Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998

18504 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION estuarine, and marine ecosystems may improvement at reasonable cost by AGENCY alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, providing flexibility in when and how and adversely impact human health. results are achieved and, for certain 40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430 Discharges of chlorinated organic mills, by providing incentives to surpass compounds from chlorine bleaching, baseline requirements. [FRL±5924±8] particularly dioxins and furans, are Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, RIN 2040±AB53 human carcinogens and human system EPA is concurrently proposing NESHAP toxicants and are extremely toxic to to control hazardous air pollutants from National Emission Standards for aquatic life. The final effluent chemical recovery combustion sources Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source limitations guidelines and standards for at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone Category: Pulp and Paper Production; the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda semi-chemical pulp mills. Effluent Limitations Guidelines, and Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are In another proposed rule published in Pretreatment Standards, and New estimated to reduce the discharge of Source Performance Standards: Pulp, today’s Federal Register, EPA is also adsorbable organic halides (AOX) by proposing a regulation that would Paper, and Paperboard Category 28,210 kkg/year; chloroform by 45 kkg/ require mills enrolled in the Voluntary year; chlorinated phenolics by 47 kkg/ AGENCY: Environmental Protection Advanced Technology Incentives year; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and Agency (EPA). Program being promulgated for the 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) by 125 gm/year. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda ACTION: Final rules. These reductions will permit all 19 subcategory to submit a plan specifying dioxin/furan-related fish consumption SUMMARY: This action promulgates research, construction, and other advisories downstream of pulp and effluent limitations guidelines and activities leading to achievement of the paper mills to be lifted. standards under the Clean Water Act EPA is revising the subcategorization Voluntary Advanced Technology (CWA) for a portion of the pulp, paper, scheme for the effluent limitations effluent limitations, with accompanying and paperboard industry, and national guidelines and standards because the dates for achieving these milestones. emission standards for hazardous air new scheme better defines the processes Second, EPA proposes to authorize pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean typically found in U.S. mills and thus Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 for results in what ultimately will be a subcategory mills under certain the pulp and paper production source streamlined regulation that can be circumstances to submit a certification category. implemented more easily by the permit based on process changes in lieu of EPA is also promulgating best writer. With the exception of the new monitoring for chloroform. Third, management practices under the CWA effluent limitations guidelines and although not proposing totally chlorine- for a portion of the pulp, paper, and standards for the Bleached Papergrade free (TCF) technologies for new source paperboard industry, and new analytical Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite performance standards under the CWA methods for 12 chlorinated phenolic subcategories, EPA is making no for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda pollutants and for adsorbable organic substantive changes to the limitations subcategory at this time, EPA is halides (AOX). This action consolidates and standards applicable to the newly requesting comments and data regarding into 12 subcategories what had once reorganized subcategories. Those the feasibility of TCF processes for this been 26 subcategories of effluent portions of the existing pulp, paper, and subcategory, especially the range of limitations guidelines and standards for paperboard effluent limitations products made and their specifications. the pulp, paper, and paperboard guidelines and standards that are not In that proposal EPA is also requesting industry, and revises the existing substantively amended by this action comments and data regarding the effluent limitations guidelines and are not subject to judicial review; nor is effluent reduction performance of TCF standards for the Bleached Papergrade their effective date affected by this processes for this subcategory. Kraft and Soda subcategory and the reorganization. DATES: In accordance with the Small Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The The HAPs emitted by facilities Business Regulatory Enforcement revised effluent limitations guidelines covered by the NESHAP include such Fairness Act of 1996, the regulations and standards require existing and new compounds as methanol, chlorinated shall become effective June 15, 1998. facilities within these two subcategories compounds, formaldehyde, benzene, For compliance dates, see the to limit the discharge of pollutants into and xylene. The health effects of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section navigable waters of the United States exposure to these and other HAPs at under the heading ‘‘Compliance Dates.’’ and to limit the introduction of pulp and paper mills can include pollutants into publicly owned cancer, respiratory irritation, and ADDRESSES: Air Dockets. The Air treatment works. The NESHAP requires damage to the nervous system. The final Dockets are available for public existing and new major sources within NESHAP is expected to reduce baseline inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., the pulp and paper production source emissions of HAP by 65 percent or Monday through Friday except for category to control emissions using the 139,000 Mg/yr. Federal holidays, at the following maximum achievable control The pollutant reductions resulting address: U.S. Environmental Protection technology (MACT) to control from these rules will achieve the Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). primary goals of both the CAA and Information Center (MC–6102), 401 M EPA is revising the effluent CWA, which are to ‘‘enhance the quality Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, limitations guidelines and standards for of the Nation’s air resources so as to Room M–1500, Waterside Mall; the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda promote the public health and welfare telephone: (202) 260–7548. subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite and productive capacity of its Water Docket. The complete public subcategory primarily to reduce the population’’ and to ‘‘restore and record for the effluent limitations discharge of toxic and nonconventional maintain the chemical, physical, and guidelines and standards rulemaking is chemical compounds found in the biological integrity of the Nation’s available for review, Monday through effluents from these mills. Discharge of waters,’’ respectively. These rules will Friday except for federal holidays, at these pollutants into the freshwater, result in continued environmental EPA’s Water Docket, Room M2616, 401 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18505

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. processes, secondary fiber pulping SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For access to Docket materials, call (202) processes, and nonwood fiber pulping Overview 260–3027. The Docket staff requests that processes, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, interested parties call between 9:00 am at the same Research Triangle Park The preamble summarizes the legal and 3:30 pm for an appointment before address, telephone number (919) 541– authority for these rules, background visiting the docket. 5499. For questions on compliance, information, the technical and economic For additional information about the enforcement and applicability methodologies used by the Agency to dockets, see section X.A below. determinations, contact Ms. Maria develop these rules, the impacts of the Eisemann, Office of Enforcement and Background and support documents rules, regulatory implementation, and Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S. containing technical, cost, economic, the availability of supporting Environmental Protection Agency, 401 and health information, as well as EPA’s documents. response to public comments, are M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, available for public use. A listing and telephone number (202) 564–7106. Regulated Entities For questions regarding wastewater how to obtain these background standards, contact Mr. Donald Anderson Entities regulated by today’s action documents is provided in section XI in at the following address: Engineering this notice. are those operations that chemically and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 pulp and nonchemically pulp wood and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, nonwood fibers for pulp and paper questions regarding air emissions telephone number (202) 260–7189; or production. EPA projects that standards for chemical wood pulping Ms. Wendy D. Smith at the same approximately 490 mills are subject to mills, contact Ms. Penny Lassiter, address, telephone number (202) 260– the air regulations promulgated today. Emissions Standards Division (MD–13), 7184. Of these mills, 155 will be affected by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, For additional information on the MACT standards for mills that Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, economic impact analyses, contact Dr. chemically pulp wood. Within that telephone number (919) 541–5396; or William Wheeler, Office of Water, Mr. Stephen Shedd, at the same address, Engineering and Analysis Division group, 96 are subject to the effluent telephone number (919) 541–5397. For (4303), U.S. Environmental Protection limitations guidelines and standards information concerning the final air Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, promulgated today. Regulated categories standards for mechanical pulping DC, 20460, (202) 260–7905. and entities include:

Category Rule Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...... NESHAP ...... Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills that manufacture pulp and paper/paperboard) that: chemically pulp wood fiber (using kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical methods); pulp secondary fiber; pulp nonwood fiber; and mechanically pulp wood fiber. Effluent Guidelines ...... Subset of mills subject to the NESHAP that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft, sulfite, or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard.

