reduction Benefits

EPA has updated the calculation of effluent reduction benefits for

each papergrade sulfite mill, adjusting the baseline to mid-1995. EPA

used methodology similar to that used for the proposed bleached

papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.

5. Revised Effluent Limitations for BAT and PSES

Table 7 presents the preliminary results of revising BAT effluent

limitations for the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, based on

TCF bleaching for the calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based segment

and ECF bleaching for the ammonium sulfite segment. For a discussion of

the pollutants EPA is considering addressing in its final rules for

this proposed subcategory, see Section V.A.5 of today's notice.

Table 7.-- Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory Bleach Plant Daily Maximum

Limitations

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

Calcium,

magnesium, Ammonium-

and sodium- based

Proposed based sulfite sulfite

pulping TCF pulping ECF

bleaching bleaching

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

TCDD (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND

TCDF (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND

Chlorinated Phenolics (mg/kkg). none....... none......... ND

Chloroform (g/kkg)............. none....... none......... TBD a

AOX (kg/kkg)................... 0.1 b.....

pulping ECF

bleaching bleaching

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

TCDD (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND

TCDF (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND

Chlorinated Phenolics (mg/kkg). none....... none......... ND

Chloroform (g/kkg)............. none....... none......... TBD a

AOX (kg/kkg)................... 0.1 b...... ND b......... TBDa

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

a To Be Developed (TBD).

b End-of-pipe limitation.

Table 8 presents the proposed effluent limitations for COD.

However, the supplemented database for the proposed papergrade sulfite

subcategory has very limited data to characterize COD loadings either

for on-site sources (including pulping and bleaching and other sources)

or the performance of the best spill prevention (BMPs), process

changes, and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems. As noted

previously, EPA will consider additional data and comments received in

response to this notice in developing final COD limits for TCF

(calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite) and ECF (ammonium-

based sulfite) mills in this subcategory. However, EPA also is

considering deferring developing COD limits until BAT COD limits are

developed for other subcategories in a later rulemaking.

Table 8.--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory End-of-Pipe COD

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

Segment Bb

As Segment Aa (kg/kkg)

proposed (kg/kkg) TCF ECF

Bleaching Bleaching

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

Long-Term Average............... 63.7 TBD TBD

Monthly Average Limitation...... 71.2 TBD TBD

Daily Maximum Limitation........ 144 TBD TBD

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

a Segment A:Calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite pulping.

b Segment B:Ammonium-based sulfite pulping.

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

Long-Term Average............... 63.7 TBD TBD

Monthly Average Limitation...... 71.2 TBD TBD

Daily Maximum Limitation........ 144 TBD TBD

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

a Segment A:Calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite pulping.

b Segment B:Ammonium-based sulfite pulping.

6. Conventional Pollutant Limitations

As is the case for the proposed papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory, the Agency is considering promulgating more stringent

effluent limitations for conventional pollutants for the proposed

papergrade sulfite subcategory only if such limits pass the BCT cost

test. EPA solicits comment on this approach. The revised conventional

pollutant limitations would apply to the calcium-, magnesium-, or

sodium-sulfite segment and to the ammonium sulfite segment, but not to

the specialty grade segment. Characteristics of wastewaters from

specialty grade sulfite mills are significantly different than

wastewaters from papergrade sulfite mills in the other two segments.

The Agency does not as yet have sufficient data to establish

performance levels for conventional pollutants for the specialty grade

segment.

EPA has updated and revised its analysis of performance levels in

response to comments and additional data. These changes are detailed in

the record (see DCN 13954). Table 9 summarizes the adjustments to the

proposed BCT options and the revised BCT option.

Agency does not as yet have sufficient data to establish

performance levels for conventional pollutants for the specialty grade

segment.

EPA has updated and revised its analysis of performance levels in

response to comments and additional data. These changes are detailed in

the record (see DCN 13954). Table 9 summarizes the adjustments to the

proposed BCT options and the revised BCT option.

Table 9.--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory a Long-Term Average Performance

of Proposed BCT Options and Revised BCT Option

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

BOD5 TSS

Long- Long-

Term Term

Average Average

(kg/ (kg/

OMMT) OMMT)

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

Proposal Option 1..................................... 4.97 5.46

Proposal Option 2..................................... 3.60 4.74

Revised Option........................................ 7.06 8.39

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

a Applicable to Calcium-, Magnesium-, and Sodium-based Sulfite Pulping

Segment, and to Ammonium-based Sulfite Pulping Segment.

7. Technology Options and Revised Effluent Limitations for NSPS

The technology basis of NSPS for the segments of the proposed

papergrade sulfite subcategory is likely to be the same as for the BAT

limitations. For calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite mills,

TCF-based technology is the likely basis for NSPS. TCF bleaching has

not been demonstrated as applicable to the full range of products made

by ammonium-based sulfite mills; therefore, ECF-based technology is

likely to be the basis of NSPS for mills in this segment. EPA plans to

reserve NSPS for specialty grade sulfite mills.

EPA proposed NSPS for conventional pollutants based on best

demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment. The treatment

system with the lowest long-term average BOD5 discharge was used

to characterize the best demonstrated performance

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

Proposed NSPS......................................... 2.69* 2.99*

Revised NSPS.......................................... 5.61 8.98

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

* Note that this is the average load of the best mill identified in the

Technical Development Document for the proposed rule.

8. Economic Impacts

a. Costs and Impacts. The economic analysis for papergrade sulfite

mills was revised and updated in a manner similar to that described in

Section V.A.12 of today's notice for the proposed bleached papergrade

kraft and soda subcategory.

Total annualized BAT and PSES costs for the papergrade sulfite

subcategory are estimated to be approximately $6.6 million (post-tax).

No mills would be expected to close as a result of these costs, with no

related job losses.

b. Cost-Effectiveness. The following results are for the first two

segments of the papergrade sulfite subcategory. Cost-effectiveness

ratios are not yet available for each of these segments, reported

separately.

For direct dischargers, the cost-effectiveness ratio using pre-tax-

costs, is $10 per pound-equivalent removed. For indirect dischargers,

the cost-effectiveness ratio is $284 per pound-equivalent removed.

VI. Environmental Assessment

At proposal, EPA estimated 2,3,7,8 TCDD (``dioxin'') and 2,3,7,8

TCDF (``furan'') concentrations in fish tissue and then used those

concentrations to estimate individual cancer risks and non-cancer

hazards from consuming contaminated fish. EPA calculated estimates for

recreational and subsistence anglers using two water quality models.

