# 61 FR 36835: 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 > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-17802 ## Section - **Citation:** 61 FR 36835 - **Heading:** 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 - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 61 / 61 FR 36835 ## Text 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [61 FR 28 Distribution of Marketable Securities by a Partnership](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-31457.md) - [61 FR 33 St. Marys Falls Canal and Locks, Michigan; Use, Administration, and Navigation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-31543.md) - [61 FR 92 Telephone Regulations and Inmate Financial Responsibility](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-31498.md) - [61 FR 295 Public Workshop on the Regulation of Radioactive Devices](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-108.md) - [61 FR 402 Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-134.md) - [61 FR 705 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Nondiscriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities; Notice of Technical Conference and Potential Broadcast of Technical Conference Concerning Independent System Operators and Reform of Power Pools Under the Federal Power Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-340.md) - [61 FR 1260 1-g Stall Speed as the Basis for Compliance With Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-415.md) - [61 FR 1306 Airworthiness Directives; Transport Category Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-493.md) - [61 FR 1545 Procedures For The Issuance, Denial, And Revocation Of Certificates Of Label Approval, Certificates Of Exemption From Label Approval, And Distinctive Liquor Bottle Approvals (93F-029P)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-575.md) - [61 FR 1546 Indiana Regulatory Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-646.md) - [61 FR 1546 Appropriateness of Requested Single Location Bargaining Units in Representation Cases](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-741.md) - [61 FR 1551 Indiana Regulatory Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-648.md) - [61 FR 1857 Measurex Corp.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-965.md) - [61 FR 1870 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Belen, NM](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-1004.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_96-17802. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.