The foregoing table is not intended to Judicial Review Compliance Dates be exhaustive, but rather provides a Existing direct dischargers must guide for readers regarding entities In accordance with 40 CFR § 23.2, the water portion of today’s rule shall be comply with limitations based on the likely to be regulated by the NESHAP best available technology economically considered promulgated for the and effluent limitations guidelines and achievable (BAT) as soon as such standards promulgated today. This table purposes of judicial review at 1 pm requirements are imposed in their lists the types of entities that EPA is Eastern time on April 29, 1998. Under National Pollutant Discharge now aware could potentially be section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Elimination System (NPDES) permits. regulated by this action. Other types of (CWA), judicial review of today’s The water regulation also establishes entities not listed in the table could also effluent limitations guidelines and specific deadlines for compliance with be regulated. To determine whether standards is available in the United best management practices (BMPs), your facility or company is regulated by States Court of Appeals by filing a which apply to all sources. The new this NESHAP, you should carefully petition for review within 120 days from reporting and recordkeeping examine the applicability criteria in the date of promulgation of those requirements promulgated today are not § 63.440 of the air rule and the guidelines and standards. Under section effective until the Office of Management applicability criteria in part 63, Subpart 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of and Budget approves Information A of Title 40 of the Code of Federal the NESHAP is available only by Collection Requests for those Regulations. To determine whether your petition for review in the U.S. Court of requirements. facility is regulated by the effluent Appeals for the District of Columbia Except as provided in today’s BMP limitations guidelines and standards, Circuit within 60 days of today’s regulation, existing indirect dischargers you should carefully examine the publication of this NESHAP. Under subject to today’s water regulations applicability criteria in § 430.20 and section 509(b)(2) of the CWA and must comply with the pretreatment § 430.50 of Title 40 of the Code of section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the standards for existing sources being Federal Regulations. requirements in this regulation may not promulgated today by April 16, 2001. In If you have questions regarding the be challenged later in civil or criminal addition, these dischargers must applicability of the NESHAP or the continue to comply with the proceedings brought by EPA to enforce effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for existing these requirements. standards, see the section entitled FOR sources for pentachlorophenol and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. trichlorophenol. 18506 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Except as provided in today’s BMP the first stage of the NESHAP no later Standards and Pretreatment Standards regulation, new direct and indirect June 15, 1998 and with the second stage for New Source (NSPS and PSNS) discharging sources must comply with no later than April 15, 2004. VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, applicable treatment standards on the and Benefits Once today’s rules take effect on June A. Summary of Costs and Economic date the new source begins operation. 15, 1998, new sources must comply Impacts For purposes of new source with applicable MACT requirements B. Overview of Economic Analysis performance standards (NSPS), a source upon start-up. For a discussion of the C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air is a new source if it meets the definition circumstances under which a source Emissions Standards of ‘‘new source’’ in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and becomes a new source for compliance D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards if it commences construction after June with new source air emissions 15, 1998. For purposes of pretreatment E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated standards, see Sections II.B.2.b. and Rule standards for new sources (PSNS), a VI.A.1. source is a new source if it meets the F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/ PSES Options for the Bleached definition of ‘‘new source’’ in 40 CFR Technology Transfer Network Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 430.01(j) and if it commenced The Technology Transfer Network G. Benefits construction after December 17, 1993. H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits The following compliance dates apply (TTN) is one of EPA’s electronic bulletin I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options to the Voluntary Advanced Technology boards. The TTN provides information for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Incentives Program being codified today and technology exchange in various Soda Subcategory—Option B and TCF as part of the water regulations for areas of air pollution control. New air J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Subpart B. Each existing direct regulations are now being posted on the Studies discharging mill that enrolls in the TTN through the world wide web at IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Voluntary Advanced Technology ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ttn.’’ For more Improvements information on the TTN, call the HELP A. The Voluntary Advances Technology Incentives Program must comply Incentives Program immediately with limitations based on line at (919) 591–5384. B. Incentives Available After Achievement the mill’s existing effluent quality or its Information on the water regulations of Advanced Technology BAT current technology-based permit limits may be accessed through the world Limitations and NSPS for the baseline BAT parameters, wide web at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ X. Administrative Requirements and Related whichever are more stringent. Rules/#final. Government Acts or Initiatives Participating mills must also comply A. Dockets with mill-specific interim milestones by Organization of This Document B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB the dates specified in their NPDES Review I. Legal Authority C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small permits. They must also achieve the II. Scope of This Rulemaking Business Regulatory Enforcement baseline BAT effluent limitations for A. EPA’s Long-Term Environmental Goals Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 specified B. National Emission Standards for D. Paperwork Reduction Act chlorinated organic pollutants and, for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act mills enrolled at the Tier II or Tier III C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and F. Pollution Prevention Act level, AOX no later than April 15, 2004. Standards G. Common Sense Initiative Finally, participating mills must achieve III. Background H. Executive Order 12875 BAT limitations corresponding to the A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of I. Executive Order 12898 J. Submission to Congress and the General most stringent phase of the Voluntary Data Availability, and Public Participation Accounting Office Advanced Technology Incentives K. National Technology Transfer and Program by the dates specified below: B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority Advancement Act Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier I XI. Background Documents must be achieved by April 15, 2004. D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier II Pulp and Paper Industry I. Legal Authority IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal must be achieved by April 15, 2009. These regulations are being Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier III V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal promulgated under the authority of must be achieved by April 15, 2014. A. Data Gathering for the Development of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, For new direct discharging mills in Air Emissions Standards and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 Subpart B, EPA is promulgating B. Data Gathering for the Development of U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, Voluntary NSPS at the Tier II and Tier Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 1318, 1342, and 1361, and sections 112, III levels. Participating new sources Standards 114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 must achieve NSPS at the selected level VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since U.S.C. sections 7412, 7414, and 7601. upon commencing operation. Proposal and Rationale for the Selection Compliance dates for the NESHAP are of the Final Regulations II. Scope of This Rulemaking as follows: Existing sources must A. Air Emission Standards Today’s Cluster Rules consist of comply with the NESHAP no later than B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and effluent limitations guidelines and April 16, 2001 except for the following Standards standards for the control of wastewater cases. Equipment in the high volume VII. Environmental Impacts pollutants and national emission low concentration (HVLC) system at A. Summary of Sources and Level of standards for hazardous air pollutants. existing sources at kraft mills (e.g., pulp Control B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent The final rules issued today are based washer systems, oxygen delignification Reductions on extensive information gathered by systems) must comply no later than C. Non-Water Quality Environmental the Agency and on comments received April 17, 2006. Bleach plants at existing Impacts of Effluent Limitations from interested parties during the source kraft and soda mills participating Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, development of these regulations. in the effluent limitations guidelines and BMPs) Section VI of this notice discusses the Voluntary Advanced Technology D. Non-Water Quality Environmental major changes since proposal and the Incentives Program must comply with Impacts of New Source Performance rationale for the regulatory decisions Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18507 underlying the rules promulgated today. will reduce, and ultimately eliminate, a. Hazardous Air Pollutants. Table II– This summary section highlights the pollutant discharges from existing and 1 lists the 14 HAPs emitted in the technology bases and other key aspects new sources. A holistic approach to largest quantities from pulp and paper of the final rules. More detailed implementing these pollution mills. A few HAPs emitted from pulp descriptions are included in the prevention technologies would and paper mills have been classified as supporting documents listed in section contribute to the long-term goal of possible, probable, or known human XI. minimizing impacts of mills in all carcinogens. These include In addition, the Agency is today environmental media by moving mills acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon codifying the subcategorization scheme toward closed-loop process operations. tetrachloride, chloroform, that was proposed for 40 CFR parts 430 Effective implementation of these formaldehyde, and methylene chloride. and 431, see 58 FR 66078, 66098–100 technologies is capable of increasing The total reduction in national HAP (Dec. 17, 1993) and is redesignating the reuse of recoverable materials and emissions by compliance with the section and subpart numbers in 40 CFR energy while concurrently reducing NESHAP is estimated to be 139,000 part 430 accordingly. consumption of raw materials (e.g., megagrams per year (Mg/yr). A. EPA’s Long-Term Environmental process water, unrecoverable chemicals, Goals etc.), and reducing air emissions and TABLE II±1.ÐHIGHEST EMITTED HAZ- generation of hazardous and non- ARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM EPA has integrated the development hazardous wastes. EPA expects that this PULP AND PAPER MILLS of the regulations discussed today to combination of regulation, research, provide greater protection of human pilot projects, and incentives will foster health and the environment, reduce the continuous environmental improvement Hazardous Air Pollutants cost of complying with the wastewater with each mill investment cycle. For Acrolein ...... Methanol. regulations and air emissions controls, this reason, EPA is including an promote and facilitate coordinated Acetaldehyde ...... Methylene chloride. incentives program as part of the o-Cresol ...... Methyl ethyl ketone. compliance planning by industry, effluent limitations guidelines and Carbon tetrachloride .. Phenol. promote and facilitate pollution standards being promulgated today for Chloroform ...... Propionaldehyde. prevention, and emphasize the bleached papergrade kraft and soda Cumene ...... 1,2,4- multimedia nature of pollution control. mills that accept enforceable permit Trichlorobenzene. The Agency envisions a long-term limits requiring effluent reductions well Formaldehyde ...... o-Xylene. approach to environmental beyond the rule’s regulatory baseline improvement that is consistent with b. Volatile Organic Compounds. (see Section IX). To ensure that today’s sound capital expenditures. This Emissions of volatile organic air emission standards do not present approach, which is presented in today’s compounds (VOC) have been associated barriers or disincentives to mills in notice, stems from extensive discussions with a variety of health and welfare choosing technologies beyond baseline with a range of stakeholders. The impacts. Volatile organic compound BAT, EPA is providing additional time effluent limitations guidelines and emissions, together with nitrogen oxides to comply with MACT beyond the three- standards and air emissions standards (NOX), are precursors to the formation of year compliance time for certain process are only one component of the tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ozone units. See Sections VI.A.3.b and VI.A.7 framework to achieve long-term is responsible for a series of health for details on MACT compliance times. environmental goals. The overall impacts, such as alterations in lung regulatory framework also includes B. National Emission Standards for capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation; incentives to reward and encourage Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) malaise and nausea; and aggravation of mills that implement pollution existing respiratory disease. Among the 1. Purpose of the NESHAP prevention beyond regulatory welfare impacts from exposure to ozone requirements. The Agency will continue The main purposes of the Clean Air include damage to selected commercial to encourage mill-specific solutions to Act (CAA) are to protect and enhance timber species and economic losses for remaining environmental problems the quality of our Nation’s air resources, commercially valuable crops, such as through water quality-based and to promote the public health and soybeans and cotton. The total requirements in permits and welfare and the productive capacity of reduction in national VOC emissions by enforcement of those requirements. In the population. See CAA, section compliance with the NESHAP is addition, continuing research on 101(b)(1). To this end, section 112(d) of estimated to be 409,000 Mg/yr. minimum impact technologies, such as the CAA directs EPA to set standards for c. Total Reduced Sulfur Compounds. closed-loop and totally chlorine-free stationary sources emitting greater than Total reduced sulfur (TRS) compound bleaching processes, will help to ten tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of emissions are responsible for the identify economical ways of furthering total HAPs annually (one ton is equal to malodors often associated with pulp environmental improvement in this 0.908 megagrams). EPA is promulgating and paper production. The total industry. this NESHAP because pulp and paper reduction in TRS compound emissions EPA’s long-term goals include mills are major sources of HAP estimated as a result of compliance with improved air quality, improved water emissions. Individual mills are capable this NESHAP is 79,000 Mg/yr. Surveys quality, the elimination of fish of emitting as much as several hundred of odor pollution caused by pulp mills consumption advisories downstream of tons per year (tpy) of HAPs. The HAPs have supported a link between odor and mills, and the elimination of emitted may adversely affect air quality health symptoms such as headaches, ecologically significant and public health. The HAPs controlled watery eyes, nasal problems, and bioaccumulation. An integral part of by this rule are associated with a variety breathing difficulties. these goals is an industry committed to of adverse health effects including continuous environmental cancer; a number of other toxic health 2. Summary of the NESHAP improvement—an industry that effects such as headaches, nausea, and The MACT standards apply to pulp aggressively pursues research and pilot respiratory distress; and possible and paper mills that have the potential projects to identify technologies that reproductive effects. to emit ten tons per year of any one HAP 18508 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations or 25 tons per year of all HAPs (one ton each of the subcategories is given in the effective date of the first phase is equal to 0.908 megagrams). Potential later parts of this section. requirements is June 15, 1998. The to emit is based on the total of all HAP a. Definition of Affected Source. At second phase of existing source MACT emissions from all activities at the mill. chemical wood pulping mills, the requires the mill either to comply with The NESHAP specifies emission affected source is all emission points in BAT for all pollutant parameters at the standards for pulping processes and the pulping and bleaching systems. At baseline level for the Bleached bleaching processes. The emission mills that mechanically pulp wood, Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, standards for pulping and bleaching secondary fibers, or non-wood or to certify that chlorine and processes provide several options for materials, the affected source is all hypochlorite are not used in the bleach compliance, including an alternative emission points in the bleaching system. plant, in order to achieve the MACT pollution prevention option (the ‘‘clean For kraft mills complying with the clean standard for chloroform emission condensate alternative’’) for the kraft condensate alternative, the affected reduction; it also requires the mill to pulping process. The standards specify source is the pulping system, bleaching apply controls for other chlorinated compliance dates for new and existing system, causticizing system, and HAPs. All such mills that enroll in the sources, require control devices to be papermaking system. Voluntary Advanced Technology properly operated and maintained at all b. New Source MACT. New source Incentives Program must comply with times, and clarify the applicability of MACT applies to: (1) An affected source the second phase of existing source the NESHAP General Provisions (40 that commenced construction or MACT no later than April 15, 2004. CFR part 63, subpart A) to sources reconstruction after initial proposal; (2) Once today’s rules take effect on June subject to this rule. pulping or bleaching systems that are 15, 1998, new sources must comply The rule subcategorizes the industry reconstructed after initial proposal; and with applicable MACT requirements (3) new pulping systems, pulping lines, to specify different emission standards upon start-up. bleaching systems, and bleaching lines d. Kraft Pulping Standards. For based on the type of pulping process that are added to existing sources after existing sources, the kraft pulping (kraft, sulfite, semi-chemical, soda, initial proposal. The initial proposal standards promulgated today apply to mechanical wood pulping, secondary date for mills that chemically pulp the following equipment systems: The fiber pulping, or non-wood pulping) and wood is December 17, 1993. The initial low volume high concentration (LVHC) bleaching process (papergrade or proposal date for mills that system, the pulp washing system, the dissolving grade). Mills that chemically mechanically pulp wood, pulp oxygen delignification system, decker pulp wood using kraft, semi-chemical, secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood systems that do not use fresh water or sulfite, or soda processes are referred to materials is March 8, 1996. whitewater from papermaking systems in later sections as MACT I mills. Mills Descriptions of equipment in each or that use process water with HAP that mechanically pulp wood, or that subcategory subject to new source concentrations greater than or equal to pulp secondary fiber or non-wood MACT requirements are presented in 400 parts per million by weight (ppmw), fibers, or that produce paper or later sections of this preamble. and knotter systems and screening paperboard from purchased pulp are c. Compliance Times. The rule systems that have total system referred to in later sections as MACT III requires existing sources to comply with emissions greater than or equal to 0.05 mills. the NESHAP no later than April 16, and 0.10 kilograms of HAP per The emission control requirements for 2001, except for the following cases. megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP) new and existing sources within each Existing kraft sources are required to produced, respectively (or have total subcategory are the same, except that control all the equipment in the HVLC [i.e., knotter and screening] system more emission points are covered for collection system no later than April 17, emissions greater than or equal to 0.15 sources subject to the new source 2006. Dissolving-grade mills are kilograms of HAP per megagram of ODP provisions. Where two or more required to comply with bleaching produced combined). For new sources, subcategories are located at the same system standards no later than three the kraft pulping standards apply to the mill site and share a piece of equipment, years after publication of the wastewater equipment systems listed above for that piece of equipment would be effluent limitations guidelines and existing sources, plus weak liquor considered a part of the subcategory standards under 40 CFR part 430, storage tanks, all knotter systems, all with the more stringent MACT subparts A and D. screening systems, and all decker requirements for that piece of In addition, the NESHAP sets out a systems. equipment. For example, the foul two-phased standard for existing source Sources subject to the kraft pulping condensates from an evaporation set papergrade kraft and soda bleach mills standards must enclose open process processing both kraft weak black liquor that elect, under the Voluntary equipment and route all emissions and spent liquor from a semi-chemical Advanced Technology Incentives through a closed-vent system to a process would have to comply with the Program, to control wastewater control device. The closed-vent system kraft subcategory requirements for foul discharges to levels surpassing today’s must be designed and operated with no condensate. This more stringent BAT baseline. The first phase for detectable leaks. The rule provides three requirement is appropriate because existing source MACT requires no control device options, as follows: (1) there is no way to isolate the emissions increase in the existing HAP emission Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent for each pulping source to determine levels from the papergrade bleaching by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to compliance separately. system—i.e., no backsliding—during the a level of 20 parts per million volume These standards do not address initial period when the mill is working [ppmv] of total HAP, corrected to 10 emissions from recovery area toward meeting its Voluntary Advanced percent oxygen on a dry basis); (2) combustion sources (referred to in later Technology BAT requirements. EPA has reduce HAPs by using a properly sections as MACT II). These sources are determined that immediate compliance operated design thermal oxidizer being regulated under a separate with this requirement is practicable (operated at a minimum temperature of NESHAP, which is proposed elsewhere because the requirement reflects, for 1,600 °F and a minimum residence time in today’s Federal Register. A summary each mill, the performance level it is of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by of the specific provisions that apply to presently achieving. Therefore, the using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18509 furnace that introduces all emission has been achieved. The first option is to affected source. The alternative streams to be controlled with the isolate at least 65 percent of the total definition allows for the CCA to apply primary fuel or into the flame zone. HAP mass in the total of all condensates to process systems outside of the kraft The kraft condensate standards apply from the digester system, turpentine pulping system. The expanded source to condensate streams generated in the recovery system, and weak liquor feed includes the causticizing system and the following kraft pulping processes: stages in the evaporator system. papermaking system. The mill must Digester system, evaporator system, The second option requires that a specify the process equipment within turpentine recovery system, LVHC minimum total HAP mass from the high the expanded source with which to collection system, and the high volume- HAP-concentrated condensates from the generate the required HAP emissions low concentration (HVLC) collection digester system, turpentine recovery reductions using the CCA. The mass system. The HAP mass loading in the system, and weak liquor feed stages in emission reduction of HAPs must equal condensates from these systems must be the evaporator system and the LVHC or exceed the reduction that would have reduced by 92 percent, based upon and HVLC collection system been achieved through application of performance of steam stripping. The condensates be sent to treatment. the kraft pulping vent standards. The NESHAP also includes the following e. Clean Condensate Alternative final determination of equivalency shall four alternative ways to meet the kraft Standards for Kraft Pulping. The final be made by the permitting authority condensate standard: (1) Recycle rule provides an alternative compliance based on an evaluation of the HAP applicable condensate streams to option to the kraft pulping standards for emission reductions. process equipment that is controlled in subject equipment in the HVLC systems. f. Sulfite Pulping Standards. For accordance with the kraft pulping This alternative compliance option is existing sources, the sulfite pulping standards; (2) reduce the concentration referred to as the clean condensate standards apply to the digester system of HAP (measured as methanol) in the alternative (CCA). The CCA focuses on vents, evaporator system vents, and the condensate to 330 ppmw for kraft mills reducing the HAP concentration in pulp washing system. The sulfite with bleaching systems, or 210 ppmw process water (such as from the pulping standards also apply to air for kraft mills without bleaching digestion and liquor evaporation areas) emissions from the effluent from any systems; (3) remove at least 5.1 that is introduced into process equipment used to reduce HAP kilograms of HAP (measured as equipment throughout the mill. By emissions to comply with the standards methanol) per megagram of ODP reducing the amount of HAP in the (e.g., acid plant scrubber and nuisance produced for kraft mills with bleaching process water, reductions in HAP scrubber). For new sources, the sulfite systems, or remove at least 3.3 kilogram emissions will also be achieved since pulping standards apply to the of HAP per megagram of ODP produced less HAP will be available to volatilize equipment systems listed for existing for kraft mills without bleaching off the process to the atmosphere. To sources, plus weak liquor tanks, strong systems; or (4) discharge pulping demonstrate compliance, the mass liquor storage tanks, and acid process condensates to a biological emission reduction of HAPs achieved by condensate storage tanks. treatment system achieving at least 92 the alternative technology must equal or Sources subject to the sulfite pulping percent destruction of total HAP. exceed that which would have been standards for equipment systems must The pulping process condensates achieved by implementing the kraft enclose open process equipment and must be conveyed to the treatment pulping vent controls. route all HAP emissions through a system in a closed collection system Eligibility for this compliance closed-vent system to a control device. that is designed and operated to meet alternative is determined on a case-by- The closed-vent system must be the individual drain system case basis during the permitting process. designed and operated with no requirements specified in §§ 63.960, For purposes of developing a detectable leaks. The total HAP 63.961, 63.962, and 63.964 of subpart compliance strategy, sources may use emissions from the equipment systems RR. These essentially require that the either emission test data or engineering and from the effluent from any control means of conveyance be leak-free. Air assessment to determine the baseline device used to reduce HAP emissions emissions of HAP from vents on any HAP emission reductions that would be must meet a mass emission limit or a condensate treatment systems (except achieved by complying with the kraft percent reduction requirement. biological treatment systems) that are pulping vent standard. To demonstrate Calcium- and sodium-based sulfite used to comply with the standards must that the alternative technology complies pulping mills must meet an emission be routed to a control device meeting with the emission reduction limit of 0.44 kilograms of methanol per the kraft pulping standards. requirements of the standards, emission megagram of ODP or achieve a 92 All the pulping process condensates test data must be used. Two conditions percent methanol reduction. from the LVHC and HVLC collection must be met for a CCA compliance Ammonium- and magnesium-based systems must be treated. However, the demonstration: (1) Owners and sulfite pulping mills must meet an facility has the option of minimizing the operators that choose this alternative emission limit of 1.1 kilograms of condensate volume sent to treatment must first comply with pulping process methanol per megagram of ODP limit or from the digester system, turpentine condensate standards before achieve an 87 percent methanol recovery system, and weak liquor feed implementing the alternative removal. stages in the evaporator system (i.e., technology; and (2) the HAP emission g. Semi-Chemical Pulping Standards. condensate segregation). If sufficient reductions cannot include reductions For existing sources, the semi-chemical segregation is not achieved, then the associated with any control equipment pulping standards apply to the LVHC entire volume of condensate from the required by local, state, or Federal vent system. For new sources, semi- digester system, turpentine recovery agencies’ regulations or statutes or with chemical pulping standards apply to the system, and weak liquor feed stages in emission reductions attributed to LVHC system and the pulp washing the evaporator system and the LVHC equipment installed prior to December system. and HVLC collection systems must be 17, 1993 (i.e., the date of publication of Sources subject to the semi-chemical treated. the proposed rule). pulping standards must enclose open Two options are provided in the rule For purposes of the CCA, the rule process equipment and route all for determining if sufficient segregation provides an alternative definition of the emissions through a closed-vent system 18510 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations to a control device. Positive-pressure source and new source requirements are promulgation of new effluent portions of the closed-vent system must the same. limitations guidelines and standards for be designed and operated with no Sources subject to the bleaching mills performing those operations. The detectable leaks. The rule provides three system standards must enclose process Agency is doing so in order to avoid control device options, as follows: (1) equipment in the bleaching stages and imposition of CAA requirements which Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent route all emissions through a closed- would be inconsistent with, or by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to vent system to a control device that superseded by, forthcoming CWA a level of 20 ppmv of total HAP, achieves either a 99 percent reduction of regulations. corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry chlorinated HAP’s (other than EPA is not aware of any control basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a chloroform), an outlet concentration at presently in place or any available properly operated thermal oxidizer or below 10 ppmv total chlorinated HAP control technology for reducing (operated at a minimum temperature of (other than chloroform), or a mass chloroform air emissions at mechanical, 1,600 °F and a minimum residence time emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by total chlorinated HAP (other than mills. Therefore, MACT for chloroform using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery chloroform) per Mg ODP produced. at these mills is no control. Today’s furnace that introduces all emission Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for water rule does not set new effluent streams to be controlled with the measuring total chlorinated HAP. The limitations guidelines and standards for primary fuel or into the flame zone. closed-vent system must be designed control of chloroform at mechanical, h. Soda Pulping Standards. For and operated with no detectable leaks. secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping existing sources, the soda pulping With respect to chloroform emissions mills, but EPA will evaluate whether it standards apply to the LVHC vent from bleaching systems, EPA is closely is appropriate to do so at a later time. system. For new sources, the soda correlating the air and water standards. At that time, EPA will also determine pulping standards apply to the LVHC This is because EPA is relying on the whether it is appropriate to revise system and the pulp washing system. same process change technology basis to MACT (pursuant to CAA section Sources subject to the soda pulping control both chloroform emissions to air 112(d)(6)) in order to control chloroform standards must enclose open process and pollutant discharges to water. Thus, emissions at those mills. equipment and route all emissions MACT to control chloroform for In addition, EPA is establishing through a closed-vent system to a bleaching systems requires a mill either control device. Positive pressure to meet the applicable baseline effluent MACT in two phases for bleach plant portions of the closed-vent system must limitations guidelines and standards for emissions from existing source be designed and operated with no all pollutants being promulgated today papergrade kraft and soda bleaching detectable leaks. The rule provides three under the Clean Water Act or to certify plants which elect, under the Voluntary control device options, as follows: (1) that chlorine and hypochlorite are not Advanced Technology Incentives Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent used in the bleaching system. Program, to control wastewater by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to However, EPA at present lacks discharges to levels surpassing the a level of 20 ppmv of total HAP, sufficient information to establish new baseline BAT limitations being corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry effluent limitations guidelines and promulgated today under the CWA. basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a standards for dissolving grade mills, and Phase one represents the present MACT properly operated thermal oxidizer also lacks information to reliably floor for existing sources, i.e., no (operated at a minimum temperature of ascertain what a MACT standard for backsliding from existing controls 1,600 °F and a minimum residence time chloroform air emissions would be for during the initial period when a mill is of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by this unit operation. (It is not appropriate working toward meeting its Voluntary using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery to set MACT standards for chloroform Advanced Technology BAT furnace that introduces all emission based on the control technology in use requirements; phase two requires the streams to be controlled with the today to comply with current effluent mill either to meet baseline BAT primary fuel or into the flame zone. limitations guidelines and standards for requirements for all pollutants for i. Bleaching System Standards. The dissolving grade mills because these bleached papergrade kraft and soda bleaching provisions apply to bleaching technologies are at the wastewater mills or to certify that chlorine and systems that use elemental chlorine to treatment system, rather than in the hypochlorite are not used in the bleach pulp. At kraft, sulfite, and soda bleaching process where the bleaching system. EPA is establishing pulping processes, the bleaching system chloroform-emitting vents are located.) MACT in two phases in order to avoid provisions also apply to bleaching EPA intends to set new effluent discouraging plants from electing systems that use chlorinated limitations guidelines and standards for environmentally superior levels of compounds to bleach pulp. At dissolving grade mills after analyses wastewater treatment represented by the mechanical pulping, non-wood fiber currently underway by EPA are Voluntary Advanced Technology pulping, and secondary fiber pulping complete, and is deferring establishing Incentives Program. These points are mills, only bleaching systems that use MACT standards for chloroform until discussed in detail in section VI.A.7. elemental chlorine or chlorine dioxide these effluent limitations guidelines and j. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary to bleach pulp are subject to the standards are established. Therefore, Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood Pulping NESHAP. Bleaching systems that do not dissolving grade mills will be required Mill, and Papermaking System use chlorine or chlorinated compounds to control chloroform air emissions Standards. Mechanical pulping are considered to be in compliance with three years after the new effluent (groundwood, thermomechanical, the bleaching system requirements. For limitations guidelines and standards are pressurized) mills, secondary fiber the applicable systems (i.e., bleaching or promulgated. pulping mills, and non-wood pulping brightening in the different In a related action, EPA is also mills must comply with the bleaching subcategories), the chlorinated HAP deferring establishing MACT for system standards described in section emissions from bleaching systems that chlorinated HAPs other than chloroform II.B.2.i. There are no control use elemental chlorine or chlorinated from dissolving grade bleaching requirements for pulping systems or compounds must be controlled. Existing operations until three years after process condensates at these mills. For Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18511 papermaking systems, there are no outlet concentration option must install, horsepower monitoring parameters fall control requirements. calibrate, maintain, and operate a device outside the range established during the k. Test Methods. The standards to monitor and continuously record the initial performance test. specify test methods and procedures for chlorine outlet concentration. Mills Monitoring requirements for the demonstrating that process equipment complying with the bleaching system pulping process condensate collection and condensate streams are in outlet mass emission limit option must systems include initial and monthly compliance with the MACT standards install, calibrate, maintain, and operate visual inspections of individual drain or are exempt from the rule. The rule a device to monitor and continuously system components and vent control also includes provisions to test for no record the chlorine outlet concentration devices (if used), and repair of defects. detectable leaks from closed-vent and the scrubber outlet vent gas flow. Additionally, inspection and monitoring systems. Because the majority of all Bleached papergrade kraft and soda requirements from § 63.964 of subpart non-chlorinated HAP emissions from mills enrolling in the Voluntary RR (National Emission Standards for process equipment and in pulping Advanced Technology Incentives Individual Drain Systems) are process condensates is methanol, in Program in the effluent limitations incorporated in the final rule. most cases the owner or operator has the guidelines and standards portion of Monitoring requirements for vent option of measuring methanol as a today’s rule must monitor the collection systems are (1) a visual surrogate for total HAP. For application rates of chlorine and inspection of the closed-vent system demonstrating compliance using hypochlorite to demonstrate that no and enclosure opening seals initially biological treatment or the CCA, the increase in chlorine or hypochlorite use and every 30 days, (2) demonstration of owner or operator must measure total occurs between June 15, 1998 and April no detectable leaks initially and HAP. To demonstrate compliance with 15, 2004. annually for positive pressure systems the concentration limit requirements, Mills using steam strippers must or portions of systems, and (3) repair of mass emission limit requirements, and install, calibrate, maintain, and operate defects and leaks as soon as practical. percent reduction requirements for a device to monitor and continuously For the CCA, EPA is not specifying bleaching systems, chlorine may be record process water feed rate, steam the parameters to be monitored in the measured as a surrogate for total feed rate, and process water feed final rule since the types of equipment chlorinated HAP emissions (other than temperature. As an alternative to that would be used in the CCA are not chloroform). monitoring those parameters, mills known at this time. Consequently, the l. Monitoring Provisions. Sources complying with the steam stripper final rule specifies that owners or subject to the NESHAP are required to outlet concentration option may install, operators choosing to use the CCA must continuously monitor specific process calibrate, maintain, and operate a device conduct an initial performance test to or operating parameters for control to monitor the methanol outlet determine the appropriate parameters devices and collection systems. concentration. In addition to monitoring and corresponding parameter values to Continuous emissions monitoring is not around the stream stripper, mills that be monitored continuously. Rationale required, except as an alternative to choose to treat a smaller, more for the parameter selection must also be certain control requirements. Parameter concentrated volume of condensate provided for the Administrator’s values are to be established during an rather than the whole volume of subject approval. initial performance test. Alternative condensates must also continuously m. Reporting and Recordkeeping monitoring parameters must be monitor the condensates to demonstrate Provisions. Sources subject to the demonstrated to the Administrator’s that the minimum mass or percent of NESHAP are required to comply with satisfaction to comply with the total mass is being treated. This practice recordkeeping and reporting provisions standards. As at proposal, excursions is often referred to as condensate in the part 63 General Provisions, and outside the selected parameter values segregation. Mills complying with the other specified requirements in the are violations except for biological condensate segregation requirements NESHAP. treatment systems. If a biological shall install, calibrate, maintain, and Sources subject to the rule are treatment system monitoring parameter operate monitors for appropriate required to keep readily accessible is outside the established range, a parameters as determined during the records of monitored parameters. The performance test must be performed. initial performance test. monitoring records must be maintained The parameters that must be monitored Mills using a biological treatment for five years (two years on-site, three for vent and condensate compliance are system to treat pulping process years off-site). For each enclosure explained below. condensates must monitor on a daily opening, closed-vent system, and Mills using a thermal oxidizer must basis samples of outlet soluble BOD5 pulping process condensate storage install, calibrate, maintain, and operate concentration (maximum daily and tank, the owner or operator must record a temperature monitoring device and monthly averages), inlet liquid flow, the equipment type and identification; continuous recorder to measure the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids results of negative pressure tests and temperature in the firebox or in the (MLVSS), liquid temperature, and the leak detection tests; and specific ductwork immediately downstream of horsepower of aerator units. information on the nature of the defect the firebox before any substantial heat Additionally, inlet and outlet grab and repairs. The position of bypass line exchange occurs. Mills using gas samples from each biological treatment valves, the condition of valve seals, and scrubbers at bleaching systems or sulfite system unit must be collected and the duration of the use of bypass valves processes must install, calibrate, stored for 5 days. These samples must on computer controlled valves must also maintain, and operate a device to be collected and stored since some of be recorded. monitor and continuously record (1) pH the monitoring parameters (e.g., soluble Sources subject to the NESHAP are or the oxidation/reduction potential of BOD5) cannot be determined within a required to submit the following types scrubber effluent, (2) vent gas inlet flow short period of time. These samples are of reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2) rate, and (3) scrubber liquid influent to be used in conjunction with the Notification of Performance Tests, (3) flow rate. As an alternative to WATER8 emissions model to Exceedance Reports, and (4) Semi- monitoring these parameters, mills demonstrate compliance if the soluble annual Summary Reports. Exceedance complying with the bleaching system BOD5, MLVSS, or the aerator and summary reports are not required 18512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations for emission points that are exempt from C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and the existing subcategorization scheme is the rule. Kraft mills must also submit, Standards discussed in the proposal (58 FR at initially and bi-annually, a non-binding 66098–66100), the Development 1. Subcategorization and Schedule compliance strategy report for pulping Document for Proposed Effluent sources electing to comply with the EPA is replacing the subcategorization Limitations Guidelines and Standards eight-year compliance extension scheme under the former effluent for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (including the CCA) and for bleaching limitations guidelines for this industry Point Source Category, also referred to sources at bleached papergrade kraft (in 40 CFR parts 430 and 431) with a as the proposal Technical Development and soda mills electing to comply with revised subcategorization scheme. EPA Document (EPA 821–R93–019), and the Voluntary Advanced Technology is redesignating the Builders’ Paper and EPA’s response to comments on this BAT requirements. The compliance Roofing Felt category, formerly issue (DCN 14497, Vol. 1). strategy report must contain, among regulated in 40 CFR part 431, to a Although the Agency is codifying the other information, a description of the subcategory in part 430. This eliminates revised subcategorization scheme for the emission controls or process CFR part 431. The Agency is also whole industry today, EPA will modifications selected for compliance redesignating the previous subpart promulgate revised effluent limitations and a compliance schedule indicating numbers and section numbers, which guidelines and standards, as when each step toward compliance will are shown in Table II–2. appropriate, for this industrial category be reached. For mills complying with EPA is making no substantive changes in stages consisting of several the CCA, the report must contain a to the limitations and standards for any subcategories at a time. The Agency has description of alternative control newly redesignated subcategory except labeled these groupings of subcategories technology used, identify each piece of for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and as ‘‘Phase I,’’ ‘‘Phase II,’’ and ‘‘Phase equipment affected by the alternative Soda subcategory (new subpart B) and III.’’ The schedule for these phases is technology, and estimate total HAP the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (new explained below and in the following emissions and emission reductions. subpart E). The rationale for changing table.