One is a simple dilution model that assumes complete mixing and

bioavailability with contaminant accumulation in fish estimated by a

bioconcentration factor (BCF)

issue and then used those

concentrations to estimate individual cancer risks and non-cancer

hazards from consuming contaminated fish. EPA calculated estimates for

recreational and subsistence anglers using two water quality models.

One is a simple dilution model that assumes complete mixing and

bioavailability with contaminant accumulation in fish estimated by a

bioconcentration factor (BCF). The other model is EPA's Dioxin

Reassessment Evaluation Model (DRE), which estimates fish tissue

concentrations by equilibrium partitioning between the fish tissue and

contaminants adsorbed to the organic fraction of sediments suspended in

the water column. EPA received comments asserting that EPA improperly

employed the simple dilution model as a basis for predicting the risk

from dioxin and furan discharges. The comments further suggest that EPA

should only use the ``more realistic'' DRE model and not the simple

dilution model to estimate human exposure.

After evaluating these comments and new data related to the water

quality modeling for hydrophobic compounds, such as dioxin and furan,

EPA is considering changing its methodology for estimating dioxin and

furan concentrations in fish and for estimating individual cancer risks

and non-cancer hazards for the final rule. EPA is considering not using

the simple dilution model, which assumes complete mixing and

bioavailability with contaminant accumulation in fish estimated by a

bioconcentration factor, but instead using the DRE model. If EPA uses

the DRE model, however, EPA would replace the Biota to Suspended Solids

Accumulation Factor (BSSAF factor) of 0.09 (based on Lake Ontario data

which is primarily historical sources) with a BSSAF factor of 0.2, a

value considered more appropriate for ecosystems with ongoing impacts

(see ``Estimating Exposures to Dioxin-Like compounds'' Volume III:

Site-Specific Assessment Procedures; EPA 1994; DCN 13955)

el, however, EPA would replace the Biota to Suspended Solids

Accumulation Factor (BSSAF factor) of 0.09 (based on Lake Ontario data

which is primarily historical sources) with a BSSAF factor of 0.2, a

value considered more appropriate for ecosystems with ongoing impacts

(see ``Estimating Exposures to Dioxin-Like compounds'' Volume III:

Site-Specific Assessment Procedures; EPA 1994; DCN 13955).

EPA is still conducting its reassessment of dioxin and its impacts

on human health and the environment. Results of that reassessment

available prior to completing the Cluster Rules will be considered as

appropriate. EPA also has made available the 1995 database update of

the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories. See

the record at DCN

14016, Section 20.3. This listing is PC-based and available to the

public free of charge from the Internet through the following URL:

HTTP://www.epa.gov/OW/OST/Tools.

VII. Best Management Practices

In the proposed regulations EPA included provisions for leak and

spill prevention, containment, and control through best management

practices (BMPs). EPA has received comments that generally support the

use of BMPs. However, some commenters challenged the details of these

provisions. EPA continues to believe that leak and spill prevention,

containment, and control through BMPs yield not only increased

environmental benefits but also improved efficiency of operations at

pulp and paper mills. The Agency also intends that BMPs apply in the

final rule both for direct and indirect discharging mills.

The Agency has assessed preliminarily the comments and data

received on BMPs and has held detailed discussions with stakeholders

regarding options for BMPs and associated costs. EPA received a

substantial amount of additional information and data, including costs,

through a survey conducted by AF&PA and NCASI

s that BMPs apply in the

final rule both for direct and indirect discharging mills.

The Agency has assessed preliminarily the comments and data

received on BMPs and has held detailed discussions with stakeholders

regarding options for BMPs and associated costs. EPA received a

substantial amount of additional information and data, including costs,

through a survey conducted by AF&PA and NCASI. Based on the information

and data received from mills that have implemented spill prevention and

control programs, EPA has reformulated the scope of BMPs to focus on

spent pulping liquor (i.e., black liquor and red liquor) spill control.

The Agency is also restructuring BMP program requirements to allow for

further flexibility in how BMPs are implemented to achieve meaningful

prevention and control of leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors.

The Agency has prepared and included in the record (DCN 13894) a

document that incorporates EPA's preliminary revisions to its proposed

BMP program.

In response to comments, this document also describes a management

program being considered by EPA for monitoring the implementation of

BMPs. The purposes of this requirement are: (1) To provide a framework

for monitoring the performance and effectiveness of BMPs on a

continuing basis; and (2) to establish an early warning system to

detect trends in spent pulping liquor losses that might otherwise not

be obvious from other sources. The program entails establishing upper

operating control limits on a measure of organic loading at the

influent to wastewater treatment or at another key location or

locations in the mill sewer system, and responding to exceedances of

those control limits with investigative and corrective actions, as

appropriate. EPA does not intend that exceedances of the upper control

limits will constitute violations of NPDES permits or pretreatment

control mechanisms

on a measure of organic loading at the

influent to wastewater treatment or at another key location or

locations in the mill sewer system, and responding to exceedances of

those control limits with investigative and corrective actions, as

appropriate. EPA does not intend that exceedances of the upper control

limits will constitute violations of NPDES permits or pretreatment

control mechanisms. Failure of the owner or operator to conduct the

required monitoring or failure to conduct investigative or corrective

actions when such limits are exceeded would constitute violations.

EPA believes, consistent with a comment received, that COD is among

the best, if not the best, pulp mill wastewater characteristics to

monitor to meet the requirements of this provision of the BMP

regulation. The test method for COD is highly reproducible and can be

run in a short period of time, unlike BOD5. It also has the

advantage of being responsive to losses of turpentine and soap, unlike

conductivity which is not responsive to these materials. Accordingly,

the revised BMP program incorporates COD as the control parameter to

measure performance of pulping liquor spill controls. The Agency seeks

comments on the revised approach to BMPs and related details, including

costs. EPA also seeks comment on the management program described

above, including its potential effectiveness and any implementation

issues it might present, especially from a permit writer's perspective.

VIII. Pretreatment Standards

rol parameter to

measure performance of pulping liquor spill controls. The Agency seeks

comments on the revised approach to BMPs and related details, including

costs. EPA also seeks comment on the management program described

above, including its potential effectiveness and any implementation

issues it might present, especially from a permit writer's perspective.

VIII. Pretreatment Standards

In the proposal, EPA discussed three options for pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) for the 13 indirect discharging

facilities in four proposed subcategories, each of which contribute the

majority of flow or pollutant loadings to a publicly owned treatment

works (POTW). The option selected for proposal would have set PSES for

these indirect dischargers for the same pollutants controlled by BAT

for direct dischargers; the proposed standards would have applied at

the point of discharge from the bleach plant and at the point of

discharge to the POTW, depending upon the pollutant proposed to be

regulated. EPA also solicited comment on whether pretreatment standards

for BOD5 and TSS were warranted to ensure that pass-through of

these and other pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur.