TABLE II±2.ÐFINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)

Promul- Final codified Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with pre- gation subpart Final subcategorization scheme vious 40 CFR part 430 subparts noted) schedule (phase)*

A ...... Dissolving Kraft ...... Dissolving Kraft (F) ...... III B ...... Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached Kraft (H), Fine Bleached Kraft I ** Soda. (I), Soda (P). C ...... Unbleached Kraft ...... Unbleached Kraft (A) ...... II Linerboard Bag and Other Products Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V) D ...... Dissolving Sulfite ...... Dissolving Sulfite (K) ...... III Nitration Viscose Cellophane Acetate E ...... Papergrade Sulfite ...... Papergrade Sulfite (J, U) ...... I ** Calcium-, Magnesium-, and So- Blow Pit Wash dium-based pulps. Drum Wash Ammonium-based pulps. Specialty grade pulps. F ...... Semi-Chemical ...... Semi-Chemical (B) ...... II Ammonia Sodium G ...... Mechanical Pulp ...... Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), Groundwood-Coarse, Molded, II News (N), Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-Chemi-Mechan- ical (L). H ...... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp ...... Miscellaneous mills not covered by a specific subpart ...... II I ...... Secondary Fiber Deink ...... Deink Secondary Fiber (Q) ...... II Fine Papers Tissue Papers Newsprint J ...... Secondary Fiber Non-Deink ...... Tissue from Wastepaper (T), Paperboard from Wastepaper (E) ...... II Corrugating Medium Non-Corrugating Medium Wastepaper-Molded Products (W) Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR Part 431, Subpart A) K ...... Fine and Lightweight Papers from Non integrated Fine Papers (R) ...... II Purchased Pulp. Wood Fiber Furnish Cotton Fiber Furnish Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X) Lightweight Papers Lightweight Electrical Papers Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18513

TABLE II±2.ÐFINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)ÐContinued

Promul- Final codified Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with pre- gation subpart Final subcategorization scheme vious 40 CFR part 430 subparts noted) schedule (phase)*

L ...... Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Pa- Non integrated ...... II perboard from Purchased Pulp. Tissue Papers (S) Filter and Non-Woven (Y) Paperboard (Z) * Phase I: Promulgation today; Phases II and III: Promulgation dates to be determined. ** Certain parameter limits to be promulgated as part of Phase II.

a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and products. Affected companies have EPA does not intend for these mills to Soda Subcategory and Papergrade undertaken laboratory studies and mill be regulated under subpart D; rather, Sulfite Subcategory (subparts B and E). trials to develop alternative bleaching they are specialty grade sulfite mills Under the consent decree entered in the processes and to document the effects within the Papergrade Sulfite case Environmental Defense Fund and on wastewater and air emissions. The subcategory (subpart E). National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Agency expects to receive data on these c. Schedule for the Remaining Civ. No. 85–0973 (D.D.C.), and studies and trials as the companies’ Subcategories. EPA is assessing subsequently amended, EPA was efforts progress. comments and data received since required to use its best efforts to Because EPA’s record presently is proposal for the remaining eight promulgate regulations addressing incomplete, EPA is not promulgating subcategories. These eight subcategories discharges of dioxins and furans from final effluent limitations guidelines and are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2) Semi- 104 bleaching pulp mills by June 17, standards for these subcategories now. Chemical; (3) Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non- 1995. Despite making its best efforts, Even in the absence of these limitations Wood Chemical Pulp; (5) Secondary EPA was not able to promulgate final and standards, however, EPA Fiber Deink; (6) Secondary Fiber Non- effluent limitations guidelines and anticipates that alternative bleaching Deink; (7) Fine and Lightweight Papers standards applicable to those mills by processes developed as a result of these from Purchased Pulp; and (8) Tissue, that date. However, in today’s rule, EPA studies and trials should contribute to Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard is promulgating effluent limitations substantial reductions in the generation from Purchased Pulp. For example, EPA guidelines and standards for mills in the and release of pollutants, when has received additional information Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda compared to current operating practices. from an industry-sponsored survey of subcategory (subpart B) and the Among the pollutants EPA expects to be secondary fiber non-deink mills. The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart reduced are dioxin, furan, and Agency also has received additional E), thereby addressing discharges from chlorinated phenolic pollutants at levels data from mills in other subcategories, 96 of the mills covered by the consent comparable to those achieved by including semi-chemical, unbleached decree. Regulating the discharge of subpart B mills. The Agency also kraft, and secondary fiber deink. EPA plans to promulgate effluent limitations dioxins and furans from the mills in the expects to see significant reductions in guidelines and standards for these dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite AOX and chloroform. EPA encourages subcategories in the near future. It subcategories remains a very high mills in these subcategories to should be noted that air emission priority; as discussed in more detail expeditiously complete developmental standards are being promulgated today below, EPA will promulgate effluent work that will facilitate installation of for these subcategories. limitations guidelines and standards for alternative process technologies that discharges of dioxins and furans from achieve these pollution prevention 2. Best Practicable Control Technology those mills as soon as possible. goals. Currently Available (BPT) and Best b. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and As defined today, the Dissolving Conventional Pollutant Control Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory (subparts Sulfite subcategory (subpart D) applies Technology (BCT) for the Bleached A and D). EPA is evaluating comments to discharges from dissolving sulfite Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and preliminary new data received mills, including mills that manufacture and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory since proposal affecting the Dissolving dissolving grade sulfite pulps and Although the Agency has the statutory Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite papergrade sulfite pulps at the same authority to revise BPT effluent subcategories. The Agency anticipates site. See 40 CFR 430.40. This definition limitations guidelines, the Agency is that the final effluent limitations is based on EPA’s analysis of data exercising its discretion not to revise guidelines and standards for these collected in the ‘‘1990 National Census BPT for Subparts B and E at this time. subcategories will be based on different of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard In addition, none of the technologies technologies than those that served as Manufacturing Facilities.’’ Data from the that EPA evaluated for the purpose of the basis for the proposed limitations survey indicate that most sulfite mills setting more stringent effluent and standards. For example, EPA has that produce dissolving grade pulp do limitations for the conventional received data suggesting that oxygen so at a very high percentage (typically pollutants biochemical oxygen demand delignification is not a feasible process greater than 85 percent) of their total (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) for making some dissolving pulp pulp output. It has come to EPA’s passed the BCT cost test for either products, particularly high grade attention, however, that some specialty subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not products. In addition, some use of grade papergrade sulfite mills now have revising BCT effluent limitations hypochlorite appears to be necessary to the capability to produce low guidelines for Subparts B and E in this maintain product quality for some percentages of dissolving grade pulp. rulemaking. 18514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

3. Final Regulations for the Bleached promulgating pretreatment standards for grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory new sources (PSNS) based on the model bases for this segment are elemental (Subpart B) technology for NSPS, excluding chlorine-free (ECF) technologies a. Pollutants Regulated. In this rule, secondary biological treatment. A (complete substitution of chlorine EPA is promulgating effluent limitations source is a new source for purposes of dioxide for elemental chlorine, peroxide guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8– PSNS if it meets the definition of new enhanced extraction, and elimination of TCDD (‘‘dioxin’’), 2,3,7,8–TCDF source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it hypochlorite) and biological wastewater (‘‘furan’’), 12 specific chlorinated commences construction after the date treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent phenolic pollutants, the volatile organic of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 However, a new indirect discharger is chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this pollutant, chloroform, and adsorbable not required to meet PSNS for subpart segment, but is reserving promulgation organic halides (AOX). EPA is also B until those standards become of chloroform, AOX, and COD promulgating new source performance effective, i.e., June 15, 1998. limitations until sufficient performance standards for BOD5 and TSS. As e. Voluntary Incentives Program data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b. explained in section VI.B.3 below, the Based on Advanced Technology. As (3) For production of pulp and paper Agency is not promulgating effluent noted earlier in this notice, EPA’s vision at specialty grade sulfite mills, the BAT limitations guidelines and standards for of long-term environmental goals for the technology bases for this segment are chemical oxygen demand (COD) at this pulp and paper industry includes ECF technologies (complete substitution time. EPA is also not promulgating continuing research and progress of chlorine dioxide for elemental effluent limitations guidelines and toward environmental improvement. chlorine, oxygen and peroxide standards for methylene chloride, EPA recognizes that technologies exist, enhanced extraction, and elimination of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, or or are currently under development at hypochlorite) and biological wastewater color. See Section VI.B.3. some mills, that have the ability to treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent b. Best Available Technology surpass the environmental protection limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 Economically Achievable (BAT). After that would be provided by compliance chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this re-evaluating technologies for mills in with the baseline BAT effluent segment, but is reserving promulgation the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda limitations guidelines and NSPS of chloroform, AOX, and COD subcategory, EPA has determined that promulgated today. The Agency limitations for this segment until the model technology for effluent believes that individual mills could be sufficient performance data are limitations based on best available encouraged to explore and install these available. See Section VI.B.6.b. technology economically achievable advanced technologies. Accordingly, b. New Source Performance (BAT) should be complete (100 percent) EPA is establishing a Voluntary Standards. For each segment identified substitution of chlorine dioxide for Advanced Technology Incentives above, EPA is establishing NSPS based chlorine as the key process technology, Program for direct discharging mills in on the model BAT technologies selected along with other in-process technologies the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda for the particular segment. The and existing end-of-pipe biological subcategory. This program is discussed pollutants are the same as those treatment technologies. See Section in Section IX. regulated by BAT for the applicable VI.B.5.a. segment. EPA is also exercising its 4. Final Regulations for the Papergrade c. New Source Performance discretion not to revise NSPS for BOD5, Standards. The Agency has determined Sulfite Subcategory (Subpart E) TSS, and pH. See Section VI.B.6.c. that the technology basis defining new a. Segmentation of Subpart E and Best c. Pretreatment Standards. The source performance standards (NSPS) Available Technology Economically Agency is promulgating pretreatment for toxics and non-conventional Achievable (BAT). After assessing standards for the segments identified pollutants is the BAT model technology comments and data received after the above. The pretreatment standards for with the addition of oxygen proposal, EPA is segmenting the existing sources (PSES) control the same delignification and/or extended Papergrade Sulfite subcategory to pollutants controlled by BAT for the cooking. See Section VI.B.5.b. EPA is account for production of specialty particular segment. EPA is promulgating also promulgating NSPS for the grade pulps and the applicability of pretreatment standards for new sources conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS. technologies to ammonium-based (PSNS) for the same toxic and As discussed elsewhere in today’s pulping processes. nonconventional pollutants controlled Federal Register, EPA also is soliciting The Agency is segmenting this by NSPS for the particular segment. A comment and intends to gather subcategory and establishing BAT source is a new source for purposes of additional data with respect to totally technology bases set forth below. (EPA PSNS if it meets the definition of new chlorine-free processes that may be has established the same segments for source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it available for the full range of market new source performance standards and commences construction after the date products. EPA will determine whether pretreatment standards for subpart E.) of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. to propose revisions to NSPS based (1) For production of pulp and paper However, a new indirect discharger is upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow at papergrade sulfite mills using an not required to meet PSNS for subpart reduction technologies. acidic cooking liquor of calcium, E until those standards become In this rule, NSPS are effective June magnesium, or sodium sulfite (unless effective, i.e., June 15, 1998. The 15, 1998. A source is a new source if it the mill is a specialty grade sulfite mill), technology bases for PSES and PSNS for meets the definition of new source in 40 the BAT technology basis is totally the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences chlorine-free bleaching. EPA is the same as those chosen for the construction after that date. promulgating limitations for AOX for particular segments at the BAT and d. Pretreatment Standards. The this segment. See Section VI.B.6.b. NSPS levels, respectively, excluding Agency is promulgating pretreatment (2) For production of pulp and paper secondary biological treatment. For the standards for existing sources (PSES) at papergrade sulfite mills using an ammonium-based and specialty grade based on the BAT model technology, acidic cooking liquor of ammonium segments, EPA is deferring making a excluding biological treatment. EPA is sulfite (unless the mill is a specialty pass-through determination, and hence, Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18515 promulgating pretreatment standards, related to the proposed air emissions materials to the Air and Water Dockets for chloroform and AOX until it has standards. Those new data are located to document these meetings. sufficient performance data to set in Air Docket A–92–40. B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority limitations and standards for those In a second notice of data availability parameters. EPA is promulgating published on July 5, 1995 (60 FR Section 112(b) of the CAA lists 189 pretreatment standards for AOX for the 34938), EPA announced the availability HAPs and directs EPA to develop rules calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium- of new information and data related to to control all major and some area based sulfite segment. EPA has made no the proposed effluent limitations sources emitting HAPs. Major sources pass-through determination at this time guidelines and standards. Those new are facilities that emit 10 tons of any for COD for any segment. More details data are located starting at Section 18.0 single HAP or 25 tons of total HAPs are described below in section VI.B.6.d. of the Post-Proposal Rulemaking annually. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR Record, which is a continuation of the 31576), EPA published a list of major 5. Best Management Practices for the proposal record. The Post-Proposal and area sources for which NESHAP are Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Rulemaking Record is located in the to be promulgated. The goal of NESHAP Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Water Docket. EPA did not solicit is to require the implementation of Subcategory comment on the new air and water data maximum achievable control EPA is codifying best management in either notice. technology (MACT) to reduce emissions practices (BMPs) applicable to direct- On March 8, 1996, EPA published a and, therefore, reduce public health and indirect-discharging mills in the Federal Register notice pertaining to the hazards from pollutants emitted from Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda air portions of the proposed rules and stationary sources. Pulp and paper and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. In announced the availability of production was listed as a category of response to comments, EPA changed the supplemental information (61 FR 9383). major sources. On December 3, 1993 (58 scope of the BMPs to focus on spent The comment period for that notice FR 83941), EPA published a schedule pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap closed on April 8, 1996. EPA also for promulgating standards for the listed control and to allow for more flexibility proposed MACT standards for major and area sources. Standards for in implementation. See Section VI.B.7. mechanical pulping mills, secondary the pulp and paper source category were fiber pulping (deinked and non- scheduled for promulgation by III. Background deinked) mills, and non-wood mills, November 1997. A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices and asked for additional information on NESHAP established under section of Data Availability, and Public these mills. Furthermore, EPA 112 of the Act reflect MACT or: announced that it was continuing to Participation ** * the maximum degree of reduction in investigate paper machines and that no emissions of the [HAP] * * * that the The regulations that EPA developed MACT standard for paper machines was for the pulp, paper, and paperboard Administrator, taking into consideration the being proposed at the time. EPA cost of achieving such emission reduction, industry prior to this date are discussed acknowledged an industry testing and any nonair quality health and in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66089–92. program was underway; EPA also environmental impacts and energy In a Federal Register notice published acknowledged its request to States for requirements, determines is achievable for on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078), data on non-wood pulping mills. EPA new or existing sources in the category or EPA proposed integrated air and water requested additional data on HAP subcategory to which such emission standard rules that included proposed limitations emissions from, and control applies * * * (See CAA section 112(d)(2)). and standards to reduce the discharge of technologies for, paper machines to C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority toxic, conventional, and supplement information previously nonconventional pollutants in The objective of the Clean Water Act collected under the MACT process. (CWA) is to ‘‘restore and maintain the wastewaters and to reduce emissions of On July 15, 1996, the Agency chemical, physical, and biological hazardous air pollutants from the pulp, published a Federal Register notice integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ CWA paper, and paperboard industry. These announcing the Agency’s thinking, proposed integrated regulations based on preliminary evaluation of the Section 101(a). To assist in achieving subsequently became known as ‘‘the supplemented record and stakeholder this objective, EPA issues effluent Cluster Rules.’’ EPA held a public discussions, regarding the technology limitations guidelines, pretreatment hearing in Washington, D.C., on options being considered as a basis for standards, and new source performance February 10, 1994, to provide interested final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for industrial dischargers. The persons the opportunity for oral standards for the proposed Bleached statutory requirements of these presentation of data, views, or Papergrade Kraft and Soda and guidelines and standards are arguments concerning the proposed Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (61 FR summarized in the proposal. See 58 FR pretreatment standards. On March 17, 36835). Data were added to the record at 66088–89. 1994 (59 FR 12567), EPA published a and comments were solicited from D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the correction notice to the proposed rules interested parties. The comment period Pulp and Paper Industry and extended the comment period to for that notice closed on August 14, April 18, 1994. 1996. 1. Land Disposal Restrictions Activities In the preamble to the proposed rules, The Agency has held numerous At the time of proposal, it appeared EPA solicited data on various issues and meetings on these proposed integrated that many of the surface impoundments questions related to the proposed rules with many pulp and paper used for wastewater treatment in the effluent limitations guidelines and industry stakeholders, including a trade pulp and paper industry might become standards and air emissions standards. association (American Forest and Paper subject to Resource Conservation and The Agency received and added new Association, or AF&PA), numerous Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation under material to the Air and Water Dockets. individual companies, environmental the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) In a notice of data availability published groups, States, laboratories, consultants program. See 58 FR at 66091. This on February 22, 1995 (60 FR 9813), EPA and vendors, labor unions, and other program establishes treatment standards announced the availability of new data interested parties. EPA has added that hazardous wastes must meet before 18516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations they can be land disposed—placement impoundments that accept these ‘‘de- While awaiting completion of the in surface impoundments being a type characterized’’ wastes and warrant effluent limitations guidelines and of land disposal. This requirement RCRA regulation. The findings of this standards, air emission standards and extends not only to wastes that are study, begun by the Agency in April the dioxin reassessment, EPA has identified or listed as hazardous under 1996, could eventually result in RCRA promoted the establishment of an the RCRA rules when they are land regulations for these units. industry environmental stewardship disposed, but also to wastes that are program for the practice of sludge land hazardous when generated, cease to be 2. Land Application of Sludges application. hazardous as a result of dilution, and Under the Consent Decree entered in 3. Hazardous Listing Determination are then disposed. Chemical Waste the case Environmental Defense Fund Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. and National Wildlife Federation v. Under the consent decree entered in Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1057 Thomas, Civ. No. 85–0973 (D.D.C.), EPA the case of Environmental Defense Fund (1993). was required to propose rules under v. Browner, Civ. No. 89–0598 (D.D.C.), The pulp and paper industry has section 6 of the Toxic Substances ‘‘EPA shall promulgate a listing many mills that fit this pattern: Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the use determination for sludges from pulp and Numerous wastewater streams are of sludge produced from the treatment paper mill effluent on or before the date generated, some of them exhibit a of wastewater effluent of pulp and paper 24 months after promulgation of an characteristic of hazardous waste mills using chlorine and chlorine- effluent guideline regulation under the (corrosivity or toxicity in particular), the derivative bleaching processes (56 FR Clean Water Act for pulp and paper streams are commingled before 21802; Docket OPTS–62100). EPA mills. This listing determination shall centralized wastewater treatment published the proposed rules on May be proposed for public comment on or occurs, and, in the course of 10, 1991. The proposed regulations before the date 12 months after commingling, the wastes no longer sought to establish a final maximum promulgation of such effluent guideline exhibit the characteristic, and the dioxin and furan soil concentration of regulation. However, EPA shall not be commingled wastewaters are then ten parts per trillion (ppt) toxic required to propose or promulgate such treated in a surface impoundment. EPA equivalents (TEQ) and site management a listing determination if the final rule actually took action to temporarily defer practices for the land application of for the pending effluent guideline applying LDR rules to this type of bleached kraft and sulfite mill sludge. rulemaking (amending 40 CFR part 430) situation in the pulp and paper industry EPA originally planned to promulgate under the Clean Water Act to regulate in order to allow unhindered the rule by November 1992. the discharge of dioxins from pulp and paper mills is based on the use of promulgation of these Cluster Rules. See On December 11, 1992, EPA informed oxygen delignification, ozone bleaching, 61 FR at 15660, 15574 (April 8, 1996). the plaintiffs of the Consent Decree that This issue, however, is now moot, at prenox bleaching, enzymatic bleaching, the decision on the promulgation of the least for the time being. As discussed in hydrogen peroxide bleaching, oxygen proposed sludge land application rule the April 8, 1996, notice partially and peroxide enhanced extraction, or was deferred pending promulgation of withdrawing the LDR Phase III final any other technology involving rule, 61 FR 15660, the Land Disposal the integrated rulemaking for effluent substantially similar reductions in uses Program Flexibility Act of 1996 limitations guidelines and standards of chlorine-containing compounds. If provides, among other things, that and national emission standards. EPA EPA concludes that the final effluent RCRA characteristic wastewaters are no reasoned that the effluent limitations guideline regulation is based on use of longer prohibited from land disposal guidelines and standards and air such a process and that, as a result, no once they are rendered nonhazardous, emissions standards would have the listing determination is required, EPA provided that they are managed in potential to result in bleach plant shall so inform plaintiff in writing either a treatment system whose process changes that EPA expected within 30 days of the promulgation of ultimate discharge is regulated under would result in reduced dioxin and the effluent guideline regulation.’’ the CWA (including both direct and furan contamination levels in sludge. In At this time, EPA is assessing whether indirect dischargers), a CWA-equivalent addition, EPA was awaiting the results the technology bases for the effluent treatment system, or a Class I of its dioxin reassessment activities. limitations guidelines and standards nonhazardous injection well regulated In light of the anticipated impact of promulgated today would fulfill the under the Safe Drinking Water Act. the effluent limitations guidelines and condition described in the Consent Under the Land Disposal Program standards and air emissions standards Decree. If so, the Agency would Flexibility Act of 1996, the LDR on reducing dioxin in pulp and paper conclude that a listing determination is treatment standards for RCRA mill sludges, as well as reduction in not warranted. If EPA concludes it does characteristic wastes in the pulp and sludge dioxin levels from industry- not fulfill the condition, a listing paper industry (or any other industry) initiated improvements, EPA chose to determination would be conducted. do not apply if the characteristic is defer the decision on promulgation of removed and the wastes are the final sludge land application rule. 4. Dioxin Reassessment subsequently treated in a surface When EPA has determined the final In the spring of 1991, EPA initiated an impoundment that is part of a impact of today’s effluent limitations effort to reassess the scientific bases for wastewater treatment system whose guidelines and standards on sludge estimating dioxin risk. The activities ultimate discharge is regulated by the dioxin concentration, EPA will re- associated with the dioxin reassessment CWA, or if a mill’s treatment system evaluate the risk from sludge land before proposal are described in the provides wastewater treatment that is application and will choose the proposal. See 58 FR at 66092–93. After CWA-equivalent. appropriate regulatory or non-regulatory the proposal, in September 1994, EPA It should be noted that the Act mechanism to address the situation. published a public review draft of this requires EPA to undertake a five-year Prior to that determination, however, effort, which is commonly referred to as study to determine any potential risks EPA has taken action to achieve risk the EPA Dioxin Reassessment. The draft posed by cross-media transfer of reduction for situations where sludge is reassessment addressed not only the hazardous constituents from surface being applied to land. health effects of dioxin-like chemicals Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18517 but also dioxin sources and pathways 6. Cooling Tower Intake Assessment substantially since proposal. As was the for human exposure. Since the draft EPA is developing regulations under case at the time of proposal, only one documents were released, EPA received section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, U.S. mill produces TCF kraft pulp; thousands of pages of public comments. which provides that any standard however, this mill is now able to attain EPA submitted the documents to formal established pursuant to Section 301 or higher brightness than was achieved at peer review by the EPA Science 306 and applicable to a point source the time of the proposal. Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was shall require that the location, design, The number of companies in the supportive of the overall reassessment construction, and capacity of cooling industry is constantly changing as new effort and endorsed the major water intake structures reflect the best companies enter the market and other conclusions of the exposure document technology available for minimizing companies leave the industry or merge and chapters one through seven of the adverse environmental impact. Section with other companies. In the health document. They did, however, 316(b) applies only to the intake of subcategories now designated as believe that additional work was needed water, not the discharge. A primary goal Subparts B and E, only one mill has on the dose-response modeling chapter of the regulation that EPA is developing closed since proposal and one has and the risk characterization chapter. would be to minimize the destruction of changed subcategories. No new Subpart B or E mills have commenced The reassessment is currently being fish and other aquatic organisms as they are drawn into an industrial facility’s construction since the time of proposal. revised and updated in response to For more details on the technology water intake. EPA plans to conduct public comments. The two chapters status of mills covered by the final screening level and detailed surveys to singled out by the SAB are being revised Cluster Rules, see the ‘‘Supplemental estimate the number and type of by specially established panels Technical Development Document,’’ facilities that utilize cooling water composed of scientists from both inside DCN 14487. and outside the Agency. Once the work intake structures and thus are within the of the special panels is completed these scope of Section 316(b). The pulp and V. Summary of Data Gathering two revised chapters will be examined paper industry uses a significant Activities Since Proposal amount of cooling water. EPA intends to by peer review panels, and then A. Data Gathering for the Development gather data on pulp and paper facilities resubmitted to the SAB for final review. of Air Emissions Standards EPA currently anticipates completion during the Section 316(b) rulemaking and release of the dioxin reassessment through questionnaires and site visits. To develop today’s standards, in the spring of 1998. The Section 316(b) regulation is extensive data collection and technical scheduled for proposal in 1999 with the analyses were conducted. Prior to 5. Clean Water Act Section 307(a) final rule due in 2001. proposal, EPA used information in a Petition 1990 census of pulp and paper mills, a IV. Changes in the Industry Since 1992 voluntary mill survey, an EPA On September 14, 1993, the Natural Proposal sampling program, site visits at a Resources Defense Council and the A description of the pulp and paper number of mills, and a review of State Natural Resources Council of Maine industry, including manufacturing and local regulations to obtain filed with EPA on behalf of 57 processes, pulping processes, bleaching information on emissions, emission individuals and environmental groups a processes, and papermaking is included control technologies, and emission petition to prohibit the discharge of in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66095–96. control costs for pulp and paper mill dioxin by pulp and paper mills. The The proposed water regulation emission points. After proposal, EPA petitioners ask EPA to accomplish this encompassed the entire pulp and paper obtained additional information from prohibition by prohibiting the use of industry of approximately 500 facilities. the industry. This information included chlorine and chlorine-containing The proposed air regulations (MACT I test reports from a variety of testing compounds as inputs in the and MACT III) covered approximately programs, as well as numerous reports, manufacturing process. The petitioners the same number. Under today’s action, studies, and memoranda on other issues believe that the prohibition is warranted approximately 490 mills will be covered related to the development of emission by the dangers to human health and the by the final MACT I and MACT III rules. control requirements. The information environment posed by dioxin. The Of these mills, 155 will be affected by collected before and after proposal was petitioners invoke CWA section MACT standards for mills that used as the technical basis in 307(a)(2) for authority for such a chemically pulp wood. A subset of these determining the MACT level of control. prohibition. mills—96 mills—will be covered by the EPA also used information on pulp Authority for the petition and final effluent limitations guidelines and and paper mill production processes requested prohibition derives from a standards promulgated today. available in the general literature and different section of the Clean Water Act Since the proposal, some facilities information on control technology than today’s technology-based effluent have modified their processes. There performance and cost information limitations guidelines and standards. has been a substantial move toward developed under other EPA standards to However, because the petition raised elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching, determine MACT. many issues related to the effluent and mills are continuing to increase Industry commenters indicated that guidelines rulemaking, EPA solicited their substitution of chlorine dioxide for they would be completing a comment on the issues raised in the chlorine. Additionally, more mills are comprehensive emission testing petition at the time it proposed effluent utilizing oxygen delignification and program after proposal, and EPA limitations guidelines and standards for extended cooking than at proposal. All considered this information to be vital the pulp and paper industry. See 58 FR these developments result in decreased to the development of the final at 66174. EPA received thousands of discharges of dioxins and furans to regulation. Therefore, EPA agreed to pages of comments and expects to issue receiving waters. consider the new data and issued two a decision granting or denying the The U.S. pulp and paper industry’s notices of availability of supplemental petition after completion of the dioxin involvement with totally chlorine-free information on February 22, 1995 (60 reassessment. (TCF) bleaching has not changed FR 9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR 18518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

9383) announcing the information and the proposal, see 58 FR at 66096, and in bleaching systems, or kraft condensate offering the likely implications to the the July 15, 1996, notice of data systems. The Agency determined that final rule. The opportunity for a public availability, see 61 FR at 36837. control beyond the floor at soda mills hearing was offered on the March 8, was technically feasible and could be VI. Summary of the Major Changes 1996 action, but no request for a hearing achieved at a reasonable cost. A Since Proposal and Rationale for the was received. Public comments on the discussion of the Agency’s decision for Selection of the Final Regulations March 8, 1996 action were accepted soda mills is presented in the March 8 from March 8, 1996 to April 8, 1996. A. Air Emission Standards supplemental notice and in section Commenters included industry At proposal, the standards for mills VI.A.5. representatives, States, environmental that chemically pulp wood were based In response to comments received on organizations, and other members of the on the MACT floor control level. A the proposed standards, several changes public. uniform set of requirements would have have been made to the final rule. While In the March 8, 1996 supplemental applied to all mills that chemically pulp some of these changes are clarifications notice, EPA solicited additional data wood using the kraft, sulfite, soda, or designed to make the Agency’s intent and comments on proposed changes to semi-chemical process. The proposed clearer, a number of them are significant the December 17, 1993 proposed rule. changes to the compliance Data added to Air Docket A–92–40 standards would have required that, with the exception of some with very requirements. A summary of the since the March 8, 1996 supplemental substantive comments and changes notice are located in section IV of this low volumetric and mass flow rates, all emission points in the pulping and made since the proposal are described docket. These items include additional in the following sections. Detailed information on sulfite mills (IV–D1–98, bleaching area of these mills be controlled. The proposed standards also Agency responses to public comments IV–D1–100), comments on definitions and the revised analysis for the final (IV–D1–97, IV–D1–99, IV–D1–104), would have required that all wastewater rule are contained in the background comments on the emission factor streams produced in the pulping area of information document and docket. See document (IV–D1–102), clarification of the mill be controlled except for those Section X.A. the 1992 MACT survey responses (IV– with a specified low concentration of D1–101), and other information. hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The 1. Definition of Source proposed control technology basis was B. Data Gathering for the Development to enclose any open process equipment At proposal, EPA defined a single of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and in the pulping and bleaching areas and broad source that was subject to both Standards route all vents and pulping wastewater existing and new source MACT. That EPA has gathered a substantial to a control device. The proposed single source included the pulping amount of new information and data control technology basis was processes, the bleaching processes, and since proposal in connection with combustion for pulping area vent the pulping and bleaching process today’s water regulations. Much of this sources, scrubbing for bleaching area wastewater streams at a pulp and paper information was collected with the vent sources, and steam stripping for mill. EPA also considered and solicited cooperation and support of the pulping wastewater. comments on the concept of multiple American Forest and Paper Association Following proposal, EPA received a smaller sources that would be subject to (AF&PA) and the National Council of large number of comments and data to the existing and new source MACT the Paper Industry for Air and Stream support the need for subcategories with requirements. Improvement (NCASI), and with the separate MACT standards for each. After In defining the source at proposal, assistance of many individual mills in considering the data and comments, the EPA considered the impact of the the United States. Additional final rule specifies separate MACT definition on mills making changes to information also has been submitted by requirements for each of the four types existing facilities. In general, the environmental groups. EPA has of pulping processes subject to the narrower the definition of source, the gathered additional information from standard. The low volumetric and mass more likely it is that changes to existing pulp and paper mills outside of the flow rates for pulping and bleaching facilities would be deemed ‘‘new United States, primarily in Canada and vents and the low concentration value sources’’ under the CAA. With limited Europe. for pulping wastewater are no longer exceptions, these new sources must be Some of the new information and data used to determine applicability to the in compliance with new source MACT were generated through EPA-sponsored standard. Rather, for each subcategory, standards on the date of startup or June field sampling or visits at individual the standard lists the specific equipment 15, 1998, whichever is later. However, mills in the United States, Canada, and and pulping area condensates that the CAA and the CWA differ regarding Europe. Additional sampling data were require control. applicability requirements and voluntarily supplied by many facilities, For each subcategory, the Agency compliance deadlines for new sources. and information from laboratory and determined the MACT floor level of As such, EPA was concerned that a pulp pilot-scale studies was shared with the control for existing and new sources, and paper mill planning to construct or Agency. In order to clarify comments on and analyzed the cost and impacts for reconstruct a source of HAPs between the proposal, the Agency also gathered control options more stringent than the proposal and promulgation of these information from several surveys floor. This analysis is presented in integrated regulations would find it administered by AF&PA and NCASI, chapter 20 of the background necessary to plan for compliance with including data on secondary fiber mill information document for the the NESHAP (required on the date it processes, recovery furnace capacities, promulgated NESHAP, and is also becomes effective) without knowing the best management practices, capital and discussed in the proposal preamble. requirements of the effluent guidelines operating costs, process operations, and Based on the results of this analysis, the for the industry. This situation appeared impacts of technology on the recovery Agency determined that it was not to be inconsistent with one objective of cycle. reasonable to go beyond the MACT floor the integrated rulemaking: allowing The data gathering activities for this level of control for sources at kraft, facilities to do integrated compliance final rule are summarized in detail in semi-chemical, and sulfite pulp mills, planning. EPA thus determined that the Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18519 best solution to these concerns was to unless those changes occurred along Additionally, EPA has determined that define a single broad source at proposal. with other substantial changes that the use of papermaking systems In the March 8, 1996 supplemental would justify rebuilding the vent additives and solvents do not result in notice, EPA indicated a continuing collection system. significant emissions of HAPs (Air inclination for a broad, single source For the final regulation, EPA is Docket A–92–40, IV–B–27). Therefore, definition. EPA also discussed defining the affected source to which based on the applicability requirements broadening the source definition further existing MACT requirements apply to of section 112(g) [40 CFR 63 part B, to include papermaking systems and include the total of all HAP emission 63.40(b)], the following sources would causticizing equipment and solicited points in the pulping and bleaching not be required to undergo section comments on these additions. EPA’s systems (including pulping 112(g) review: wood yard operations; reason for considering the addition of condensates). In considering how mills pulping systems at mechanical, these two equipment systems was to might engineer their vent collection secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber facilitate implementation of the clean systems and control devices, EPA has mills; tall oil recovery systems; and condensate alternative for kraft mills. concluded that the following actions papermaking systems. Commenters on the proposed occurring after proposal are substantial standards and on the March 8 notice enough that new source MACT 2. Named Stream Approach largely agreed with the broad, single requirements apply: At proposal, the rule proposed source definition. One commenter • A pulping or bleaching system at an applicability cutoff values (i.e., supported a narrow source definition, existing mill is constructed or volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate) noting it was inappropriate for new reconstructed; or as a way to distinguish the vent and construction at an existing source to be • A new pulping line or bleaching condensate streams that would be classified as a modification (and hence line is added to an existing mill. required to meet the rule. Since subject to existing source MACT). The The proposal date for mills that proposal, the pulp and paper industry commenter further stated that the final chemically pulp wood is December 17, submitted additional data that allowed regulation should specify a narrow 1993. The proposal date for mills that EPA to better characterize the vent and source definition for determining mechanically pulp wood, pulp condensate streams that should be applicability to new source MACT. secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood controlled. Some commenters also stated that EPA materials is March 8, 1996. In the final rule, the applicability should clarify for the final regulation The final regulation also provides for cutoffs contained in the proposed rule that mill processes not included in the an alternative definition of source to have been replaced in favor of source definition should not be subject facilitate implementation of the clean specifically naming process equipment to future case-by-case MACT condensate alternative. For mills using and condensate streams that would be requirements under CAA section 112(g). the alternative to comply with the kraft required to meet the rule, with the EPA considered all of the comments pulping standards, the final regulation exception of decker, knotter, and screen received on this issue since proposal defines a single broad source that systems at existing sources. For these and maintains that the definition of includes the total of all pulping, bleach, systems, the additional industry data source should be broad enough such causticizing, and papermaking systems. was used to determine applicability that small changes to an existing mill do A more detailed discussion of the clean cutoffs in the form of HAP emission not trigger new source requirements in condensate alternative is given in limits (for knotter and screen systems) the NESHAP. However, EPA also agrees section VI.A.3.d. and HAP concentration limits in process with the commenter that at some point, EPA agrees with the commenters that water (for decker systems) to identify changes to an existing mill are certain emission points that are the systems that should be controlled at substantial enough that new source excluded from the definition of affected existing sources. A description of the MACT should apply. source in today’s rule, or are subject to vent and condensate streams to be In considering how best to define the a determination that MACT for these controlled is presented in sections source, EPA did not want to define it so operations is no control, should not be II.B.2, VI.A.3.a, and VI.A.4–7. The narrowly that changes to or additions of required to undergo CAA section 112(g) Agency added language in the individual pieces of equipment would review. The sources that have been so definitions for the named systems to be subject to new source MACT and be identified are wood yard operations make the definitions applicable to required to be in compliance with new (including wood piles); tall oil recovery equipment that serves a similar function source MACT at startup. In fact, EPA systems at kraft mills; pulping systems as those specifically listed. This was concerned that to do so could at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non- addition was made because there are no discourage mills from implementing wood fiber pulping mills; and standard names for process equipment. pollution-prevention changes as soon as papermaking systems. With regard to The EPA’s intent was to include the practicable after promulgation of the wood yard operations, tall oil recovery equipment that function the same as the Cluster Rules. Such changes might systems, and pulping systems at equipment specifically named in the include replacing an existing rotary mechanical, secondary fiber, and non- definitions, even though the mill may vacuum washer system with a low-flow wood fiber pulping mills, EPA has use a different name for that piece of washer system or installing an oxygen determined that these sources do not equipment. delignification system, both of which, if emit significant quantities of HAPs and The different approach used in the subject to existing source requirements, EPA is not aware of any reasonable final rule does not significantly change would get the eight-year compliance technologies for controlling HAPs from the number of emission points time, discussed later in section VI.A.3.b. these sources. For papermaking systems, controlled from those intended to be Once mills are complying with the EPA has not identified any reasonable controlled in the proposed rule. The existing source MACT requirements, it control technology, other than the clean emission points and condensate streams also did not seem reasonable that they condensate alternative, that can reduce that are being controlled in the final rule should have to tear out and rebuild that HAP emissions attributable to HAPs are fundamentally the same emission vent collection system to accommodate present in the pulp arriving from the sources that EPA intended to be small equipment changes in the future pulping and bleaching systems. controlled in the proposed rule. EPA 18520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations concluded that the revised approach is Agency requested further information integrity. In addition, the Agency easier and less costly to implement, for on whether to distinguish between types evaluated the cost of going beyond the both the affected industry and the or ages of weak liquor storage tanks, floor to control weak liquor tanks. The enforcement officials, since extensive methods and costs of controlling them, results of EPA’s analysis indicated that emission source testing is not required and the level of control that represents a significant cost would be incurred for to identify the vent and condensate the MACT floor for the different tanks. a limited emission reduction. This streams to be controlled. The Agency also requested data on the analysis is presented in Chapter 20 of type of controls present on knotter and the background information document 3. Kraft Pulping Standards screening systems. for the promulgated NESHAP. a. Applicability for Existing Kraft Commenters to the March 8 notice Therefore, the Agency agrees with the Sources. In the December 17, 1993 provided additional information on the commenters that control beyond the proposal, all pulping system equipment, kraft mills which control vents from floor is not justified. Weak liquor tanks with some exceptions, would have been knotter system, screen systems, decker at new sources are required to be required to be controlled. The systems, weak liquor storage tanks, and controlled. exceptions were for deckers and screens oxygen delignification systems. The The Agency disagrees with the at existing sources and small vents commenters noted that many of the comments that decker systems are not below specified volumetric mass flow mills surveyed originally had controlled at the floor at existing rates and mass loadings. EPA proposed misinterpreted survey questions for sources. Information supplied by the to require that treatment of all pulping these systems. The commenters pulp and paper industry indicates there wastewater streams except those with concluded that the revised information are 170 decker systems in mills HAP concentrations below 500 ppmw indicated that less than 6 percent of the responding to EPA’s industry survey and flow rates below 1.0 liter per knotter and screen systems, decker questionnaires. All the decker systems minute. systems, and weak liquor storage tanks are associated with bleached mills. Of In the March 8, 1996 supplemental were actually controlled; they the 170 decker systems, 14 are notice, the Agency presented potential concluded, therefore, that the existing controlled (8 percent) (Air Docket A– changes to the kraft mill standards. source floor for these vents is no 92–40, IV–B–16). These changes included specifically control. Additionally, the commenters The majority of decker systems naming equipment systems and pulping asserted that it would not be cost- controlled at the floor (10 systems) are wastewater subject to the standards. For effective to go beyond the floor to associated with oxygen delignification existing sources, the named equipment control weak liquor storage tanks systems or are being used as an systems in the supplemental notice because tanks at existing sources would additional stage of pulp washing. The included: the LVHC system, pulp not have the structural integrity to Agency believes that these types of washing system, oxygen delignification withstand a vacuum on them caused by decker systems are operated similarly to system, the pre-washer knotter and the vent collection system. The and have similar emissions as pulp screening system, and weak liquor commenters asserted that, to control washers. Decker systems used in this storage tanks. The subject wastewater emissions, these tanks would either manner receive contaminated streams are the pulping process need to be replaced or be retrofitted condensates or filtrates that may be condensates from the digester, with expensive add-on controls that recycled from other processes, such as evaporator, turpentine recovery, LVHC would not be cost-effective. One the oxygen delignification system or collection, and the HVLC collection commenter supported using age as a combined condensate tanks. The systems. EPA identified these systems means to indicate structural integrity process water may have a HAP and condensates to be controlled based and, therefore, rule applicability for concentration that would release on information presented in responses weak liquor storage tanks. Several significant amounts of HAP to the air to industry surveys available prior to commenters disagreed that age was an from the air-water interface. The Agency proposal and on updates and appropriate indicator. characterized the emissions from this clarifications to survey responses The Agency has evaluated the source to identify the types of decker submitted by the pulp and paper information submitted by the systems with high emissions. industry after proposal. At proposal, commenters on the control level for the Information supplied in NCASI EPA did not have sufficient information knotter system, screen system, decker technical bulletin 678 provided a to define these equipment systems. system, and weak liquor storage tanks. relationship between air emissions and At proposal, the Agency solicited Information submitted by the methanol concentrations in process comments on its determination of the commenters indicated that of the 597 water used in rotary vacuum drums. control technology basis for the MACT weak liquor storage tanks in the survey EPA evaluated this relationship and floor and for MACT. The proposed only 28 (4.7 percent) actually had determined that decker controls and MACT floor level of control at existing emissions routed to a control device higher HAP emission rates were kraft sources was 98 percent reduction (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–106). associated with deckers that used of emissions from the LVHC system, Some respondents had previously process water with HAP concentrations pulp washing system, and oxygen included other types of controlled tanks, greater than or equal to 400 ppmw, or delignification system. In considering such as washer filtrate tanks, in their that did not use fresh water or information received after proposal, the totals because EPA’s original survey did ‘‘whitewater’’ from papermaking Agency continued to have questions, not provide a definition of weak liquor systems (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–22). which were discussed with storage tanks. The Agency, therefore, Therefore, the Agency has determined representatives of the pulp and paper has concluded that the MACT floor that it is appropriate to make a industry, on the data provided in the level of control for weak liquor storage distinction among types of decker survey responses on weak liquor storage tanks at existing sources is no control. systems at existing sources for the tanks, the knotter and screening system, While some tanks are controlled, purpose of setting the MACT standard. and the decker system at existing available information does not support Decker systems at existing sources using sources (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1– the supposition that age is a good fresh water or ‘‘whitewater’’ from 101). In the March 8, 1996 notice, the parameter for distinguishing structural papermaking systems, or using process Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18521 water with HAP concentrations less NCG collection system; another eight decision is due in part to the fact that than 400 ppmw, are not required to be knotter systems or 4.7 percent (8/171) the technology basis for the effluent controlled. Decker systems at new use only pressure knotters; and another limitations guidelines and standards sources are required to be controlled two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/ being promulgated in these Cluster regardless of the HAP concentration in 171) route all vents to the smelt Rules at 40 CFR Part 430 for bleached the process water introduced into the dissolving tank scrubber. Industry papergrade kraft and soda mills include decker. collected data at seven pressure/open closing the screening areas and EPA has reviewed available data on (also referred to as pressure/vibrating) returning wastewater to the recovery knotter and screen systems and has knotter systems and found the methanol system. Thus, it is likely that many concluded that these systems are emissions to range from 0.005–0.07 mills will move toward wider use of the controlled sufficiently to establish a kilograms per megagram of oven-dried lower air emitting pressure systems. MACT floor level of control, and also pulp (ODP) produced, and collected Because there is only one test data that control more stringent than the data at one pressure knotter system and point for the pressure knotter systems floor is not warranted. Data used to found the methanol emissions to be and that emissions value is similar to reach this conclusion include survey 0.0042 kilograms per megagram ODP the low end of the range of data points responses from the 1992 voluntary produced. Emissions data are for the pressure/open knotter systems, survey, follow-up telephone surveys summarized in the Chemical Pulping the Agency did not believe it would be conducted by the National Council of Emission Factor Development appropriate to set the emission limit the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Document (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–A– equal to the one pressure knotter Improvement (NCASI), and emissions 8). Because the pressure knotter system system. Similarly, because there is only data from the NCASI 16-mill study. emissions were lower than the one test data point for closed screens, Although the data indicate that many of emissions at the pressure/open systems, the Agency did not believe it would be these systems are currently controlled to pressure systems can be considered a appropriate to use that single data point some degree, the survey responses were type of controlled system. Therefore, 18 to set the emission limit for screening not detailed enough in their equipment or 10.5 percent (6+2+8+2 = 18/171) of systems. The Agency could have system descriptions and the test data the knotter systems have some level of selected any emission limit within the were too limited for the Agency to use emissions control. The Agency believes range of all available data for knotters these two sources of information alone that this estimate of the number of (i.e., 0.0042 to 0.07 kilograms per to develop the MACT control knotter systems controlled may be megagram of ODP produced) and requirements. Because these equipment somewhat low because it is uncertain screens (i.e., 0.004 to 0.22 kilograms per systems, nomenclature, and control how many of the mills not resurveyed megagram of ODP produced). However, configurations vary across the industry, may have had the lower emitting recognizing the limited data available, the Agency decided that a HAP pressure systems. the Agency also considered the cost emissions limit would be the best way The 1992 voluntary MACT survey effectiveness of controlling these for mills to determine which systems responses indicated that 96 screening systems to aid in setting the emission would require control. EPA lacks systems out of the 199 reported are not limits within the range of reasonable sufficient data, however, to pinpoint vented. NCASI resurveyed by telephone values (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–21). any single value that represents the 41 of these 96 mills. Assuming that the Based on considering all available MACT floor. Rather, based on the 55 mills not resurveyed look similar to data, the final rule requires that existing survey and test data, there are a range the 41, the follow-up survey determined kraft sources are required to control of values from which EPA could choose. that seven percent (6/41 × 96/199) route knotter systems with total mass EPA further considered the costs of their vents to the NCG collection system emission rates greater than or equal to control in choosing from this zone of and 41 percent (35/41 × 96/199) have 0.05 kilograms of HAP per megagram reasonable values. closed screens that vent through ODP produced. Existing kraft sources Of the 171 knotter systems reported in auxiliary tanks. Therefore, 48 percent of are required to control screening the 1992 voluntary survey, 12 knotter the screening systems have some level systems with total mass emission rates systems at 5 mills were reported as of control. greater than or equal to 0.10 kilograms controlled and ducted into the Industry collected data at one closed of HAP per megagram ODP produced. noncondensible gas (NCG) collection screen system and one open screen Since it is often difficult to distinguish system and another 49 knotter systems system. The closed screen system tested between the knotter system and at 23 mills were reported as having no had methanol emissions of 0.004 screening system at mills, a mill may vents. NCASI followed up by telephone kilograms per megagram of ODP also choose to meet a total mass surveys with these 28 mills (Air Docket produced. The open screen system emissions limit of 0.15 kilograms of A–92–40, IV–D1–101, IV–D1–112, IV– tested had methanol emissions of 0.22 HAP per megagram ODP produced D1–114). The follow-up surveys kilograms per megagram of ODP across the knotting and screening indicated a fair amount of misreporting produced. combined system. New sources are at these 28 mills. NCASI did not The Agency considered how best to required to control all knotter and resurvey for all 171 knotter systems. characterize the average emissions screen systems, regardless of emissions Therefore, the following knotter system limitation achieved by the best level. floor determination assumes that the controlled 12 percent of the knotter b. Compliance Times for Kraft Mills. mills not resurveyed that originally systems and screen systems given the In the March 8, 1996 supplemental reported no knotter system controls did wide variety of control scenarios present notice, the Agency discussed that it was not control any vents. in the industry. Either collecting and considering allowing kraft mills an From the 28 mills resurveyed, it was controlling vents on an open system or extended compliance time of five determined that six knotter systems or using closed equipment results in lower additional years (eight years total) for 3.6 percent (6/171) route all vents into air emissions. The Agency decided to pulp washing and oxygen the NCG collection system; another two select the emissions limitation using the delignification systems (61 FR at 9394– knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) test data from the closed and open 95). The notice discussed how the route all knotter hood vents into the equipment systems. The Agency’s additional time would encourage the 18522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations maximum degree of overall multi-media transport and control devices five years practiced varying degrees of condensate pollution reduction and, in particular, later to accommodate controlling the segregation in order to minimize the would avoid discouraging mills from washing system and oxygen flow rate and maximize the HAP mass installing oxygen delignification delignification system. This entire cost in condensate streams sent to treatment. equipment to reduce water pollution. could discourage the implementation of In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register The notice recognized the time low-flow washing systems and oxygen supplemental notice, EPA presented a constraints mills would face in trying to delignification. discussion of condensate segregation comply with both air and water rules This would serve as an obvious and included definitions for condensate essentially at the same time and that too disincentive to installation of advanced segregation and a segregated condensate short a compliance time could preclude wastewater treatment technology since stream. Commenters on the March 8 mills from considering pollution mills would be understandably notice supported the definitions for prevention techniques with reluctant to replace a newly installed air condensate segregation and segregated considerable environmental benefits, pollution control system. Therefore, condensate stream. Commenters also such as oxygen delignification and low- EPA concluded that additional submitted additional information flow washers. These technologies compliance time is appropriate and suggesting definitions for condensate reduce the amount of pollutants necessary for the remaining equipment segregation and segregated condensate discharged into the wastewater. The controlled by the HVLC collection and stream as well as options for March 8, 1996 notice also solicited transport system as well as the pulp demonstrating compliance with the comment on whether this compliance washing system and the oxygen condensate segregation requirements. extension should be extended only to delignification system. See generally 61 EPA evaluated the information and mills that commit to install these FR at 9394–95. The final rule thus included some of the concepts in the technologies (if EPA were to decide not allows affected sources to control all the final rule. to include that equipment as part of its equipment in the HVLC system at kraft The final rule states that the BAT model technology). pulping systems at the same time, not condensates from pulping process Commenters supported the extension later than April 17, 2006. A mill that equipment at kraft mills must be treated of compliance time for pulp washing installs an oxygen delignification and allows a number of alternative and oxygen delignification systems at system at an existing source after April methods of complying with the existing sources. Several commenters 17, 2006 must comply with the standards, all of which represent MACT. also requested that the compliance time NESHAP upon commencing operation The final rule also states that the entire be extended for weak liquor tanks, of that system. volume of condensate generated from knotter and screening systems, and Regarding EPA’s solicitation of the named pulping process equipment other HVLC vent streams because comments on providing a compliance at kraft mills must be treated unless the emissions from these sources will be extension to all kraft mills, no negative volume from the digester, turpentine transported and controlled by the same comments were received. Therefore, recovery, and weak liquor feed stages in HVLC collection and incineration EPA has decided to extend the the evaporator systems can be reduced system as the pulp washing and oxygen compliance time for all kraft mills. using condensate segregation. If delignification systems. The The final rule includes requirements adequate segregation (as specified in the commenters noted that extension of the for kraft mills to submit a non-binding rule) is performed, only the high-HAP compliance period for all HVLC sources control strategy report along with the fraction streams from the digester also allows for proper consideration of initial notification required by the part system, turpentine recovery system, and the full range of emerging innovative 63 General Provisions. The purpose of the weak liquor feed stages in the water and air pollution control options. the control strategy report is to provide evaporator system and the non- Comments were not received on the Agency and the permitting authority segregated streams from the LVHC and whether to provide the compliance with the status of progress towards HVLC collection systems must be sent extension only to mills that elect to compliance with the MACT standards. to treatment. install more stringent control The control strategy report must Discussions with the pulp and paper technologies than necessary to comply contain, among other information, a industry after the March 8, 1996 with the baseline BAT requirements. description of the emission controls or supplemental notice indicated that The Agency reviewed the comments process modifications selected for some mills might not be able to achieve and agrees that vents included in the compliance with the control the proposed 65 percent mass isolation HVLC system should be allowed a requirements and a compliance with their existing equipment even similar compliance time as the pulp schedule. The information in the control though they are achieving high levels of washing and oxygen delignification strategy report must be revised or HAP removal in the steam stripper systems. The majority of emissions and updated every two years until the mill system (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–E–84). vent gas flow from equipment is in compliance with the standards. Therefore, the final rule contains two associated with the HVLC vent streams c. Condensate Segregation. The options for demonstrating compliance occur from the pulp washing system proposed standards for process with the segregation requirements. The and the oxygen delignification system. wastewater would have required that all first option is to isolate at least 65 Therefore, the design of the HVLC pulping wastewaters that met the mass percent of the HAP mass in the total of collection and transport system would emission rate and flow rate applicability all condensates from the digester be significantly influenced by these two criteria had to be treated to achieve the system, turpentine recovery system, and systems. The Agency determined if specified control options. Comments the weak liquor feed stages in the different compliance times were and data submitted to EPA indicated evaporator system (condensate streams provided for the components of the that kraft mills typically steam stripped from the LVHC and HVLC collection HVLC system, an affected source would the condensates from the digester, systems are not segregated). The second expend significant amounts of capital to turpentine recovery, LVHC, and HVLC option requires that a minimum total control systems required to comply in systems, and certain evaporator HAP mass from the high HAP the three-year time frame. The source condensates. The data also indicated concentrated condensates from the would have to re-design the gas that mills that use steam strippers also digester system, turpentine recovery Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18523 system, and the weak liquor feed stages process equipment, such that the CCA system were to be entered into the in the evaporator system and the total has the potential to achieve or exceed WATER7 (updated to WATER8 since LVHC and HVLC collection system the requirements of the final standards. proposal) emissions model to condensates be sent to treatment. The However, EPA has determined that the demonstrate that the biological second option was included in the final correlation equations developed by treatment system could achieve the rule because it achieves the same industry, because they were derived treatment level required by the objective by sending a large enough from small data sets, would not be standards. Those operating parameters mass to treatment to meet the floor-level sufficient for demonstrating compliance measured during the initial performance control requirements. or equivalency with the final standards test were then to be monitored For a detailed explanation of the at a specific mill. Variability at a continuously to demonstrate concept of condensate segregation specific mill, such as types of process compliance. readers are referred to the docket (Air equipment, operating practices, process EPA acknowledged at proposal that Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–107). water recycle practices, and even type of industry was collecting information on d. Clean Condensate Alternative. The wood pulped, can strongly influence the the performance of biological treatment proposed rule did not contain any relationship between concentration in systems and monitoring techniques. provisions for emissions averaging. the process water and the process EPA also noted that the industry was Industry comments on the proposal emissions. investigating the possibility of indicated support for incorporating an The final rule contains provisions for monitoring inlet and outlet soluble emission averaging approach in the final using the CCA as a compliance option biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). rule. After the public comment period, to the kraft pulping standards for the EPA requested comments on applicable the pulp and paper industry submitted subject equipment in the HVLC system. monitoring parameters for biological a comparison between an option An owner or operator must demonstrate treatment systems and supporting data developed by industry and the proposed to the Administrator’s satisfaction that on biorates and corresponding MACT standards. The option formed the the total HAP emissions reductions parameters for monitoring. basis for the clean condensate achieved using the CCA are equal to or EPA received a number of comments alternative (CCA) in the final rule. The greater than the total HAP emission on testing and monitoring requirements CCA focuses on reducing HAP reductions that would have been for biological treatment systems. The emissions throughout the mill by achieved by compliance with the kraft industry submitted studies on biological reducing the HAP mass in process water pulping system standards for equipment treatment systems and on monitoring streams that are recycled to various in the HVLC system. The baseline HAP soluble BOD5. Discussions were also process areas in the mill. By lowering emissions for each equipment system held with the industry representatives the HAP mass loading in the recycled and the total of all equipment systems on this issue. streams, less HAP will be volatilized to in the CCA affected source (which is the In general, commenters objected to the atmosphere. existing MACT affected source the proposed requirements to use The March 8, 1996 Federal Register expanded to include the causticizing Method 304 to calculate the site-specific supplemental notice presented a and papermaking systems) must be biorate constants. Commenters felt that discussion of the industry’s alternative determined after compliance with the the laboratory-scale simulation of the (referred to as the ‘‘clean water pulping process condensate standards; biological treatment unit, which is alternative’’ in the notice). In the March after consideration of the effects of the basically what Method 304 requires, 8 notice, EPA indicated that while the effluent limitations guidelines and does not accurately reflect the biological industry’s concept was innovative, standards in 40 CFR part 430, subpart B; degradation rates of the full-scale additional information would need to be and after all other applicable system. Commenters also stated that submitted to the Agency to make the requirements of local, State, and Federal according to data collected, performance concept a viable compliance option, agencies or statutes have been testing to demonstrate that biological such as specific design parameters and implemented. While engineering treatment systems can meet the data supporting the relationship assessments or test data may be used to standards does not appear to be between condensate stream HAP determine the feasibility of using the warranted given that methanol is highly concentrations and HAP emissions from CCA, only test data may be used to biodegradable. Commenters further process equipment receiving the demonstrate compliance with the kraft requested that if they had to conduct a condensates. pulping system standards using the performance test, they should also be Design specifications for the CCA CCA. permitted to use the inlet and outlet were not available since no mills to date e. Biological Treatment. At proposal, concentration procedures for calculating have implemented such a technology. owners or operators using a biological a site-specific biological degradation However, the test data collected by the treatment system to comply with the rate (biorate) constant as set forth in pulp and paper industry following the MACT requirements for pulping Appendix C of the Hazardous Organic December 17, 1993 proposal included wastewater would have been required to NESHAP (HON). See 59 FR 19402 (April data on vent emissions and process measure the HAP or methanol 22, 1994). Commenters also objected to water HAP concentrations that were concentration in the influent and having to demonstrate continuous used by industry to develop equations effluent across the unit every 30 days compliance with the operating showing the relationship between HAP and to identify appropriate parameters parameters, pointing out that a emissions from specific process to be monitored to ensure continuous parameter could be exceeded and the equipment (e.g., pulp washers) and the compliance. The proposed standards biological treatment system could still HAP concentrations present in the would have required that during the be meeting the standards. process water sent to the equipment. initial performance test, mills collect Following proposal, industry also EPA evaluated these data and samples and analyze them using submitted data on soluble BOD5 across concluded that sufficient relationship Method 304 to calculate a site-specific biological treatment system units. appears to exist between HAP biorate constant. That constant, along Industry stated that their data indicated concentrations in recycled process with the operating parameters that as long as the biological treatment wastewater and HAP emissions from associated with the biological treatment system was achieving at least 80 percent 18524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