For the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory and

the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, EPA's record shows that

both direct-discharging mills in those proposed subcategories and POTWs

accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in those proposed

subcategories generally operate secondary biological treatment systems.

Data now available to EPA suitable for characterizing treatment system

performance at these POTWs still are quite limited

roposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, EPA's record shows that

both direct-discharging mills in those proposed subcategories and POTWs

accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in those proposed

subcategories generally operate secondary biological treatment systems.

Data now available to EPA suitable for characterizing treatment system

performance at these POTWs still are quite limited. In general, the

data provided by indirect-discharging facilities, POTWs, and other

interested parties lack paired influent and effluent AOX, COD, and

color data points, accompanying information concerning operations (at

either the treatment system or related to pulping and bleaching process

areas of the mills), analytical methods, and quality control/assurance

(QA/QC) associated with sample collection, handling, and laboratory

analysis. In addition, some commenters provided summary information

unaccompanied by individual analytical data points, particularly for

POTW influent. As a result, EPA has been unable to develop a complete

and rigorous database for conducting a pass-through analysis.

Nevertheless, EPA has used the limited information available to the

extent possible in comparing pollutant reductions attained by direct-

discharging mill treatment systems and by POTWs accepting similar

wastewaters in evaluating the potential for pass-through to take place.

Based on the limited data available for the proposed bleached

papergrade kraft and soda and the proposed papergrade sulfite

subcategories, it appears that secondary biological treatment systems

at POTWs and direct-discharging mills generally achieve comparable

reductions of BOD5, TSS, AOX, COD, and color. (See the record at

DCN 13956.) Thus, EPA has concluded preliminarily that the data

reviewed for this analysis do not indicate pass-through of these

pollutants is likely to occur at these POTWs. EPA solicits comments on

this finding

pears that secondary biological treatment systems

at POTWs and direct-discharging mills generally achieve comparable

reductions of BOD5, TSS, AOX, COD, and color. (See the record at

DCN 13956.) Thus, EPA has concluded preliminarily that the data

reviewed for this analysis do not indicate pass-through of these

pollutants is likely to occur at these POTWs. EPA solicits comments on

this finding.

Accordingly, EPA anticipates that it will not promulgate national

pretreatment standards for new or existing sources for BOD5, TSS,

AOX, COD, or color for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory or the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory. Any new

data received on these pollutants, particularly for POTWs that did not

submit data usable for this analysis, will be considered in preparing

the final rules and will be placed in the record. Notwithstanding EPA's

preliminary decision not to set PSES or PSNS for those pollutants for

these subcategories, other regulatory authorities may determine, based

on a site-specific review of treatment system performance, that pass-

through of these or other pollutants does indeed occur and that locally

imposed limits are appropriate.

Concerning the pollutants discharged from the bleach plant, EPA

continues to

believe that sludge contamination occurs and therefore is likely to

promulgate PSES and PSNS for the same pollutants controlled at the

bleach plant by BAT limitations, as included in the proposal and as now

being considered in this notice, for direct-discharging facilities. See

Sections V.A and V.B, supra, for discussion of pollutants selected for

BAT regulation at the discharge from the bleach plant.

IX. Implementation Issues

A. Permit Limits for Multiple Subcategory Mills

and PSNS for the same pollutants controlled at the

bleach plant by BAT limitations, as included in the proposal and as now

being considered in this notice, for direct-discharging facilities. See

Sections V.A and V.B, supra, for discussion of pollutants selected for

BAT regulation at the discharge from the bleach plant.

IX. Implementation Issues

A. Permit Limits for Multiple Subcategory Mills

The Agency has structured the revised effluent limitations

guidelines and standards to be used in a building block approach. This

means that the applicable NPDES permit limitations for mills with

production in more than one subcategory will be the sum of the mass

loadings based on the appropriate production in each subcategory and

the respective subcategory effluent limitations guidelines or

standards. In some cases, such any BCT limitations for conventional

pollutants, this may entail the use of two distinct subcategorization

schemes, revised and current. Where the Agency has revised effluent

limitations guidelines or standards, the appropriate production

encompassed in the revised subcategories will be utilized for the

calculation of mass limitations, with all remaining production

categorized and mass loadings calculated according to the current

subcategory scheme.

B. New Sources

In the proposed rule, EPA included definitions of types of

facilities that would be considered new sources. EPA received comments

that asserted that EPA had no basis for changing the definition of new

sources as provided in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit program regulations (found at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29).

EPA is considering clarifying its definitions such that only new

``greenfield'' mills and new capacity increases at existing mills would

be considered new sources

received comments

that asserted that EPA had no basis for changing the definition of new

sources as provided in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit program regulations (found at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29).

EPA is considering clarifying its definitions such that only new

``greenfield'' mills and new capacity increases at existing mills would

be considered new sources. Any existing mills that renovate existing

fiber lines at existing production levels for purposes of complying

with either BAT or PSES effluent limitations or standards or any

existing mills that voluntarily accept more stringent BAT limitations

as part of the incentives program would not be considered new sources.

C. Monitoring

EPA proposed specific minimum monitoring requirements in the

regulation (at Sec. 430.02) with monitoring frequencies for pollutant

parameters included in both bleach plant effluent limitations and end-

of-pipe effluent limitations. EPA is considering retaining these

minimum monitoring requirements as proposed at least for the two

proposed subcategories covered by this notice, and possibly also for

remaining bleaching subcategories to be covered in a later rulemaking.

However, EPA acknowledges that this approach would be a change from

past effluent guidelines practice where EPA issued only guidance with

respect to monitoring. EPA therefore welcomes comment--particularly

from permitting authorities--regarding the appropriateness of

promulgating specific minimum monitoring requirements. EPA also

acknowledges that specific minimum monitoring requirements may be at

odds with the Agency's recent initiative to tailor monitoring

requirements to particular circumstances, notably compliance records

respect to monitoring. EPA therefore welcomes comment--particularly

from permitting authorities--regarding the appropriateness of

promulgating specific minimum monitoring requirements. EPA also

acknowledges that specific minimum monitoring requirements may be at

odds with the Agency's recent initiative to tailor monitoring

requirements to particular circumstances, notably compliance records.