removal of soluble BOD5, the biological performance testing, their own range of of methanol emissions and not a treatment system was operating treatment system outlet soluble BOD5 rigorous assessment of emission rates. properly and that the unit would be and operating parameter values to The commenters contended that the meeting the standards. However, monitor. The final rule also allows proposed emission limits were derived industry argued that soluble BOD5 owners and operators to demonstrate from limited data which may not be removal should not be a continuous compliance with the standard using the representative of the range of mills in monitoring parameter that if exceeded, WATER8 model and inlet and outlet the industry; therefore, they argued, the would indicate a violation of the samples from each biological treatment limits did not account for variability in standards. Rather, a mill should be system unit when the specified emissions and are not achievable. The allowed to start measuring methanol monitoring parameters are outside of the commenters provided the Agency with removal across the system to verify range established during the initial emissions test data that illustrated compliance. performance test. fluctuations in the methanol mass The Agency considered the comments emissions over an extended time period 4. Sulfite Standards—Emission Limits and data received and agrees that the due to variations in products and for Sulfite Pulping Processes provisions in Appendix C of the HON process conditions. are an acceptable alternative to Method In the March 8, 1996 supplemental The Agency evaluated the information 304 for calculating site-specific biorate notice (61 FR 9383), the Agency provided by the commenters and constants. However, EPA disagrees with presented potential changes to the subsequently agreed with the the commenters on the issue of the need proposed standards for sulfite pulping commenters regarding process to conduct performance testing. While processes. EPA had proposed that all variability at sulfite mills. The Agency EPA agrees that methanol degrades pulping equipment at kraft, sulfite, determined the amount of variability more rapidly than many compounds, soda, and semi-chemical processes must associated with a 99.9 percent there are other HAPs present in the be enclosed and routed to a control confidence level in the data supplied by condensate streams subject to the device achieving 98 percent reduction the commenters (Air Docket A–92–40, standards, and biological treatment in emissions. In the March 8 notice, the IV–B–20). This amount of variability systems can vary widely in their Agency proposed that the MACT floor (confidence interval), therefore, was operation and performance, depending level of control at existing sulfite applied to the average emission limits on their design, maintenance, and even processes was control of vents from the from the best controlled mills to their geographical location. As such, the digester system, evaporator system, and develop the final emission limit. final regulation retains the proposed pulp washing system. The MACT floor For ammonium- and magnesium- requirements for performance testing. level of control at new sulfite processes based sulfite pulping processes, the EPA also became concerned that would be control of the equipment final emission limit is 1.1 kilograms of allowing the use of methanol as a systems listed for existing sources, plus methanol per megagram of ODP surrogate for total HAP may not be weak liquor tanks, strong liquor storage produced. After the close of the March appropriate for this particular treatment tanks, and acid condensate storage 8, 1996, Federal Register supplemental technology. Because methanol is one of tanks. In the March 8 notice, the Agency notice comment period, additional the most difficult HAPs to remove with discussed in detail its preliminary information was provided to the Agency a steam stripper (the technology on determination that the sulfite standards that indicated that the sodium-based which the standards are based), even should instead apply to the total sulfite pulping process is in use at some greater removals of total HAP would emissions from specific named vents mills (A–92–40, IV–E–94). No emissions occur when a steam stripper is used. and to any wastewater emissions information was available for this Thus, methanol is a reasonable associated with air pollution control process. However, the Agency surrogate under such conditions. The devices used to comply with the rule. determined, that due to the similarities opposite is true for biological treatment For calcium-based sulfite pulping in processes between calcium- and systems, where methanol is one of the processes, the new proposed emission sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, easier HAPs to degrade. As such, the limit was 0.65 lb methanol/ODTP and the same limit developed for calcium- final regulation specifies that a total the percent reduction was 92 percent. based mills would be applicable to HAP removal (not just methanol) of 92 For ammonium-and magnesium-based sodium-based mills. For calcium- and percent be achieved by biological sulfite pulping processes, the new sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, treatment systems. proposed emission limit was 1.10 lb the final emission limit is 0.44 EPA agrees with the commenters that methanol/ODTP, and the percent HAP kilograms of methanol per megagram of soluble BOD5 is an appropriate reduction was 87 percent. The Agency ODP produced. Because the variability monitoring parameter for biological developed applicability cutoffs based on is incorporated into the mass emission treatment systems. However, EPA methanol because only methanol limit, these emission limits and disagrees with the commenters on their emissions data were obtained for all of corresponding monitoring parameters position regarding the monitoring of the equipment systems and wastewater are never-to-be-exceeded values. soluble BOD5 and operating parameters streams considered for control at sulfite for demonstrating continuous mills. The test data from sulfite mills 5. Soda and Semi-chemical Mill compliance. After discussion with the also indicated that for the equipment Standards industry on this issue, EPA has systems tested for other HAPs, methanol The proposed standards would have concluded that soluble BOD5 and comprised the majority of HAP required the owners or operators of new operating parameters are the most emissions. Therefore, the Agency or existing kraft, semi-chemical, soda, appropriate means available for believes that the maximum control of and sulfite mills to comply with the monitoring to demonstrate continuous HAP emissions will be achieved by same emission standards. In the March compliance (A–92–40, IV–E–87). EPA controlling methanol as a surrogate. 8, 1996 notice, EPA proposed to understands the concerns raised on this Several commenters objected that the subcategorize the pulp and paper point, and as such the final regulation proposed emission limits were not industry by pulping type and develop provides flexibility. The regulation appropriate because they were based on different MACT control requirements allows mills to establish, through data that only indicated possible levels for soda and semi-chemical mills based Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18525 on emission characteristics. Existing chlorine, the proposed control was is less than five tons of total HAP per soda and semi-chemical mills would be based on the performance of caustic year (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–B–5). required to control the digester and scrubbers. The proposal stated that EPA For chlorine and chlorine dioxide evaporator systems (LVHC system). New would continue to investigate the use of bleaching systems at mechanical soda and semi-chemical mills would be HAP chemicals in papermaking, the pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping required to control the LVHC and the magnitude of HAP emissions, and the mills, and non-wood pulping mills, pulp washing systems. EPA solicited viability of chemical substitution to today’s rule requires the same level of comments on this proposed change. reduce HAP emissions from control required for bleaching systems Information provided by the pulp and papermaking systems. at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Those paper industry in survey responses and Some commenters questioned EPA’s requirements are specified in § 63.445 after proposal confirmed that the MACT proceeding with the rule in advance of (a)–(c) of today’s rule. However, floor level of control at existing semi- the receipt of additional industry data § 63.445 (d) and (e) do not apply to chemical mills is collection and control that was being collected. The these mills since there are no effluent of the LVHC system. The Agency commenters cautioned that EPA did not limitation guidelines for control of determined that it was not reasonable to have sufficient data on which to base a chloroform at mechanical, secondary control other emission points at existing rule. Since the March 8, 1996 Federal fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills. semi-chemical mills (Air Docket A–92– Register proposal, EPA has received the Additional requirements for the control 40, IV–B–12). Data indicated that the results of the NCASI-sponsored testing of chloroform emissions, based on the best-controlled semi-chemical mills program from these sources (A–92–40, effluent limitation guidelines for best combust LVHC system emissions and IV–J–80 through IV–J–85). These data available technology economically emissions from pulp washing systems. have been used in the determination of achievable, are required in the standards Therefore, the final rule requires that the final standards for these sources in for bleaching systems for kraft, soda, existing semi-chemical mills control the today’s rule. EPA has concluded that and sulfite mills. However, EPA is not LVHC system, and new semi-chemical sufficient data have been collected to aware of any controls presently in place mills control the LVHC and the pulp include these sources in today’s action. or available for reducing chloroform air washing systems. Commenters agreed with EPA’s March emissions at mechanical, secondary As discussed in the March 8, 1996 8, 1996 proposal for bleaching systems fiber, and non-wood pulping mills. notice, the MACT floor level of control at these mills. Comments on the March Therefore, MACT is no control for for soda mills is no control. The Agency 8 proposal supported the conclusion chloroform air emissions from bleaching has determined that HAP emissions that caustic scrubbers are in use only on systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, from soda mills are similar to kraft mills chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching and non-wood fiber pulping mills. (with the exception that TRS systems. Furthermore, information Since the March 8 proposal, EPA has compounds are not emitted from the available to EPA indicate that non-wood also determined that while mechanical soda pulping process) and control of pulping mills typically use chlorine or pulping, secondary fiber pulping, and LVHC system vents is technically chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. For other non-wood pulping mills do not feasible and can be achieved at a chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching typically use chlorine or chlorine reasonable cost. The Agency has also systems, EPA determined that scrubbers dioxide bleaching, these mills may determined that controlling additional are used to control chlorinated brighten the pulp stock through the use vents at existing sources cannot be compound emissions for process and of hypochlorite and non-chlorine achieved at a reasonable cost. However, worker safety reasons. Thus, the control bleaching compounds. However, data controlling the pulp washing system at achieved by this technology represents available to EPA indicate that HAP new soda mills can be achieved at a the floor for chlorine and chlorine emissions from these systems are reasonable cost (Air Docket A–92–40, dioxide bleaching systems at these mills relatively low, and that none of the IV–B–12). Therefore, the final rule and is the technological basis for the bleaching systems that use hypochlorite requires that existing soda mills control standard in today’s rule. As stated in the and non-chlorine compounds have the LVHC system, and new soda mills December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA installed emission controls. Based on control the LVHC and the pulp washing analyzed more stringent controls, such these findings, EPA established the system. as combustion of bleaching vent gases MACT floor for bleaching systems at after caustic scrubbing, for bleaching these mills that use hypochlorite and 6. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. non-chlorine bleaching to be no control. Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood Fiber EPA has determined that these more EPA considered going beyond the floor Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System stringent options are unreasonable and requiring HAP control through Standards considering cost and environmental incineration of vent streams for these In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register impacts. Because of the operational sources but determined that the notice, EPA proposed standards for similarities of the chlorine and chlorine minimal level of HAP emission pulping and bleaching processes at dioxide bleaching systems at non-wood reductions that would be achieved did mechanical pulping mills, secondary fiber mills to those at kraft, soda, and not justify going beyond the floor (Air fiber pulping mills, and non-wood fiber sulfite mills, EPA has concluded that Docket A–95–31, IV–B–5). pulping mills. As discussed in the combustion following caustic scrubbers In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register proposal, EPA believes that there are no is also not cost-effective at non-wood notice, EPA proposed no standards for air pollution control technologies in use fiber mills. In addition, data available to papermaking systems. The three on these processes except for those EPA indicate that HAP emissions from potential sources of HAP emissions installed on bleaching systems using chlorine bleaching systems at these from papermaking systems are HAPs chlorine. The March 8 notice proposed mills are relatively low. In fact, the data contained in the pulp stock, HAPs no add-on controls for pulping systems show that the three largest non-wood contained in the whitewater, and HAPs (and the associated wastewater), pulping mills, of the ten currently in from additives and solvents. papermaking systems, and nonchlorine operation, use elemental chlorine in Information available to EPA indicated bleaching systems for these mills. For their bleaching systems and total HAP no papermaking systems are operating traditional bleaching systems using emissions from each of these three mills with HAP controls; thus the floor level 18526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations of control for papermaking systems is no In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA providing a mass emission limit control. EPA evaluated two possible proposed no standards for pulping alternative to the percent reduction and control options for papermaking systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, the outlet concentration standards. systems: (1) Removal of HAPs from the or non-wood fiber pulping mills. Commenters on the March 8, 1996 pulp stock and whitewater before the Information available to EPA indicated notice supported the changes to the papermaking system; and (2) control of that no pulping systems at these mills scrubber requirements in the proposed papermaking system vent streams. are operating with HAP controls. rule. Commenters also expressed Analysis of these control options Therefore, EPA has concluded that the concern that bleaching systems with showed that there are no demonstrated floor for pulping systems at these mills new low-flow vent systems would not methods for removing HAPs from the is no control. EPA evaluated the be able to meet either the percent pulp stock or whitewater and that feasibility of going beyond the floor and reduction or the outlet concentration applying HAP control to the vent requiring HAP controls for these standards. Therefore, they asserted, streams of papermaking systems is not sources. Specifically, EPA investigated these standards would discourage the cost-effective (Air Docket A–95–31, IV– the feasibility of routing vent streams use of new low-flow bleaching vent B–8). Therefore, EPA is not requiring from these pulping systems to a technologies. Based on this concern, one HAP control beyond the floor. combustion device for HAP control. commenter advocated a chlorinated In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA EPA determined that the cost of HAP mass emission limit for bleaching indicated that it was investigating the combusting the vent streams was not systems of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP use of HAP-containing additives in justified by the HAP emission (excluding chloroform) per ODTP papermaking systems, the magnitude of reductions achieved, and that requiring produced. The commenter claimed that HAP emissions resulting from the use of HAP control beyond the floor was not a mass emission limit would not papermaking system additives, and the justified. Furthermore, pulping penalize new low-flow bleaching vent viability of a MACT standard based on chemical usage, which correlates with systems. additive substitution. EPA has HAP emission levels at kraft, semi- Based on available data, the Agency concluded that based on emission test chemical, soda, and sulfite pulping has concluded that low-flow bleaching reports and a survey conducted on mills, is much lower at non-wood fiber vent systems can achieve the 99 percent additive use, additives do not contribute and secondary fiber pulping mills and reduction and the 10 ppmv outlet significantly to HAP emissions (Air minimal at mechanical pulping mills; concentration requirements for total Docket A–95–31, Item IV–B–6). The thus the potential for HAP emissions is chlorinated HAP (other than amount of HAPs contained in additives lower (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–B–7). chloroform). Based on a review of the used by the paper industry for information provided by the commenter papermaking systems is relatively low, 7. Bleaching System Standards and the available data on bleaching an estimated 236 tpy in 1995. In the proposed rule, bleaching system emissions, the Agency has Furthermore, less than 20 percent of systems would have been required to concluded that the commenter’s HAPs contained in the additives is control all HAP emissions by 99 percent recommended mass emission limit of emitted to the air. About 80 percent of using a caustic scrubber. In the March 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP (excluding the HAPs remain on the paper or in the 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the chloroform) per ODTP produced is too whitewater. Consequently, total annual Agency revised the proposal for the high. The Agency evaluated the HAP emissions attributable to additives bleaching system requirements based on available data used to develop the are an estimated 50 tons per year, information and comments received percent reduction and outlet industry-wide. In comparison to the after proposal. The new data indicated concentration requirements for baseline emission level of 210,000 tons that caustic scrubbing reduces bleaching systems (A–92–40, II–I–24). per year of total HAPs from the entire emissions of chlorinated HAP From this evaluation, the Agency pulp and paper industry, the compounds (except chloroform), but determined that a scrubber outlet mass contribution of HAPs from papermaking does not control non-chlorinated HAP emission rate of 0.001 kg of total system additives is negligible (Air emissions. The Agency determined that chlorinated HAP (other than Docket A–95–31, IV–B–6). no other option was feasible to control chloroform) per Mg ODP produced In a meeting between EPA and several non-chlorinated HAPs. EPA has (0.002 lb/ODTP) would provide representatives of the Chemical determined that reduction of chloroform reductions equivalent to 99 percent Manufacturers Association (CMA), CMA emissions through the use of additional, reduction standard (A–92–40, IV–B–29). stated that members have been working add-on air pollution control technology The mass emission limit of 0.001 kg of to reduce HAP and solvent use in is cost prohibitive. The only feasible chlorinated HAP (other than papermaking system additives over the option for controlling chloroform chloroform) per Mg ODP produced past 15 years, even in the absence of emissions is process modification, such represents a mass emission limit regulations. Reductions have been as chlorine dioxide substitution and achievable by all units that also achieved and CMA expects these efforts elimination of hypochlorite use. achieved 99 percent reduction of to continue. CMA noted that HAP-free In the March 8 notice, the Agency chlorine. Furthermore, the available alternatives may not be possible for all proposed to require chlorinated HAP data show that some of the scrubbers types of additives, as some HAPs are emissions other than chloroform to be achieving the 99 percent chlorine critical to product performance. EPA controlled by 99 percent (with chlorine reduction standard, and the 10 ppmv believes that low-HAP additive as a surrogate for chlorinated HAP) outlet concentration limit, were also substitution is product-specific and it is based on the performance of a caustic operating on low-flow bleaching vent not clear from the available information scrubber. As an alternative to the systems. that substitution options are technically percent reduction standard, the Agency For the final rule, the Agency has feasible (Air Docket A–95–31, IV–E–5). also proposed an emission limit of 10 provided a mass emission limit option Therefore, EPA has concluded that a ppmv chlorinated HAP at the caustic for bleaching systems of 0.001 kg of MACT standard for papermaking scrubber outlet (with chlorine as a chlorinated HAP (excluding chloroform) systems based on low-HAP additive surrogate for chlorinated HAP). The per Mg ODP produced (0.002 lb/ODTP). substitution is not warranted. Agency also solicited comments on The Agency maintains that this option Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18527 allows more flexibility for sources include a numerical air emission limit MACT requirements and calls for affected by this rule, does not penalize for chloroform (see the proposal at 58 immediate compliance with the BAT bleaching systems operating with low- FR 66142 for a discussion on setting limitations, that deadline would prevail. flow technology, and will provide MACT standards in a format other than The same principles will apply when reductions in chlorinated HAP an emission standard). The Agency is, effluent limitations guidelines and emissions (other than chloroform) however, providing an alternative MACT standards are promulgated for equivalent to the 99 percent reduction compliance mechanism in the form of a dissolving grade mills. EPA’s plans for standard. Therefore, the final rule work practice standard of complete promulgating MACT standards for these allows sources to comply with the substitution of chlorine dioxide for mills are discussed immediately below. bleaching system requirements if they elemental chlorine and complete An additional issue relating to achieve an scrubber outlet mass hypochlorite elimination—the technical compliance dates concerns bleaching emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of basis for BAT. (EPA also notes that systems at existing source papergrade total chlorinated HAP (other than although the Agency’s technical kraft and soda mills which have elected, chloroform) per Mg ODP produced. judgment is that compliance with BAT under the Clean Water Act portion of Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for also will result in control of air this rule, to treat wastewater to levels measuring total chlorinated HAP. emissions to reflect the MACT level of surpassing baseline BAT requirements After proposal, the Agency also control, the Agency will continue to (such as adding oxygen delignification evaluated the effect of process investigate whether this proves correct prior to bleaching, and in some cases, modifications on chloroform emissions. as the rule is implemented.) engaging in additional reduction of The results of this analysis indicated Because MACT for new sources is process wastewater and further that the technology basis for MACT equivalent to MACT for existing reductions in chlorinated bleaching control of chloroform is complete sources, the new source MACT chemicals used and bleaching system chlorine dioxide substitution and standards for bleaching systems require modifications than are necessary to elimination of hypochlorite as a compliance with BAT/PSES meet BAT baseline limitations). As an bleaching agent. These process requirements (or implementation of 100 incentive to make this election, EPA is modifications were determined to percent substitution and elimination of not requiring participating mills to reduce chloroform emissions hypochlorite). This requirement applies achieve compliance with the more significantly. At the same time, EPA was even if the mill or bleaching system also stringent portions of the ‘‘Advanced proposing complete chlorine dioxide meets the definition of new source Technology’’ BAT limitations for six, substitution and hypochlorite under the effluent guidelines limitations eleven, and sixteen years (for Tiers I, II, elimination as the technology bases for and standards, and thus is required to and III, respectively) in order to afford the effluent limitations guidelines and meet the more stringent new source these mills sufficient time to develop, standards under Subparts B and E (see effluent requirements of NSPS/PSNS. finance, and install the Advanced 58 FR at 66109–11, 14–15). Since the Although achievement of the NSPS/ Technologies. In light of this, the control technologies that would be PSNS may result in installation of Agency is concerned that requiring installed to comply with effluent technologies that reduce effluent bleached papergrade kraft and soda limitations guidelines and standards loading beyond what is achieved by 100 mills to comply in three years with and MACT would likely be the same for percent substitution and elimination of MACT standards based on process these bleached papergrade mills, EPA hypochlorite, EPA is not aware that substitution of chlorine dioxide for therefore proposed in the March 8 these advanced technologies will elemental chlorine would discourage notice that chloroform air emissions at provide air emission reductions beyond these mills from electing to participate bleached papergrade mills be controlled what the BAT/PSES requirements will in the Advanced Technology program. by complying with the effluent achieve. This is largely because a mill that limitations guidelines and standards EPA notes that an affected bleached implements process substitution before applicable to those mills. No adverse papergrade mill must comply with the it installs oxygen or other extended comments were received on this existing source MACT requirements no delignification systems is likely to proposal. later than April 16, 2001 even if the construct more chlorine dioxide In the March 8, 1996 notice, the mill’s existing Clean Water Act NPDES generating capacity than it ultimately Agency solicited comments on whether permit does not yet reflect the will need. A mill thus compelled to an alternative numerical air emission corresponding effluent limitations invest first in process substitution may limit for chloroform (i.e., besides guidelines and standards because its be very reluctant to abandon a portion complying with the effluent limitations existing terms have not expired or it has of that investment soon afterwards in guidelines and standards) was needed. been administratively extended. Put order to participate in the voluntary Some commenters contended that a another way, even if a mill’s existing incentives program. numerical air emissions limit for NPDES permit serves as a shield (until EPA also believes that requiring chloroform would be unnecessary reissuance) against imposition of new compliance in three years with a because the effluent limitations limits based on new effluent limitations chloroform MACT standard based on guidelines and standards would achieve guidelines (see CWA Section 402(k)), baseline BAT for bleached papergrade the requisite reductions. The Agency the MACT requirement for bleached kraft and soda mills would present did not receive any indication of any papergrade mills to control chloroform similar disincentives to achieving benefit from a numerical air emission emissions through compliance with all greater effluent reductions. A mill in limit for chloroform. Additionally, the parameter requirements in the effluent those circumstances will have made a Agency did not have sufficient data and limitations guidelines and standards substantially larger capital investment did not receive any further data after the takes effect to satisfy the requirements than it will need to control chloroform March 8 notice to develop a numerical of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, if a once its array of advanced water air emission limit (and hence is finding bleached papergrade mill’s NPDES technologies is installed. Also, that a numerical standard is not feasible permit is reissued sooner than the depending on the degree of process for purposes of CAA § 112(h)). expiration of the 3-year compliance modifications the mill makes, the mill Therefore, the final rule does not schedule authorized for the chloroform may need a much smaller scrubber for 18528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs requirement that mills in Tiers II and III, usage and implementing high levels of and, in some cases, a scrubber may not at a minimum, meet all the limitations chlorine dioxide substitution on a range be needed at all to meet the MACT promulgated as baseline BAT no later of dissolving grade pulp products. standards for chlorinated HAP than April 15, 2004. See Section IX.A. Therefore, EPA is deferring issuing concentration limit. Thus, a mill Thus, more stringent air emission effluent limitations guidelines and otherwise interested in participating in controls than stage one MACT will standards for dissolving grade mills the Voluntary Advanced Technology likewise be available at this time since until the comments and data can be Incentives Program will find itself compliance with these interim BAT fully evaluated. EPA expects to diverting capital to environmental limitations will result in compliance promulgate final effluent limitations controls that it ultimately will not need, with MACT. For Tier II and Tier III guidelines and standards for dissolving instead of employing that capital to mills, this means that the second stage grade subcategories at a later date. make more advanced process MACT requirement is compliance with EPA has decided to delay establishing modifications that will benefit both the the baseline BAT limitations by April these MACT standards for chloroform water and the air. 15, 2004. The same is the case for Tier and for other chlorinated HAPs for Under these unusual circumstances I mills, even though under the water dissolving grade bleaching operations where imposition of MACT regulation Tier I mills will be required until promulgation of effluent requirements could likely result in to achieve more stringent limitations at limitations guidelines and standards for foregoing substantial cross-media that time. EPA is defining MACT to be those operations, for the following environmental benefits, EPA believes the baseline BAT limitations even in reasons. With respect to the MACT that a two-stage MACT compliance this situation because compliance with standard for chloroform, first, as scheme is justified for existing sources the more stringent AOX limitations and explained above and in the March 8 at bleached papergrade kraft and soda other requirements unique to Tier I are notice, the control technology basis for mills that enroll in the water Voluntary unnecessary to control chloroform the effluent limitations guidelines and Advanced Technology Incentives emissions at these mills. standards and the MACT requirements Program (see 61 FR 9394 for a similar EPA further believes that most plants will be the same. Second, at present, the argument relating to compliance with likely to elect to comply with a tier Agency is unsure what level of chlorine MACT for washers and oxygen option already control air emissions of substitution and hypochlorite use is delignification systems). The first stage chlorinated HAPs (both chloroform and achievable for dissolving grade mills. is an interim MACT of no backsliding— other chlorinated HAPs) through Thus, although EPA has a reasonably which reflects the current level of air application of the MACT technologies good idea what the technology basis of emissions control. The second stage (process substitution for chloroform and MACT and effluent limitations requires compliance with revised MACT caustic scrubbing for the remaining guidelines and standards is likely to be based on baseline BAT requirements for chlorinated HAPs). Thus, there will be for dissolving grade mills, the precise all parameters for bleached papergrade some control of the emissions from level of the standards remains to be kraft and soda mills. (The second stage these bleaching operations during the determined. Consequently, at present, in effect revises MACT to reflect the time preceding compliance with the EPA is unable to establish what the control technologies which will be second stage of MACT. To ensure that MACT floor would be for chloroform available at this later date. See CAA there is no lessening of existing emissions from bleaching systems at § 112 (d)(6).) The no-backsliding controls, EPA also is promulgating a no these mills, and there is no conceivable provisions apply to the period from June backsliding requirement as an interim beyond-the-floor technology to consider. 15, 1998 until compliance with the MACT—reflecting current control EPA will make these determinations second-stage MACT standards is levels. During the extended compliance based on data being developed, and required April 15, 2004. This two-step period, mills thus may not increase their then promulgate for these mills effluent alternative is available only to bleached application rates of chlorine or limitations guidelines and standards papergrade kraft and soda mills actually hypochlorite above the average rates and, concurrently, MACT standards making the binding decision to comply determined for the three-month period based on those effluent limitations with Tier I, II, or III water limitations. prior to June 15, 1998. guidelines and standards. Covered mills EPA believes that providing these In the March 8 notice, the Agency would therefore be required to comply mills six years to comply with second- proposed making a distinction between with the MACT standards reflecting stage MACT (i.e., baseline BAT requirements for bleaching systems at performance of the effluent limitations requirements for all parameters) is an papergrade and dissolving grade mills. guidelines and standards no later than appropriate and logical outgrowth of the The Agency solicited data concerning three years after the effective date of discussions set forth in the March 8, chloroform emissions from dissolving those standards, pursuant to CAA 1996 supplemental MACT notice (61 FR grade bleaching processes and requested section 112(i)(3)(A). 9393) and the July 15, 1996 comment on an appropriate chloroform The basis for delaying MACT supplemental effluent guidelines notice MACT for dissolving grade bleaching requirements for chlorinated HAPs (61 FR 36835–58). In the March 8 systems. Several commenters suggested other than chloroform (again, from notice, EPA solicited comments on its that a separate MACT standard for dissolving-grade bleach operations only) preliminary findings that MACT for chloroform be developed for bleaching differs somewhat. As noted above, the chloroform air emissions should be systems at dissolving grade mills. Some technology basis for control of these compliance with baseline BAT. commenters requested that the Agency HAPs is use of a caustic scrubber. Commenters agreed with this defer chloroform control requirements However, when plants substitute preliminary determination. In the July for dissolving grade mills until effluent chlorine dioxide for chlorine and 15 notice, EPA set forth its vision of limitations guidelines and standards are eliminate hypochlorite (in order to more stringent BAT for mills that established at those mills. control chloroform emissions and voluntarily enter the Advanced As stated in the July 15, 1996 Federal discharges to water, as explained Technologies Incentives program. As Register notice (61 FR 36835), EPA is above), a different scrubber will be part of that voluntary program under the evaluating new data on the technical needed that can adequately control both water standards, EPA is promulgating a feasibility of reducing hypochlorite the chlorine dioxide emissions for Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18529 worker safety reasons and the emissions process condensate standards). For the the HVLC system, and ten percent for of chlorinated, non-chloroform HAPs. liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a steam stripper systems. Commenters The Agency’s concern (shared by the direct aqueous injection gas contended that while most of the LVHC commenters who addressed this chromatography/flame ionization systems had backup controls, very few question) is that immediate control of detection (GC/FID) method described in of the HVLC systems had backup the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 684, controls. Several commenters added could easily result in plants having to Appendix I. Consequently, the industry that the Part 63 General Provisions do install and then replace a caustic contends that Method 305 should not be not address safety venting and scrubber system in a few years due to specified in the final rule for downtime necessary for trouble- promulgation of effluent limitations determining compliance with the shooting. Another commenter guidelines and standards and MACT pulping process condensate standards. contended that the Part 63 General requirements for chloroform. This result However, the NCASI test method has Provisions already allow significant would be an inappropriate utilization of not been validated using EPA Method emissions and should not be further scarce pollution control resources. 301 procedures and it is unlikely that weakened. the test method validation would be Since proposal, EPA has re-evaluated 8. Test Methods completed before promulgation of the the need to incorporate downtime or At proposal, the Agency proposed to MACT standard. excess emission allowances for LVHC, require that Methods 308 and 26A be The Agency has considered industry’s HVLC, and steam stripper systems into used to test for compliance with the argument and has decided to proceed the final rule. Based on data submitted provisions of the NESHAP. Method 308 with specifying Method 305 in the final by the pulp and paper industry, EPA is used to measure methanol in the vent rule to demonstrate compliance with the has concluded that some allowance for stream. Method 308 had not been pulping process condensate standards. excess emissions is part of the MACT validated using Method 301 at the time However, if the Agency approves the floor level of control. For the final rule, the NESHAP was proposed. Method Method 301 validation procedures for EPA established appropriate excess 26A is used to measure chlorine in vent NCASI’s GC/FID test method, this emission allowances to approximate the streams. method will be referenced as either an level of backup control that exists at the At proposal, commenters objected to alternative or a replacement for Method best-performing mills and the associated the rule referencing an unvalidated test 305 (for determining methanol period of time during which no control method (Method 308). The commenters concentration only) with a device is available. The excess emission also contended that Method 26A should supplemental Federal Register notice. allowances in the final rule include not be used for measuring chlorine in EPA believes that this course of action periods when the control device is the bleaching system because chlorine will adequately address the industry’s inoperable and when the operating dioxide, which is expected to be present concerns. This decision was reached parameter values established during the in bleaching system vents, is listed as a since the Method 301 validation initial performance test cannot be possible interferant in Method 26A. The procedures for NCASI’s GC/FID method maintained at the appropriate level. commenters suggested using a modified would likely be completed before kraft Based on an analysis of the public Method 26A developed by the pulp and mills would have to demonstrate comments and the available data paper industry. compliance with the pulping process regarding excess emissions and the level Since proposal, Method 308 was condensate standards. of backup control in the industry, EPA revised to incorporate suggestions made has determined that an appropriate and data provided by representatives of 9. Backup Control Devices and excess emissions allowance for LVHC the pulp and paper industry. Downtime systems would be one percent of the Since proposal, Method 308 has also The proposal would have required operating hours on a semi-annual basis been validated using Method 301 emission limits for the NESHAP to be for the control devices used to reduce validation criteria. The validation was met at all times, except during periods HAP emissions. The best-performing conducted by the Atmospheric Research of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. mills achieve a one percent downtime and Environmental Analysis Laboratory Allowance for control device or in their LVHC system control devices. in EPA’s Office of Research and collection system downtime was not For control devices used to reduce Development. The results of the specified in the proposed rule, and the emissions from HVLC systems, EPA has validation were reported in the January need for backup control devices was not concluded that an appropriate excess 1995 issue of the Journal of the Air and addressed. emissions allowance would be four Waste Management Association. The Commenters asserted that EPA should percent. The best-performing mills Agency has also evaluated the recognize that control technologies on achieve a four percent downtime in the commenters’ claims regarding Method which the proposed rule was based are control devices used to reduce 26A. The Agency agrees that chlorine not designed to operate 100 percent of emissions from their HVLC system to dioxide is a potential positive the time. Therefore, commenters account for flow balancing problems interferant to the method (i.e., requested downtime allowances to and unpredictable pressure changes concentration measurement could account for safety related venting and inherent in HVLC systems. For control potentially be higher than actual periods when the control device is devices used to control emissions from emissions). The final rule includes inoperable. Otherwise, the commenters both LVHC and HVLC systems, the modifications to Method 26A (based on asserted that costly backup control Agency has determined that a four an NCASI method) to eliminate devices would be necessary to achieve percent excess emissions allowance is potential problems with chlorine compliance with the NESHAP at all appropriate. This decision was made dioxide interference. times. They further contended that the because the control device would be In March 1997, industry informed environmental benefit for the additional used for the HVLC system, which has EPA that it had not used Method 305 to cost associated with the backup controls the higher emissions allowance. For obtain the methanol steam stripper would be minimal. Commenters LVHC and HVLC system control performance data (which was used as recommended a one percent downtime devices, the excess emissions the basis for the proposed pulping for the LVHC system, four percent for allowances do not include scheduled 18530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations maintenance activities that are inspections of seal/closure mechanisms the control requirements by routing vent discussed in the Part 63 General and closed-vent systems, and streams to a design incinerator operating Provisions. The allowances address demonstrations of no detectable leaks in at 1,600 °F and a residence time of 0.75 normal operating variations in the the closed-vent system. seconds, or to a boiler, lime kiln, or LVHC and HVLC system control devices Commenters to the proposed NESHAP recovery furnace. for which the equipment is designed. contended that visual inspections were Commenters on the proposed rule The variations would not be considered not necessary due to durability of the objected to the 20 ppmv limit at a three startup, shutdown, or malfunction materials used by this industry to percent oxygen correction factor. Some under the Part 63 General Provisions construct the collection system. In commenters claimed that incinerator (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–D1–103, IV– addition, commenters contended that exhaust streams in the pulp and paper D1–110, IV–D1–115, IV–E–85, and IV– leak detections were not necessary since industry have an oxygen content in E–88). systems are typically operated at excess of 10 percent. Therefore, if the The appropriate excess emissions negative pressure. The commenters also outlet concentration was corrected to allowance for steam stripper systems opposed requirements for seals and three percent oxygen, the concentration was determined to be 10 percent. The locks on bypass lines because the level would not be achievable. Some allowance accounts for stripper tray bypass lines are installed for purposes commenters recommended increasing damage or plugging, efficiency losses in of personnel safety, equipment the correction factor to 10 percent the stripper due to contamination of protection, and to prevent explosions. oxygen. condensate with fiber or black liquor, The Agency evaluated the comments The 20 ppmv limit represents the steam supply downtime, and and has decided to make the following performance that is achieved on low combustion control device downtime. changes to the closed-vent system concentration streams by a well This downtime allowance includes all requirements. The Agency agreed with designed combustion device. This limit periods when the stripper systems are the commenters that most closed-vent was based on previous EPA studies (Air inoperable including scheduled systems will be under negative pressure. Docket A–79–32, II–B–31). The three maintenance, malfunctions, startups, Any leaks, therefore, would pull air into percent oxygen correction factor at and shutdowns. The startup, shutdown, the collection system rather than release proposal was based on stream malfunction allowances are included in HAPs to the atmosphere. Therefore, the characteristics of other industries, such the stripper allowances because Agency revised the requirement for as the synthetic organic chemical information was not available to demonstration of no detectable manufacturing industry. The three differentiate these emissions from emissions to apply only to portions of percent correction factor has been used normal stripper operating emissions. the closed-vent system operated under on many previous standards for Regarding the commenters’ discussion positive pressure. The Agency also controlling organic pollutants. EPA re- of whether the startup, shutdown, or agreed that requiring a lock and key- evaluated the three percent correction malfunction provisions of the General type seal on bypass lines would be factor to ensure that it is appropriate for Provisions would cover maintenance overburdensome and could potentially the pulp and paper industry. Test data and troubleshooting downtime, EPA has pose a safety hazard. The intention of supplied by the industry confirmed taken public comment and is currently the requirements was to prevent their comments that the oxygen content revising the requirements of the General circumvention of the control device by of the incinerator flue gas is typically Provisions. Among the changes to the venting directly to the atmosphere. The greater than ten percent at pulp and language, EPA intends to incorporate Agency believes that this assurance can paper mills. Based on the industry data safety-related venting requirements into be achieved using car seals or seals that and the thermodynamic models, EPA the General Provisions. However, could easily be broken, to indicate when changed the oxygen correction factor to scheduled maintenance activities are a valve has been turned. Proper ten percent (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B– not considered by EPA to qualify for recordkeeping is also necessary to 19). Therefore, the final rule allows excess emissions allowances. The start- demonstrate proper operation. combustion devices to be in compliance up, shutdown, and malfunction plan Therefore, the Agency revised the if they reduce HAP concentrations to 20 specified in the General Provisions bypass line requirements to allow the ppmv at ten percent oxygen. should address the periods of excess use of car seals but require log entries Information supplied by the pulp and emissions that are caused by unforeseen recording valve position, flow rate, and paper industry indicates that many of or unexpected events. other parameters. The Agency has the existing incinerators meet this limit. modified the enclosure requirements to Commenters on the proposed rule 10. Equipment Enclosures, Closed-Vent allow for short-term openings for pulp objected that the requirements for the Systems, and Control Equipment, and sampling and maintenance. design incinerator were too stringent Condensate Conveyance System The final rule retains the visual and that equivalent control could be a. Requirements for Closed-Vent monitoring requirements. The achieved at lower temperatures. Many Systems. At proposal, the Agency requirements are necessary to ensure commenters requested that the Agency required specific standards and proper operation of collection systems allow incinerators meeting the operating monitoring requirements for closed-vent and can be conducted at a reasonable conditions in the kraft NSPS of 1,200 oF systems. The standards required: (1) cost. and 0.5 seconds residence time to be Maintaining a negative pressure at each b. Concentration Limit for used for the NESHAP. opening, (2) ensuring enclosure Combustion Devices and Design EPA has decided not to change the openings that were closed during the Incinerator Operating Parameters. At proposed design incinerator operating performance test be closed during proposal, the NESHAP would have parameters for the NESHAP because the normal operation, (3) designing and required vent streams to be controlled in parameters are necessary to meet the operating closed-vent systems to have a combustion device that achieves 98 MACT floor. EPA would first like to no detectable leaks, (4) installing flow percent reduction of HAPs or outlet clarify that the final rule does not limit indicators for bypass lines, and (5) HAP emission concentrations of 20 owners or operators of incinerators to securing bypass line valves. Monitoring ppmv corrected to three percent oxygen. operate at the specified temperatures requirements included visual Alternatively, mills could comply with and residence times. Any control device Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18531 that is demonstrated to achieve 98 proposed to require pulping process systems. The Agency has concluded that percent destruction of HAPs will condensate collection systems to be these costs would be the same or greater comply with the rule. Any thermal designed and operated without leaks. than would be needed for complying oxidizer which reduces HAP emissions EPA proposed that all tanks, containers, with the requirements of subpart RR. to a concentration of 20 ppmv at ten and surface impoundments storing The final pulp and paper NESHAP percent oxygen will also comply with applicable condensate streams were references 40 CFR Subpart RR for the the rule. The 98 percent destruction required to be enclosed and all vent standards for individual drain systems requirement represents the control level emissions must be routed to a control for the pulping process condensate achieved by well-operated combustion device by means of a closed-vent closed collection system. The Subpart devices. The 20 ppmv limit represents system. A submerged fill pipe would RR standards provide uniform language the performance achieved by well- have been required on containers and that simplifies compliance and operated combustion devices on low tanks storing an applicable condensate enforcement. concentration vent streams. stream or any stream containing HAP The final rule requires tanks to be Second, EPA has made this part of the removed from a condensate stream. All controlled as at proposal, but containers rule as flexible as possible while still drain systems that received or managed and surface impoundments are not achieving a level of control reflecting applicable condensate streams would required to be controlled. Public MACT. In the December 17, 1993 have been required to be enclosed with comments indicated that containers are proposal and in this final rule, EPA no detectable leaks and any HAP not used in the pulp and paper industry. developed compliance alternatives in emissions from vents were required to The Agency’s intention in the proposed order to reduce the compliance testing be routed to a control device. Several rule was not to require surface burden. The compliance alternatives commenters on the proposed pulp and impoundments to be controlled, except (i.e., operating thermal oxidizers at a paper NESHAP contended that the when used as part of the condensate temperature of 1,600 °F and a residence proposed requirements were overly collection system. After further review time of 0.75 seconds) were developed to burdensome and, in some cases, of this issue, the Agency has determined ensure that the thermal oxidizers unnecessary. that mills do not use and are unlikely perform at a level that would meet the After the pulp and paper NESHAP to use surface impoundments as part of destruction efficiency requirements. The was proposed, the Agency promulgated their closed collection system for operating parameters are based on a separate rulemaking in 40 CFR Part 63, condensate streams and therefore that previous Agency studies that show that Subpart RR (National Emission the language on control of surface these conditions are necessary to Standards for Individual Drain impoundments does not need to appear achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs. Systems). This rule established emission in the rule. However, the NSPS operating control, inspection and monitoring, and 11. Interaction With Other Rules parameters (1,200 °F and 0.5 seconds recordkeeping and reporting residence time) do not destroy HAPs to requirements for individual drain a. Prevention of Significant this extent. systems. The individual drain system Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/ The purpose of the kraft NSPS was to requirements specify that air emissions NSR). To comply with the MACT reduce emissions of TRS compounds. from collection systems must be portion of the pulp and paper cluster EPA has evaluated the temperature and controlled using covers or seals, hard- rule, mills will route vent gases from residence time required by the NSPS to piping, or venting of individual drain specified pulping and condensate determine whether the NSPS systems through a closed-vent system to emission points to a combustion control temperature and residence time are a control device or a combination of device for destruction. The incineration sufficient to achieve 98 percent these control options. The emission of these gases at kraft mills has the reduction of HAPs. EPA’s analysis control techniques specified in the potential to generate sulfur dioxide indicates that while the NSPS individual drain system standard (i.e., (SO2) and, to a lesser degree, nitrogen requirements are sufficient to achieve 98 covers/seals and vent combustion) are oxides (NOX). The emission increases of percent destruction of TRS compounds, common techniques that are applicable SO2 and NOX may be of such magnitude kinetic calculations for methanol (the to a variety of wastewater collection to trigger the need for preconstruction majority of HAP in pulping vent gases) systems, regardless of the type of permits under the nonattainment NSR show that the NSPS criteria will not process that produced the wastewater or PSD program (hereinafter referred to achieve 98 percent reduction of HAPs streams. as major NSR). (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–B–18). EPA compared the collection system Industry and some States have Additionally, EPA evaluated incinerator requirements contained in the proposed commented extensively that in performance data submitted by industry pulp and paper NESHAP with the developing the rule, EPA did not take (Air Docket A–92–40, IV–J–33). The individual drain system requirements in into account the impacts that would be data indicated that the NSPS operating subpart RR. Since the subpart RR incurred in triggering major NSR. parameters were not sufficient for requirements are consistent with the Commenters indicated that major NSR achieving 98 percent destruction of intent of the proposed standards, EPA would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper methanol. This conclusion was reached concluded that the requirements of industry significantly more for by EPA since the operating conditions subpart RR constitute MACT for the permitting and implementation of (i.e., temperature and residence time) of pulp and paper industry. The control additional SO2 or NOX controls than the incinerators that achieved 98 costs presented in the ‘‘Pulp, Paper, and predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large percent methanol destruction were Paperboard Industry-Background permitting review burden on State air greater than the levels specified in the Information for Promulgated Air quality offices; and (3) present kraft NSPS. Therefore, the NSPS Emission Standards, Manufacturing difficulties for mills to meet the specifications will not meet the Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi- proposed NESHAP compliance requirements of MACT for new and Chemical, Mechanical, and Secondary schedule of 3 years due to the time existing sources. and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final required to obtain a preconstruction c. Condensate Collection System. In EIS’’(EPA–453/R–93–050b) were based permit. Industry commenters have the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA on industry estimates for hard-piping stated that the pollution control project 18532 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