EPA has received a suggestion from the industry that if mills

certify that elemental chlorine is not being used in bleaching

operations (i.e., ECF--complete substitution with chlorine dioxide and

elimination of hypochlorite), monitoring should not be required for

dioxin, furan, or any other chlorinated organic pollutant parameters

proposed to be regulated (i.e., AOX, chloroform, chlorinated phenolic

compounds, etc.). EPA does not agree with the industry's assertion that

substitution of chemicals alone (changing to and ECF process), without

regard for operational controls, is sufficient to warrant such an

approach. There are data available for ECF operations indicating, for

example, that detectable concentrations of dioxin still can be

generated in bleach plant effluents. Contrary to the industry's

assertion, this finding reflects the need for careful control of

chemical (e.g., chlorine dioxide) application rates. Further,

chloroform concentrations in wastewater, and also air emissions, can be

expected to exhibit considerable variability reflecting pulp washing

and other operational practices. Therefore, without meaningful

monitoring data to reflect a range of operational practices, as well as

raw materials and final products, there is no assurance that changes in

process technologies that are installed are being properly operated or

that bleach plant limits or end-of-pipe limits are being achieved

consistently.

D. BMPs as NPDES Permit Special Conditions

her operational practices. Therefore, without meaningful

monitoring data to reflect a range of operational practices, as well as

raw materials and final products, there is no assurance that changes in

process technologies that are installed are being properly operated or

that bleach plant limits or end-of-pipe limits are being achieved

consistently.

D. BMPs as NPDES Permit Special Conditions

EPA proposed that specific BMP requirements be fully implemented

within thirty months from the effective date of the final rules,

separate from the normal NPDES reissuance process. This structure would

be retained for indirect dischargers because the BMPs would be

promulgated as part of PSES. For direct dischargers, however, EPA is

now considering requiring implementation of BMPs as special NPDES

permit conditions and to require implementation of the BMPs within

thirty months from the effective date of the final rule or the date the

mill's next NPDES permit is issued, whichever is later. However, EPA

expects that the compliance date for implementation shall not extend

beyond five years from the effective date of the final rule, because

EPA expects NPDES permit for those mills to be reissued on a timely

basis.

E. Relationship Between the Cluster Rules and Project XL

As described in the May 22, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR

27282), EPA is participating in the development of regulatory

reinvention excellence and leadership (Project XL) pilot projects. Such

projects would involve the exercise of regulatory flexibility by EPA in

exchange for a commitment on the part of the regulated entity to

achieve better environmental results than would have been attained

through full compliance with all applicable regulations. One bleached

papergrade kraft mill is participating in Project XL. Many of the

incentives listed in Section X of this notice provide regulatory

flexibility in exchange for superior environmental benefits

n

exchange for a commitment on the part of the regulated entity to

achieve better environmental results than would have been attained

through full compliance with all applicable regulations. One bleached

papergrade kraft mill is participating in Project XL. Many of the

incentives listed in Section X of this notice provide regulatory

flexibility in exchange for superior environmental benefits. EPA

solicits comments on how, if at all, project XL should be reflected in

this rulemaking.

F. Summary of Changes to Methods for Analysis of Pulp and Paper

Industry Wastewaters

The pulp and paper industry and other commenters have provided

suggestions for improvement of methods for analysis of pulp and paper

industry wastewaters. Where these suggestions are expected to have a

positive effect on the reliability of analytical data produced, EPA

will incorporate the suggestions into the final versions of methods

incorporated by reference into the final rule to be promulgated at 40

CFR part 430. Methods for which changes are anticipated and a summary

of these changes are given below. This summary is not intended to be

all-inclusive, but to be indicative of the

type of changes anticipated. Detailed revisions to these methods will

be added to the record at a later date.

1. Method 1624, Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS

Suggested changes focused mostly on clarification of the language

in Method 1624 rather than on substantive modifications of the method.

These clarifications will be made when Method 1624 is revised, updated,

and re-promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136. This update is expected in late

1996 or in 1997. No changes will be made to Method 1624 for

promulgation of the pulp and paper industry Cluster Rules.

2. Method 1650, AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration

EPA expects that changes will be made in Method 1650 as part of

this rulemaking to improve the ease of use and the reliability of this

method

d,

and re-promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136. This update is expected in late

1996 or in 1997. No changes will be made to Method 1624 for

promulgation of the pulp and paper industry Cluster Rules.

2. Method 1650, AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration

EPA expects that changes will be made in Method 1650 as part of

this rulemaking to improve the ease of use and the reliability of this

method. Among the possible changes, EPA expects that the breakthrough

specification will be adjusted based on data provided by the industry;

that a 25-mL adsorption volume will be allowed, provided the

sensitivity requirements in the method are met; that greater

flexibility will be allowed in the apparatus cited in the method; that

2-mm columns only will be allowed; and that a minimum integration time

of 10 minutes will be added to assure that all AOX is measured.

3. Method 1653, Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and Isotope

Dilution GC/MS

EPA expects that changes will be made to Method 1653 as part of

this rulemaking to improve the reliability of the method and to lower

costs of measurements. Among the possible changes, EPA anticipates

lowering the spiking levels of the labeled compounds to reduce

interferences with trace levels of the analytes of interest and to

lower the cost of labeled compounds; allowing the use of solvents more

appropriate to the particular analyte being dissolved; the addition of

the labeled compounds to the sample prior to pH adjustment; and a

reduction in method flexibility in certain critical areas.

4. Method NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253, Color

Changes anticipated as part of this rulemaking are: Removal of

extraneous tables; revision of text of interferences; use of a

prefilter and/or centrifugation to reduce turbidity; and allowance of

use of a buffer solution and prefiltration so long as these changes do

not result in lower color values.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

l areas.

4. Method NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253, Color

Changes anticipated as part of this rulemaking are: Removal of

extraneous tables; revision of text of interferences; use of a

prefilter and/or centrifugation to reduce turbidity; and allowance of

use of a buffer solution and prefiltration so long as these changes do

not result in lower color values.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

At the time of proposal, EPA examined the potential economic impact

of the proposed Cluster Rules on small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., Pub. L. 96-354). See 58 FR

66077, 66154, (December 17, 1993). As part of this analysis, EPA

estimated the economic impact of the proposed integrated regulatory

alternative on small mills and small companies involved in pulp, paper

and paperboard manufacturing. See 58 FR 66154. The analysis also

presented the Agency's consideration of alternatives that might

minimize the impacts of the proposed Cluster Rules on small entities.

See 58 FR 66165. EPA did not analyze the alternative represented by

Option A at proposal because it lacked the data and information

necessary to perform that analysis. Based on the information and data

EPA has received since proposal, EPA believes that Option A represents

a significant alternative to the proposed BAT option. Because that

alternative, if adopted, would afford more flexibility to small

businesses than the proposed option and because the original analysis

addressed what EPA regards as the most stringent set of regulatory

alternatives, EPA believes that the original analysis continues to

provide an adequate basis by which to evaluate the impact of the

proposed Cluster Rules on small entities. Moreover, mills in the

proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite

subcategories typically are not small businesses, whereas the proposed

Cluster Rules included other subcategories in which small businesses

are more likely to be operating

nal analysis continues to

provide an adequate basis by which to evaluate the impact of the

proposed Cluster Rules on small entities. Moreover, mills in the

proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite

subcategories typically are not small businesses, whereas the proposed

Cluster Rules included other subcategories in which small businesses

are more likely to be operating. As described earlier in this notice,

these other subcategories will not be included in this initial phase of

final rulemaking but in a later phase of rulemaking. For this reason,

EPA believes that no further regulatory flexibility analysis is

necessary at this time. However, EPA will perform a final regulatory

flexibility analysis in compliance with all applicable laws at the time

it promulgates the Cluster Rules.

X. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

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. The Agency

believes that individual mills could be encouraged to explore and

install technologies that could achieve further pollutant reductions

through a voluntary incentives program designed to complement the

baseline BAT. This industry's participation in the 33/50 program and

its progress toward reducing toxic discharges in advance of the

proposed BAT revisions indicate that such an approach may be widely

accepted and utilized by individual mills.

Further, EPA recognizes that technologies exist, and are currently

employed by some mills, that have the ability to surpass the

environmental protection that would be provided by compliance with

limits and standards based on the final rules. These technologies

include extended delignification (e.g., extended cooking and/or oxygen

delignification) in conjunction with complete substitution (if Option A

is selected), and TCF bleaching technologies

re currently

employed by some mills, that have the ability to surpass the

environmental protection that would be provided by compliance with

limits and standards based on the final rules. These technologies

include extended delignification (e.g., extended cooking and/or oxygen

delignification) in conjunction with complete substitution (if Option A

is selected), and TCF bleaching technologies. Some mills also are

investigating and developing advanced technologies that achieve major

reductions in water use and process wastewater flow through treatment

and recycle of pulping and evaporator condensates and bleach plant

filtrates to recovery systems.

EPA has received suggestions for an incentives program from a

number of stakeholders. In addition to the suggestions EPA has

incorporated into its preliminary incentives program, EPA also received

ideas for other incentives; these ideas are summarized later in this

notice. From these and other stakeholder suggestions, EPA has developed

a preliminary program, presented below, that is intended to provide

incentives for further long term environmental improvements. EPA is

considering several types of incentives to encourage further

environmental improvements by mills that have yet to decide on an

approach to comply with BAT effluent limitations. Because mill-specific

factors, including product specifications and existing equipment, may

affect the technical approach taken or the environmental goal

attainable by an individual mill, EPA is considering several tiers of

performance-based incentives. The appropriate limits and standards for

each of tier would be codified as an alternative BAT and, as

appropriate, NSPS for any mill choosing to participate in the

incentives program at that tier. Under this approach, greater

incentives would be available for greater reductions in pollutant

discharge

ble by an individual mill, EPA is considering several tiers of

performance-based incentives. The appropriate limits and standards for

each of tier would be codified as an alternative BAT and, as

appropriate, NSPS for any mill choosing to participate in the

incentives program at that tier. Under this approach, greater

incentives would be available for greater reductions in pollutant

discharge.

EPA recognizes that there are mills in the proposed bleached

papergrade kraft and soda subcategory that have already installed, have

committed to install or may yet decide to install, advanced

technologies that are achieving or have the potential to achieve

effluent limitations more stringent than those

likely to be adopted in the final rules (particularly if Option A is

selected). These mills would qualify for the incentives program, and

the incentives would actually serve as rewards for actions already

taken.

A key tenet of this program is that mills would voluntarily chose

an incentives-related BAT/NSPS as the basis for their technology-based

NPDES permit limits (e.g., inclusion in NPDES permits of AOX effluent

limitations more stringent than those based on the baseline BAT as well

as condensate and bleach plant wastewater flow reduction limitations)

in order to qualify for these incentives. Mills would not be required

to enter this program. A mill choosing not to accept incentives-related

BAT limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT

limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT limatations on

NSPS of the type discussed in today's notice in Section V.

Any mill could voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate to its

individual circumstances

e incentives. Mills would not be required

to enter this program. A mill choosing not to accept incentives-related

BAT limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT

limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT limatations on

NSPS of the type discussed in today's notice in Section V.

Any mill could voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate to its

individual circumstances. Further, mills that enter either at Tier I or

Tier II could decide, after making such a commitment in permits but

before termination of the appropriate compliance period (i.e., not

later than five years--Tier I, or not later than ten years--Tier II),

to commit to the requirements of a more stringent tier (i.e., Tier II

or Tier III). The limitations and standards corresponding to those

tiers would then be BAT for that mill. Threshold requirements at Tier I

being considered for mills to qualify would include unbleached pulp

characteristics typical of extended delignification technologies (e.g.,

oxygen delignification) and recycle of pulp mill filtrates to recovery

systems (for purposes of this discussion using Option A as the BAT

baseline). For NSPS, the entry tier would probably be Tier II (as

tentatively defined in this Notice), assuming that the baseline NSPS is

codified as discussed in Section V.A.11 above.

Mills that operate a single fiber line and that achieve performance

reflective of advanced technology on that line will be considered

eligible as a whole mill for the incentives described below (except for

operations outside of the pulp, paper and paperboard industrial

category and the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory). At mills with more than one fiber line, only those fiber

lines that achieve performance reflective of advanced technology

performance standards will be eligible for the incentives described

below.

A preliminary list of possible incentives along with the Agency's

preliminary structure of these advanced technology program tiers

follows below

ed bleached papergrade kraft and soda

subcategory). At mills with more than one fiber line, only those fiber

lines that achieve performance reflective of advanced technology

performance standards will be eligible for the incentives described

below.

A preliminary list of possible incentives along with the Agency's

preliminary structure of these advanced technology program tiers

follows below. This structure consists of three tiers that would apply

if Option A is selected as the baseline BAT in the final rule.