(PCP) exemption allowed under the of HAPs will occur. Consistent with the Incentives Program in the effluent current PSD policy provides inadequate 1994 guidance, the permitting authority limitations guidelines and standards relief from these potential impacts and should confirm that, in each case, the portion of today’s rule. In the July 23, recommended including specific resultant emissions increase would not 1996 notice on changes to the NSR language in the pulp and paper rule cause or contribute to a violation of a Program (61 FR 38250), EPA solicited exempting MACT compliance projects NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely comments on the appropriate scope of from NSR/PSD. affect an AQRV. the PCP exclusion. EPA also solicited In a July 1, 1994 guidance The EPA believes that the current comments in the July 15, 1996 memorandum issued by EPA (available guidance on pollution control projects supplemental pulp and paper effluent on the Technology Transfer Network; adequately provides for the exclusion guidelines notice (61 FR 36857) on see ‘‘Pollution Control Projects and New from major NSR of air pollution control whether advanced water pollution Source Review (NSR) Applicability’’ projects in the pulp and paper industry control technologies implemented by from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS to resulting from today’s rule. Such the pulp and paper industry should be EPA Regional Air Division Directors), projects would be covered under minor eligible for an exclusion from major EPA provided guidance for permitting source regulations in the applicable NSR and if so, whether the exclusion authorities on the approvability of PCP state implementation plan (SIP), and should be implemented under the exclusions for source categories other permitting authorities would be provisions of the PCP exclusion under than electric utilities. In the guidance, expected to provide adequate safeguards the NSR proposed regulations. In the EPA indicated that add-on controls and against NAAQS and increment context of these notices, EPA received fuel switches to less polluting fuels violations and adverse impacts on air several comments in favor of extending qualify for an exclusion from major quality related values in Federal Class I the PCP exclusion to multi-media NSR. To be eligible to be excluded from areas. Only in those cases where activities, such as those that would be otherwise applicable major NSR potential adverse impacts cannot be undertaken for the Voluntary Advanced requirements, a PCP must on balance be resolved through the minor NSR Technology Incentives Program but ‘‘environmentally beneficial,’’ and the programs or other mechanisms would received little information on permitting authority must ensure that major NSR apply. appropriate criteria for determining the the project will not cause or contribute The EPA recognizes that, where there relative benefits of reduced water to a violation of a national ambient air is a potential for an adverse impact, pollution to potential coincident quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD some small percentage of mills located increases in air pollution. increment, or adversely affect visibility near Class I PSD areas might be subject or other air quality related values to major NSR, i.e., the permitting The Agency believes that, depending (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that off- authority determines that the impact or on the control technologies selected by setting reductions are secured in the potential impact cannot be adequately a mill, the potential exists for an overall case of a project which would result in addressed by its minor NSR program or environmental benefit to result from a significant increase of a non- other SIP measures. If this occurs, there control strategies implemented under attainment pollutant. The permitting is a question whether MACT and NSR the Voluntary Advanced Technology authority can make these compliance can both be done within the Incentives Program. However, unlike determinations outside of the major respective rule deadlines. EPA believes, the MACT rule in today’s action, where NSR process. The 1994 guidance did not however, that the eight year compliance the controls that would be installed to void or create an exclusion from any deadline provided in the final MACT reduce hazardous air pollutants are applicable minor source preconstruction rule for HVLC kraft pulping sources fairly well known and the potential review requirements in an approved substantially mitigates the potential pollutant tradeoffs within the same State Implementation Plan (SIP). Any scheduling problem. The equipment environmental media are fairly well minor NSR permitting requirements in a with the eight year compliance deadline understood, the Agency is less certain SIP would continue to apply, regardless are the primary sources of the additional about the controls that might be of any exclusion from major NSR that SO2 and NOX emissions. The additional installed to comply with this Voluntary might be approved for a source under time should be sufficient to resolve any Advanced Technology Incentives the PCP exclusion policy. preconstruction permitting issues. Program and the potential pollutant In the July 1, 1994 guidance While the Agency believes that eight tradeoffs that may occur across memorandum, EPA specifically years is sufficient for kraft mills with environmental media. Therefore, while identified the combustion of organic HVLC systems to meet permitting the Agency is continuing to consider toxic pollutants as an example of an requirements, industry has raised extending this PCP status to activities add-on control that could be considered concerns that there could be a potential undertaken to implement the Voluntary a PCP and an appropriate candidate for problem for a few mills in Class I Advanced Technology Incentives a case-by-case exclusion from major attainment areas that are required to Program, the Agency is not extending NSR. For the purposes of the pulp and comply with the final rule in three that status in today’s action because the paper MACT rule, EPA considers that years. The PCP exemption and extended Agency currently lacks sufficient combustion for the control of HAP compliance schedule may not resolve information to establish a process and emissions from pulping systems and all NSR conflicts for every mill. set of criteria by which a determination condensate control systems to be a PCP, Although too speculative to warrant could be made as to whether these because the combustion controls are disposition in this rule, EPA is alert to advanced control technologies result in being installed to comply with MACT this potential problem and will attempt an overall environmental benefit at and will reduce emissions of hazardous to create implementation flexibility on a individual mills that participate in this organic air pollutants. EPA also case-by-case basis should a problem program. The Agency intends to considers the reduction of these actually occur. continue discussions with stakeholders pollutants to represent an Commenters requested that the PCP on a process and set of criteria by which environmental benefit. However, EPA exclusion also be expanded to actions a determination could be made as to the recognizes that the incidental formation undertaken at mills that enroll in the appropriateness of extending the PCP of SO2 and NOX due to the destruction Voluntary Advanced Technology (AT) exclusion to controls installed at Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18533 individual mills to comply with the for determining whether an activity concentrations of HAP. For background Voluntary Advanced Technology performed under the Voluntary AT information see 61 FR at 17459–69 Incentives Program. Because the control Incentives Program qualifies for the PCP (April 19, 1996), where EPA proposed technologies that could be installed to exclusion. Given the potentially varying such an exclusion based on similarity of implement the Voluntary Advanced control strategies that could be adopted waste-derived fuels to certain fossil Technology Incentives Program may by participating mills, the Agency also fuels. vary significantly from one mill to requests information that may be useful The Agency proposed to exclude this another, mills that want controls in assessing whether generic guidance practice from RCRA regulation in the implemented within the context of the on when a PCP exclusion may be March 8, 1996 notice and solicited Voluntary Advanced Technology appropriate should be set forth within comments on this determination (61 FR effluent program to be considered PCP the context of the NSR Reform effort or at 9396). All of the comments supported will likely need to make a site-specific whether NSR determinations should granting this exemption. As stated in the demonstration that such controls result more appropriately be made in the notice, EPA does not believe that RCRA in an overall environmental benefit. context of mill-specific applications. regulation of the rectification and When a mill would need to make such The EPA needs this information within combustion of the condensate is a demonstration would depend upon 60 days of the publishing of this notice appropriate or necessary. The that particular mill’s compliance to evaluate the information and proceed rectification practice would not increase timeline—dictated by the AT Incentives with this issue in a useful time period environmental risk, would reduce Tier to which they commit and the time for mills to make their decisions on secondary environmental impacts, and necessary to get applicable permits participation in the Voluntary AT would provide a cost savings. Moreover, approved. While it is not possible at this Incentives Program. Stakeholders the burning of condensate will not time to identify the criteria the Agency should submit information on this topic increase the potential environmental would use for approving a PCP directly to Ms. Penny Lassiter, Emission risk over the burning of the steam exclusion, the Agency would not Standards Division (MD–13), U.S. stripper vent gases prior to consider projects which result in any Environmental Protection Agency, condensation. (See generally 61 FR at increases in emissions of highly toxic Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 9397.) Finally, consideration of risk compounds to be an acceptable b. Resource Conservation and would more appropriately be handled as candidate PCP. For example, the Agency Recovery Act (RCRA)/Boilers and part of the section 112(f) residual risk believes it would not be Industrial Furnaces (BIF). One of the determination required for all sources environmentally acceptable to give the options for controlling emissions from after implementation of MACT PCP exclusion to an activity which pulping process condensates is to steam standards. For these reasons, EPA will results in a chlorinated material being strip HAPs, primarily methanol, from exclude specific sources at kraft mills sent to a boiler that would result in the kraft pulping process condensate that burn condensates derived from release of a chlorinated toxic air streams. After the HAPs are removed, steam stripper overhead vent gases from pollutant. The Agency also believes that the vent gas from the steam stripper is RCRA, including condensates from the the public should be provided an required to be sent to a combustion steam stripper methanol rectification opportunity to review and comment on device for destruction. Several process. The scope of this exclusion is mill-specific cases where a PCP commenters pointed out that some mills limited to that requested by exclusion is being considered for these may choose to concentrate the methanol commenters, combustion at the facility in the steam stripper vent gas, using a advanced water technologies, generating the stream. (Limitation of the rectification column, and burn the particularly if there would be a scope of the exclusion to on-site burning condensate as a fuel. also eliminates questions about whether potentially significant emissions However, the concentrated methanol RCRA regulation is needed to assure increase of criteria air pollutants such as condensate that would be derived from proper tracking and transport of the SO2 or NOX. the steam stripper overheads may be material.) Since mills must declare within one identified as hazardous waste under the year of promulgation of the cluster rules Resource Conservation and Recovery B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and whether they will participate in the Act (RCRA) because it exhibits the Standards Voluntary AT Incentives Program, the ignitability characteristic. See 40 CFR Agency is aware that mills would like 261.21. Boilers burning such a 1. Subcategorization to know whether a mechanism exists hazardous waste fuel would ordinarily The subcategorization scheme being whereby they may apply for a PCP be required to comply with emission promulgated today for effluent exclusion among the many factors that standards set out in 40 CFR Part 266 limitations guidelines and standards for may influence their participation in this Subpart H (the so-called BIF regulation, the pulp, paper, and paperboard incentives program. In order for the i.e., standards for boilers and industrial industry replaces the subcategorization Agency to proceed further on this issue, furnaces burning hazardous waste). of this industry that dates back to 1974. the Agency again is requesting that Several commenters recommended EPA’s reasons for combining and interested stakeholders submit incorporating a ‘‘clean fuels’’ exclusion reorganizing the 26 old subcategories information on the types of control into the pulp and paper NESHAP so that (formerly found in Parts 430 and 431) technologies that could be installed the condensate can be burned for energy into 12 new subcategories are set forth under the Voluntary AT Incentives recovery without the combustion unit below, in the proposal, see 58 FR at Program along with information on the also being subject to the RCRA rules. 66098–100, and in ‘‘Selected Issues type and potential magnitude of The ‘‘clean fuels’’ exclusion is a Concerning Subcategorization’’ (DCN collateral air pollutant increases that recommendation from EPA’s Solid 14497, Volume 1). may occur at mills. The Agency requests Waste Task Force to allow recovery of In reorganizing Part 430 to comport information from stakeholders that energy from waste-derived fuels that are with the new subcategorization scheme, could be useful for developing a process considered hazardous only because they EPA has reprinted in their entirety the by which mills would apply for the PCP exhibit the ignitability characteristics current effluent limitations guidelines exclusion and for setting forth criteria and do not contain significant and standards applicable to the newly 18534 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations formed subcategories. The only statement describing the procedure to guidelines and standards are substantive changes to the current calculate the effluent limitations promulgated today), EPA believes that effluent limitations guidelines and guidelines and standards for non- changes in the industry affecting the standards are the BAT limitations, continuous dischargers, e.g., 40 CFR remaining subparts are best addressed NSPS, PSES, PSNS, and best 430.13, 430.15, 430.62(a)–(d), 430.65 when EPA makes the decision whether management practices being (1996 ed.), EPA has performed the to revise the regulations for those promulgated today for the Bleached calculations and presented the results in subcategories. Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory tables. The resulting effluent limitations a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and (subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite and standards are the same; this Soda subcategory. The Bleached subcategory (subpart E). In addition, procedure was done simply to Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA is promulgating the Voluntary streamline the regulation and to make it for which regulations are promulgated Advanced Technology Incentives easier to apply for the permit writer. in this rulemaking at 40 CFR part 430 Program applicable to subpart B. EPA is In order to ensure that any facilities subpart B, encompasses the former making no changes to the BPT and BCT that would not have been subject to the subparts G (market bleached kraft), H limitations previously promulgated for previous subparts will not inadvertently (BCT bleached kraft), I (fine bleached what are now subparts B and E. be subject to limitations and standards kraft), and P (soda). EPA has retained Similarly, EPA is retaining the NSPS set forth in the newly redesignated the applicability statements associated promulgated in 1982 in new Subparts B subparts, EPA is using the applicability with those former subparts. See 40 CFR and E for new sources that commenced language of each previously 430.20. EPA intends for this merged discharge that met the 1982 NSPS after promulgated subpart to define the subcategory to apply to mills that June 15, 1988 but before June 15, 1998 applicability of the newly redesignated chemically pulp wood fiber using a kraft provided that the new source was subparts that consolidate them. For method with an alkaline sodium constructed to meet those standards. example, rather than promulgate the hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking EPA is also retaining, without applicability statement proposed for liquor to produce bleached papergrade substantive revision, the new source subpart C, see 58 FR at 66199, EPA has pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard. pretreatment standards previously instead codified as a single applicability It also applies to mills that chemically promulgated for subparts B and E for statement, the applicability statements pulp wood fiber using a soda method facilities constructed between June 15, of former subparts A, D and V, which with an alkaline sodium hydroxide 1988 and June 15, 1998. new subpart C now comprises. See 40 cooking liquor. Principal products of These limitations and standards are CFR 430.30. bleached kraft wood pulp include recodified at subparts B and E in the The Agency received comments that papergrade kraft market pulp, form of segments corresponding to the the groupings comprising the new paperboard, coarse papers, tissue old subcategorization scheme. (In re- subcategories are unreasonable because papers, uncoated free sheet, and fine codifying these limitations and they purportedly ignore distinctions papers, which include business, writing, standards, EPA has simplified the text among facilities that affect their ability and printing papers. Principal products introducing the limitations tables, but to implement the technologies that form of bleached soda wood pulp are fine has not changed the former regulations’ the basis of the effluent limitations papers, which include printing, writing, substance.) Direct discharging mills guidelines and standards promulgated and business papers, and market pulp. currently subject to the 1982 NSPS for subparts B and E. Thus, some b. Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. remain subject to those standards until commenters asserted, these facilities The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, for the date ten years after the completion would be unable to meet the same limits which regulations are promulgated in of construction of the new source or as other mills in the same new this rulemaking, is defined as 40 CFR during the period of depreciation or subcategory. EPA considered these part 430 subpart E and encompasses amortization of such facility, whichever comments in detail where they involved former subpart J (papergrade sulfite- comes first. See CWA section 306(d). mills subject to new effluent limitations blow pit wash) and subpart U After such time, the BAT limitations guidelines and standards promulgated (papergrade sulfite-drum wash). EPA promulgated today apply for toxic and today in order to determine whether the has retained the applicability statements nonconventional pollutants. Limitations groupings of the mills into subparts B associated with those former subparts. on conventional pollutants will be and E were appropriate. In response to See 40 CFR 430.50. EPA intends for this based on the formerly promulgated these comments, EPA segmented merged subcategory to apply to mills BPT/BCT limitations corresponding to subpart E. See section VI.B.6.a. When that chemically pulp wood fiber using a the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the EPA develops the final regulations for sulfite method, with or without discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for the remaining subcategories, EPA brightening or bleaching, using an conventional pollutants, whichever is similarly will consider if it is acidic cooking liquor of calcium, more stringent. appropriate to fine-tune these initial magnesium, ammonium, or sodium EPA is making no substantive changes groupings to better respond to material sulfites to produce bleached papergrade to the limitations and standards differences between facilities. pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard. applicable to any other subcategory. EPA also acknowledges that the The provisions of this merged subpart EPA will promulgate new or revised subcategorization scheme promulgated apply regardless of whether blow pit effluent limitations guidelines and today was developed based on data pulp washing techniques or vacuum or standards, as appropriate, for the received in the ‘‘1990 National Census pressure drum pulp washing techniques remaining subcategories at a later date. of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard are used. See Table II–2. Until then, the Manufacturing Facilities,’’ and that previously promulgated effluent there have been changes in the industry 2. BPT/BCT for the Bleached Papergrade limitations guidelines and standards since that data gathering effort. Because Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the remain in effect. the resubcategorization has no Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory EPA is making one non-substantive substantive effect on any mill other than a. Background. EPA proposed to revision in each subpart. Where the those with production in subparts B and revise effluent limitations for the existing regulation includes a narrative E (for whom revised effluent limitations conventional pollutants biochemical Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18535