A. Advanced Technology Tiers

1. Definition of Incentives-Related BAT Limitations or NSPS by Tier

EPA is considering including in the final regulation three tiers of

BAT limitations and two tiers of NSPS applicable to the proposed

bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, each of which would be

defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the possible

limitations and standards described below, each tier also would include

as limitations and standards for other parameters the bleach plant

limitations EPA is considering promulgating as part of the baseline

BAT/NSPS.

a. Tier I BAT Limitations. To qualify for this tier, a mill would

need to operate its advanced technology (AT) fiber line(s) to achieve a

final effluent AOX long term average (LTA) of 0.30 kg/kkg. AT fiber

lines must also achieve reduced lignin content in unbleached pulps as

measured by a kappa number of 20 for softwoods and 13 for hardwoods.

Finally, AT fiber lines must recycle to recovery systems all filtrates

up to the point at which the unbleached pulp kappa numbers are measured

(e.g., brownstock into bleaching).

b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS. To qualify for this tier, a

mill would need to operate its AT fiber line(s) to achieve a final

effluent AOX LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, and total pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow of

10 m3/kkg or less.

c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS

d pulp kappa numbers are measured

(e.g., brownstock into bleaching).

b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS. To qualify for this tier, a

mill would need to operate its AT fiber line(s) to achieve a final

effluent AOX LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, and total pulping area

condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow of

10 m3/kkg or less.

c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS. To qualify for this tier, a

mill would need to operate its AT fiber line(s) to achieve a final

effluent AOX LTA of 0.05 kg/kkg, and total pulping area condensate,

evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg or

less.

For each tier described above, EPA would also promulgate

appropriate limitations (maximum monthly average and maximum for any

one day) that account for variability around the long term average

(LTA) limits presented above. See the record for discussion of limits

and standards defining these tiers (DCN 13957).

2. Basis for Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and NSPS

For Tier I (if complete substitution is chosen as the baseline

BAT), the BAT model technology would be that represented by BAT Option

B. EPA is not selecting a model technology for Tiers II and III (under

the present structure) because these Tiers are intended to reflect

evolution of advanced technologies that cannot be specified today.

However, EPA expects that those technologies would move mills toward

minimum impacts and closed loop operations. EPA has chosen to use AOX

as a performance standard for each of the three incentives-related BAT

tiers and the two NSPS tiers because AOX is a measure of progress in

reducing the total chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting

from the bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use of AOX rather than

other measures of organic matter (e.g., BOD) will further encourage a

pollution prevention approach instead of end-of-pipe treatment

technologies

ach of the three incentives-related BAT

tiers and the two NSPS tiers because AOX is a measure of progress in

reducing the total chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting

from the bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use of AOX rather than

other measures of organic matter (e.g., BOD) will further encourage a

pollution prevention approach instead of end-of-pipe treatment

technologies. EPA seeks comment on including COD as a performance

criterion in addition to AOX, and seeks comment on and data supporting

the performance-based COD value that would be appropriate for each of

the tiers in terms of mass-loading or percent reduction beyond BAT/NSPS

levels.

In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA is considering establishing

BAT limitations for Tier I that include kappa numbers measured prior to

bleaching and a narrative limitation calling for recycling of the

filtrates generated prior to the point at which that kappa is achieved.

By meeting the kappa number and recycle limitations, Tier I mills would

achieve substantial reductions in precursors for chlorinated organic

pollutants found in lignin (measured as kappa number values) beyond

reductions achieved by mills with conventional pulping processes.

Further, Tier I mills would be bleaching pulps with less lignin and

would realize significant reductions in the amount of unrecoverable

bleaching chemicals required to achieve their target brightness. By

using less bleaching chemical, Tier I mills would further increase the

margin of safety by reducing the formation and discharge of chlorinated

organic pollutants generated by bleaching pulps with chlorine-

containing compounds, including chlorine dioxide. By recycling the

bleaching filtrates, Tier I mills also would be implementing an

important building block for long-term flow reduction goals

using less bleaching chemical, Tier I mills would further increase the

margin of safety by reducing the formation and discharge of chlorinated

organic pollutants generated by bleaching pulps with chlorine-

containing compounds, including chlorine dioxide. By recycling the

bleaching filtrates, Tier I mills also would be implementing an

important building block for long-term flow reduction goals.

By defining Tier I with parameter values (AOX, kappa numbers) and

recycle requirements as presented above, EPA intends to provide maximum

encouragement to as many mills as possible to achieve the performance

of at least the initial threshold of the advanced technology

program. Adopting threshold performance criteria that are too stringent

could discourage mills from making additional capital investments

beyond those necessary to achieve the baseline BAT. This could

undermine one goal of the incentives program, which is to achieve the

greatest environmental results possible consistent with mills' capital

investment cycles. Conversely, setting threshold criteria at levels

that could be met by some mills that only comply with the baseline BAT

limitations and do not employ advanced technologies could serve as a

disincentive to invest in advanced technologies that achieve dramatic

reductions in pollutant loadings and flow. The kappa numbers defined

above for Tier I, while at the upper end of the range of values

achieved by these technologies, nonetheless appear to separate mills

that employ them from mills that would use conventional pulping

technologies and achieve the BAT effluent limitations now being

considered by EPA. EPA seeks comment on this finding.

EPA is considering setting the incentives-related BAT limitations

and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a more stringent philosophy

than for Tier I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III should reflect

movement toward the long-term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in

all environmental media through partially or fully closed loop

processes

dered by EPA. EPA seeks comment on this finding.

EPA is considering setting the incentives-related BAT limitations

and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a more stringent philosophy

than for Tier I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III should reflect

movement toward the long-term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in

all environmental media through partially or fully closed loop

processes. For Tier II, EPA is considering an AOX limit based on a

long-term average (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being achieved by

some of the best mills in the industry. For Tier III, EPA is

considering an AOX limit based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/kkg)

that is being achieved only by a very few mills, including one ECF

mill. While this ECF mill achieved the AOX limit only with hardwood

furnish, it did so without the level of flow reduction anticipated for

Tier III. It is the Agency's judgment, based on trends in ECF

technology development to date, that with recycle of pulping and

evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates necessary to achieve

a wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg and removal of chlorides from

filtrates (or at other points in the recovery cycle), commensurate

reductions in the mass of chlorinated organic pollutants contained in

wastewaters discharged also are likely to occur. For this reason, it is

EPA's judgment that the Tier III AOX limit would be achievable by

advanced ECF mills for both hardwood and softwood furnishes. It is also

important to note that recently gathered data from TCF mills indicate

that end-of-pipe AOX levels below detection limits can be achieved. For

this reason, EPA expects that all TCF mills should be eligible to

participate in this program (based solely on AOX performance) and that

separate BAT/NSPS AOX limitations would be unnecessary. Therefore, it

is the Agency's judgment that either advanced ECF or TCF mills will be

capable of achieving this AOX limit for Tier III

t end-of-pipe AOX levels below detection limits can be achieved. For

this reason, EPA expects that all TCF mills should be eligible to

participate in this program (based solely on AOX performance) and that

separate BAT/NSPS AOX limitations would be unnecessary. Therefore, it

is the Agency's judgment that either advanced ECF or TCF mills will be

capable of achieving this AOX limit for Tier III.

Flow reduction and progress toward closed loop mill operations are

very important long-term environmental goals because releases to all

environmental media would be minimized. Review of currently available

data and literature indicates that the numerical values set forth to

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

appropriately stringent reduced flow targets by comparison to current

wastewater flow for mills with extended delignification technologies.

Moreover, EPA indicated in the March 8, 1996 notice that the industry's

``clean water alternative'' could be a MACT compliance alternative that

conceptually will facilitate segregation, treatment, and reuse of

condensates. Inclusion of pulping and evaporator condensates in these

reduced flow targets is therefore both consistent with this potential

alternative and appropriate in that it will foster even greater flow

reduction through recycle and reuse of the greatest possible volume of

process wastewater. While completely closed loop operations offer a

theoretically desirable goal, EPA is concerned that without

considerably more research and mill trials, the potential exists for

cross-media transfers or product quality concerns.

As EPA presently conceives the incentives program, a mill would

qualify for incentives only if it agrees to accept permit limitations

corresponding to the tier it selects (e.g., for Tier II, an AOX

limitation of 0.10 kg/kkg and condensate and bleach plant wastewater

flow of 10 m3/kkg) including all applicable bleach plant

limitations (e.g., those corresponding to BAT Option B and the proposed

NSPS)

presently conceives the incentives program, a mill would

qualify for incentives only if it agrees to accept permit limitations

corresponding to the tier it selects (e.g., for Tier II, an AOX

limitation of 0.10 kg/kkg and condensate and bleach plant wastewater

flow of 10 m3/kkg) including all applicable bleach plant

limitations (e.g., those corresponding to BAT Option B and the proposed

NSPS). Those limitations would constitute BAT/NSPS for that mill. The

permit developed for a mill participating in the incentives program

also would need to contain all other permit limitations and conditions

otherwise applicable to the mill, including any conventional pollutant

limitations and standards established by these Cluster Rules, any water

quality-based effluent limitations required under CWA section

301(b)(1)(C), and best management practices (BMPs) provisions.

3. Legal Authority to Establish Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and

NSPS

EPA believes it has the legal authority to establish incentives-

related BAT limits for Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III applicable solely

at the election of the regulated entity. (Similar arguments support

EPA's preliminary NSPS determination.) Under CWA section 304(b)(2), EPA

is authorized to identify a technology as BAT after taking into account

a variety of factors, including the cost of achieving such effluent

reduction, non-water quality environmental impacts and such other

factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. In this instance, EPA

believes the limits corresponding to each of the tiers would reflect

BAT for any participating mill for the following reasons.

First, having voluntarily agreed to make these limits enforceable

in its permit, the mill represents to EPA that there is a technology

that is the best available and economically achievable for that mill to

achieve the limits. Thus, the costs of achieving the desired effluent

reductions--evaluated against the mill's own choices--support the BAT

finding

ipating mill for the following reasons.

First, having voluntarily agreed to make these limits enforceable

in its permit, the mill represents to EPA that there is a technology

that is the best available and economically achievable for that mill to

achieve the limits. Thus, the costs of achieving the desired effluent

reductions--evaluated against the mill's own choices--support the BAT

finding. Second, EPA would conclude that a less stringent baseline BAT

(e.g., for purposes of this discussion based on complete substitution)

would not be BAT for such a mill on the date of promulgation because

the mill is making investment and engineering decisions that would make

a process focused solely on complete substitution technically and

financially inappropriate (such as by over designing chlorine dioxide

generation capacity). In other words, that process technology would not

be ``best'' for those mills committed to moving beyond complete

substitution to more stringent incentive-based limitations. Moreover,

avoiding such over design would avoid unnecessary capital investments,

with those investments possibly applied to projects to prevent other

environmental impacts. Finally, application of incentives-related BAT

limits would be completely voluntary; an Advanced Technology mill

participating in the incentives program would always be free to forgo

the incentives and to meet the baseline BAT limits instead.

The same analysis justifying the various pollutant parameter limits

for the baseline (i.e., non-incentives) BAT applies equally to the

incentives-related BAT limits for those parameters, with the addition

of progressively more stringent end-of-pipe AOX limits, limits

pertaining to lignin content in

gram would always be free to forgo

the incentives and to meet the baseline BAT limits instead.

The same analysis justifying the various pollutant parameter limits

for the baseline (i.e., non-incentives) BAT applies equally to the

incentives-related BAT limits for those parameters, with the addition

of progressively more stringent end-of-pipe AOX limits, limits

pertaining to lignin content in

unbleached pulp and recycle of filtrates for Tier I, and reductions in

condensate and bleach plant wastewater flows for Tiers II and III. See

Section V.A.5 and 9. EPA believes, for the reasons discussed in Section

X.A.2, above, it has the authority to establish incentive-based BAT

limits for lignin content in unbleached pulp, for recycle of filtrates,

and for reduced condensate and bleach plant wastewater flows. Kappa

numbers limits (representing the lignin content of unbleached pulp) can

be used to reduce the presence of precursors for chlorinated organic

pollutants in a mill's wastewater. Recycle of filtrates to chemical

recovery processes reduces the mass of precursors for chlorinated

organic pollutants, as well as all other pollutants in these

wastewaters, that would otherwise be discharged. Limits for condensate

and bleach plant wastewater flows move mills toward closed loop

operations, thereby dramatically reducing chlorinated organic

pollutants and all other pollutants otherwise found in mill wastewater

discharges. The basis for these limits is discussed in Section X.A.2

above. EPA solicits comment on this approach, including the reasoning

EPA offers in support of it.

B. Incentives Available Prior to Achievement of Incentives-Related BAT

lls toward closed loop

operations, thereby dramatically reducing chlorinated organic

pollutants and all other pollutants otherwise found in mill wastewater

discharges. The basis for these limits is discussed in Section X.A.2

above. EPA solicits comment on this approach, including the reasoning

EPA offers in support of it.

B. Incentives Available Prior to Achievement of Incentives-Related BAT

1. Extended Compliance Schedules

A major obstacle to implementing advanced technologies in this

industry is the disjunction between the statutory requirement that

mills comply immediately with BAT and the longer time frames usually

associated with a mill's investment plans. While the immediate

compliance requirements of the Act promote, in the short term, prompt

implementation of proven BAT technologies--and hence deliver over the

long term the environmental benefits associated with achieving the BAT

limits--EPA is concerned that the statutory deadlines also can

discourage mills in this industry from implementing technologies

superior to the BAT technology. EPA believes that many mills, were it

not for the BAT time constraints, would choose to invest in more

advanced technologies than BAT because the long-term environmental,

operational, and market competitiveness benefits would be

correspondingly greater. Such investments, however, typically require

more time than the statute allows, especially in this industry where

capital investment cycles are five years or longer. Mills wishing to

implement--or to design and pilot--more advanced technologies are often

faced with an unattractive choice: either achieve BAT immediately with

the risk that that technology will be overtaken imminently in whole or

in part by more advanced technologies, or risk extended noncompliance

with BAT in pursuit of superior performance levels

investment cycles are five years or longer. Mills wishing to

implement--or to design and pilot--more advanced technologies are often

faced with an unattractive choice: either achieve BAT immediately with

the risk that that technology will be overtaken imminently in whole or

in part by more advanced technologies, or risk extended noncompliance

with BAT in pursuit of superior performance levels. This is

particularly the case here, where mills can design their bleach plants

either to achieve BAT, such as that represented by Option A, or to

adopt a long-term approach that includes more advanced extended

delignification processes (such as those anticipated under Tier I) or

TCF processes. For example, if immediate compliance with baseline BAT

limitations (for purposes of this discussion Option A) were to be

required, these mills may be compelled to expand chlorine dioxide

generating capacity to meet those limitations immediately even though

that expanded capacity would be unnecessary once their advanced systems

are in place. See also 61 FR 9383, 9395 (March 8, 1996) where EPA

discussed a similar quandary regarding how short-term compliance with

MACT could create a disincentive to adopt more advanced wastewater

control technology alternatives.

EPA is considering addressing this tension through an incentive.

Under this possible incentive, mills selecting an incentives-related

BAT requiring immediate compliance with the limits corresponding to the

chosen tier would receive additional time through an enforcement order

to meet those limits. In this way, EPA hopes to give mills an incentive

to implement advanced technologies and to accommodate the realities of

capital investment cycles and complex implementation tasks such as flow

reduction. Because the Clean Water Act requires immediate compliance

with BAT limitations (including those contemplated by the incentive

tiers), the permitting authority is foreclosed from establishing a

longer deadline for compliance in the permit

ve

to implement advanced technologies and to accommodate the realities of

capital investment cycles and complex implementation tasks such as flow

reduction. Because the Clean Water Act requires immediate compliance

with BAT limitations (including those contemplated by the incentive

tiers), the permitting authority is foreclosed from establishing a

longer deadline for compliance in the permit. However, the permitting

authority is authorized to exercise its enforcement discretion to issue

an accompanying enforcement order that includes a schedule by which the

mill must achieve full compliance, including interim milestones as

appropriate. This could also be accomplished through negotiated consent

decrees under CWA section 309(a)(3). Extended compliance schedules

established pursuant to this possible incentive would apply only to the

BAT limitations and standards for Tiers I, II or III, including the

baseline BAT bleach plant limits applicable to the mill. These extended

compliance schedules would not govern compliance with other permit

limitations and conditions, including those based on BCT, water quality

concerns, or BMP requirements. Rather, any appropriate compliance

periods pertaining to those requirements would need to be established

under the authorities applicable to them.

When EPA is the permitting authority, EPA would exercise its

enforcement discretion to extend BAT compliance periods for mills that

accept incentives-related BAT limitations and standards in their NPDES

permit. In addition, at the time the proposed Advanced Technology

permit is made available for public comment, EPA would also make

available the proposed enforcement order in order to give the public

adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on the length of time

contemplated by the compliance schedule and the proposed interim

milestones

lated BAT limitations and standards in their NPDES

permit. In addition, at the time the proposed Advanced Technology

permit is made available for public comment, EPA would also make

available the proposed enforcement order in order to give the public

adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on the length of time

contemplated by the compliance schedule and the proposed interim

milestones. When EPA is not the permitting authority, EPA would issue

guidance to States strongly urging States to issue similar compliance

orders to Advanced Technology mills and to follow the public notice

procedures described above.

EPA also would issue guidance strongly urging States to impose

enforceable interim milestones as part of the compliance order that

would incrementally benefit the environment during the interim period

that would ensure that participating mills make reasonable progress

toward achieving the superior performance represented by the various

Advanced Technology Alternative BAT tiers. Where EPA is the permitting

authority, EPA would impose such interim milestones itself. Milestones

could include intermediate pollutant load and wastewater flow

reductions in addition to research schedules, construction schedules,

mill trial schedules, or other milestones appropriate to the advanced

technology and the participating mill. EPA would encourage these

interim milestones to be tailored to circumstances and process

technologies at individual mills. The compliance order would also need

to specify interim limits that function as the starting point for the

mill's compliance schedule. EPA would issue guidance providing that the

starting point for the in-plant limits and advanced technology AOX

limit contained in the compliance orders would be no less stringent

than existing effluent quality or the effluent limits imposed in the

last permit, whichever are more stringent.

EPA recognizes that compliance orders also would be available for

mills choosing not to participate in the incentives program

ce providing that the

starting point for the in-plant limits and advanced technology AOX

limit contained in the compliance orders would be no less stringent

than existing effluent quality or the effluent limits imposed in the

last permit, whichever are more stringent.

EPA recognizes that compliance orders also would be available for

mills choosing not to participate in the incentives program. Typically

compliance orders for baseline BAT limitations require compliance no

later than three years from the date the permit imposing such

requirements is issued. In this possible incentive, EPA contemplates an

approach that would be different from this typical practice in two

respects: First, the compliance schedules would be longer, ranging from

five to fifteen years; second, the extended compliance period would

commence on the date the Cluster Rules are promulgated, not on the date

the permit incorporating the relevant limits is issued.

With respect to the length of a compliance schedule for achieving

incentives-related BAT limits and standards, EPA believes that the

following time frames would be reasonable: Tier I--not later than five

years beyond the effective date of the final rule; Tier II--not later

than ten years beyond the effective date of the final rule; and Tier

III--not later than fifteen years beyond the effective date of the

final rule.

EPA regards five years as a reasonable time frame to achieve the

incentives-related BAT limitations and standards corresponding to Tier

I (including the bleach plant BAT effluent limitations) if Option A is

the selected BAT because Tier I limitations could be achieved using

known technologies (Option B technologies) within that timeframe

without th

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