oxygen demand (BOD5) and total removals could be achieved if BPT were the Voluntary Advanced Technology suspended solids (TSS) based on the revised, EPA has determined for subpart Incentives Program. Moreover, EPA best practicable control technology B and, separately, for subpart E that the estimates that, even without revising currently available (BPT) for all of the costs of achieving that incremental BPT limitations for subpart B, loadings proposed subcategories, including improvement beyond either the current of BOD5, for example, will decline by Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda BOD5 and TSS limitations or the current approximately 20 percent when mills and Papergrade Sulfite. As presented in long term average for BOD5 and TSS are meet the baseline BAT limitations and the proposal, 58 FR at 66105, EPA disproportionate to the benefits. A best management practices requirements highlighted several controversial issues single mill might have to spend as much promulgated today. Incidental removals concerning the BPT limitations, their as $17.4 million in order to upgrade to are even greater for subpart B mills calculation, and their interpretation. advanced secondary treatment. See the implementing more advanced EPA also presented a rationale and Supplemental Technical Development technologies (e.g., loadings of BOD5 are methodology and identified related Document, DCN 14487. These estimated to decline by approximately controversies for establishing expenditures are particularly significant 30 percent at the Tier I level, and EPA limitations based on the best when one considers the cumulative expects substantially greater reductions conventional pollutant control costs of this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA from Tiers II and III). See Table IX–1. technology (BCT). has decided not to revise BPT EPA also expects comparable TSS b. BPT. In December 1993, the Agency limitations for conventional pollutants loading reductions to occur. See the proposed to revise BPT for conventional for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Voluntary Advanced Technology pollutants for subparts B and E and Kraft and Soda subcategory and the Incentives Program Technical Support specifically solicited comment on that Papergrade Sulfite subcategory at this Document, DCN 14488. In short, proposed decision. See 58 FR at 66105– time. because sufficient additional removals 06. In response, EPA received comments EPA’s decision not to revise BPT of conventional pollutants from subpart claiming that EPA lacks the legal limitations for subpart B at this time is B mills can be obtained without revising authority to revise BPT once BPT also informed by the Agency’s long-term BPT at this time, EPA has determined effluent limitations guidelines have goal for this industry: that the industry that, on balance, the incremental been promulgated. EPA also received will continuously improve its benefits attributable to revised BPT other comments asserting that the Clean environmental performance primarily limits do not justify the comparatively Water Act compels EPA to revise BPT. through sound capital planning and high costs associated with achieving Although the Agency believes that it has expenditures. EPA has determined that those limits. For these additional the statutory authority to revise BPT, the this interplay between potentially more reasons, EPA has decided not to revise Agency also believes that it has the stringent revised BPT limitations and BPT for conventional pollutants for discretion to determine whether to the industry’s long-term environmental mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft revise BPT effluent limitations improvement is an appropriate factor to and Soda subcategory at this time. guidelines in particular circumstances. be considered in this rulemaking with Finally, if additional removals of The question of EPA’s legal authority is respect to BPT. See CWA section BOD5 and TSS are needed to protect not relevant here, however, because 304(b)(1)(B). It is also consistent with particular receiving waters, CWA EPA has decided, in the exercise of its the Clean Water Act’s overarching section 301(b)(1)(C) requires mills on a discretion, that it is not appropriate to objective, which calls upon EPA to case-by-case basis to meet more revise BPT effluent limitations implement the statute’s provisions with stringent limitations as necessary to guidelines for conventional pollutants the goal of eliminating the discharge of achieve applicable water quality for subparts B and E at this time. Instead pollutants into the Nation’s waters. See standards. the current BPT effluent limitations CWA Section 101(a). In this rulemaking, For the foregoing reasons, therefore, guidelines for conventional pollutants EPA has determined that the baseline EPA has decided, in the exercise of its will continue to apply to these regulatory requirements—effluent discretion, that it is not appropriate to subcategories. limitations guidelines and standards revise BPT limitations for conventional EPA bases this decision on its and air emissions standards—are only pollutants for subparts B and E at this determination that the total cost of one component of the framework to time. Rather, the BPT effluent applying the proposed BPT model achieve long-term environmental goals. limitations guidelines promulgated for technology is disproportionate in this EPA believes that the mills of the future former subparts G, H, I, and P (now instance to the effluent reduction will approach closed loop operations, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda benefits to be achieved. See CWA thus achieving minimal impact on the subcategory, subpart B) and former section 304(b)(1)(B). When setting BPT aquatic environment. To promote this, subparts J and U (now Papergrade limitations, EPA is required under EPA is promulgating an incentives Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain section 304(b) to perform a limited cost- program to encourage subpart B mills to in effect. These limitations are benefit balancing to make sure that costs implement pollution prevention leading recodified at subparts B and E in the are not wholly out of proportion to the to the mill of the future. See Section IX. form of segments corresponding to the benefits achieved. See, e.g., EPA believes that near-term old subcategorization scheme. See 40 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d investments to achieve more stringent CFR 430.22 and 430.52. 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978). It therefore BPT effluent limitations for c. BCT Methodology. In considering follows that EPA is authorized to conventional pollutants would divert whether to promulgate revised BCT perform such balancing when limited resources away from limits for subparts B and E, EPA determining whether to revise existing environmentally more preferable considered whether there are BPT limitations. investments in advanced pollution technologies that achieve greater Mills in subparts B and E have prevention technologies. Thus, EPA is removals of conventional pollutants significantly reduced their loadings of concerned that revising BPT effluent than the current BPT effluent BOD5 and TSS since promulgation of limitations guidelines at this time could limitations guidelines, and whether the current BPT effluent limitations discourage mills from achieving even those technologies are cost-reasonable guidelines in 1977. Although additional greater environmental results through according to the BCT cost test. At 18536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations proposal, EPA presented two alternative test. For more details, see the in the bleach plant. The bleaching methodologies for developing BCT Supplemental Technical Development processes evaluated included bleaching limitations. The first assumed that BPT Document, Section 12, DCN 14487. using elemental chlorine, BAT Option A limits would be revised in the final Therefore, at this time, the Agency is (elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching rulemaking; the alternative analysis was not promulgating more stringent BCT using 100 percent chlorine dioxide), based on the assumption that BPT limits effluent limitations guidelines for the BAT Option B (oxygen delignification would not be revised. See 58 FR at newly constituted subparts B and E. plus ECF bleaching using 100 percent 66106–07. The principal difference Rather, the BCT limitations promulgated chlorine dioxide), ECF bleaching using between the two methodologies for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now ozone, and totally chlorine-free involved the BPT baseline that EPA Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda bleaching. The ranges of loadings for would use to compare the incremental subcategory, subpart B) and former each pollutant were similar across the removals and costs associated with the subparts J and U (now Papergrade different bleaching technologies and for candidate BCT technologies. Because Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain both hardwood and softwood mills. The the Agency is not revising BPT, EPA in effect. These limitations are average loadings for these pollutants do used the second alternative to determine recodified at subparts B and E in the not exhibit a performance trend with whether to revise the current BCT limits form of segments corresponding to the regard to the bleaching technologies. for subparts B and E. old subcategorization scheme. See 40 In the EPA/Industry long-term study, d. BCT Technology Options CFR 430.23 and 430.53. methylene chloride was found to be a Considered. For the Bleached sample- and laboratory-contaminant in Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, 3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/ certain cases. Among the more recent EPA identified two candidate BCT PSES/PSNS data reviewed by EPA, methylene technologies for the final rule. These a. Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated chloride was detected in the bleach were: (i) The technology required to Phenolic Pollutants. EPA is plant effluent at ten percent of the perform at the level achieved by the best promulgating effluent limitations sampled mills. Where detected, 90 percent of mills in the subcategory; guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8- methylene chloride was present at low and (ii) the technology required to TCDD (‘‘dioxin’’), 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations. Therefore, because perform at the level achieved by the best (‘‘furan’’), and 12 specific chlorinated methylene chloride is infrequently 50 percent of mills in the subcategory. phenolic pollutants for subparts B and detected, because its formation The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory E (except for those mills regulated by processes are not fully understood, and was not divided into segments for the TCF limitations). For a discussion of because the cases in which it is detected purpose of conducting a BCT analysis EPA’s rationale for regulating these are often attributed to sample and because EPA found that treatability of parameters, see the proposal, 58 FR at laboratory contamination, EPA has BOD5 and TSS in the wastewater 66102–03 and the proposal Technical decided not to promulgate effluent generated by the three segments does Development Document (EPA 821–R– limitations guidelines and standards for not differ. EPA identified one candidate 93–019). For a discussion of EPA’s pass- methylene chloride in this rulemaking. BCT technology for the Papergrade through analysis regarding these EPA had proposed limitations for Sulfite subcategory. This was the pollutants, see Section VI.B.5.c(2) and acetone and MEK based on limited data technology required to perform at the VI.B.6.d. indicating that these parameters may be average level achieved by three mills in b. Volatile Compounds. EPA is affected by the technology options being the subcategory with at least 85 percent promulgating effluent limitations considered. EPA has decided not to of their production in the segment. guidelines and standards for chloroform promulgate effluent limitations Development of candidate BCT for subpart B. For a discussion of EPA’s guidelines or standards for these technology options based on the best 90 rationale for regulating chloroform, see parameters because additional data have and 50 percent of mills, which EPA the proposal, 58 FR at 66102 and the shown that this is not the case. used for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft proposal Technical Development Moreover, EPA believes that the and Soda subcategory, is not Document (EPA 821–R93–019). EPA is limitations and new source performance appropriate for this subcategory because not promulgating effluent limitations standards being promulgated today for there are only 11 mills in this guidelines and standards for chloroform adsorbable organic halides for subpart B subcategory and only four of these have for subpart E at this time. For a mills will ensure that mills will at least 85 percent of their production in discussion of EPA’s pass-through continue to operate their biological the subcategory. The wastewater analysis regarding chloroform, see wastewater systems at levels necessary treatment performance of three of these Section VI.B.5.c(2). For the reasons set to achieve very high removals of these mills was determined to reflect BCT forth below and in the Supplemental pollutants, thus obviating the need for level performance for the Papergrade Technical Development Document, DCN separate limitations. Sulfite subcategory. EPA did not 14487, EPA is not promulgating effluent In view of the efficacy of biological consider the wastewater treatment limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater treatment in removing performance of the fourth mill to be the discharge of acetone, methylene acetone and MEK and the fact that representative of the subcategory as a chloride, and methyl ethyl ketone process changes have no effect on the whole because it treats wastewater from (MEK). EPA received no adverse levels at which they are generated, EPA liquor by-products manufactured on comments in response to its preliminary is not convinced that these pollutants site, and thus is unique among determination, presented in the July pass through POTWs. Therefore, EPA is papergrade sulfite mills. 1996 Notice of Availability, 61 FR at also not setting pretreatment standards e. Results of BCT Analysis. EPA 36839, not to regulate these pollutants. for acetone or MEK for subpart B at this evaluated the candidate BCT EPA has reviewed data from both time. technologies for both the Bleached hardwood and softwood mills With respect to papergrade sulfite Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory employing a variety of bleaching mills, EPA expects that, once and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory processes in an effort to identify factors promulgated, the limitations and and concluded that none of the that contribute to the formation of standards for AOX based on, among candidate options passed the BCT cost acetone, methylene chloride, and MEK other things, efficient biological Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18537 treatment, will ensure that treatment while EPA could have decided to to set national effluent limitations systems are operated at levels necessary control the formation of dioxin, furan, guidelines and standards. to obviate the need for separate chloroform, and the 12 regulated For this reason, EPA is not limitations for acetone and MEK. chlorinated phenolic pollutants by establishing final effluent limitations Therefore, EPA is deferring its decision requiring mills to monitor for those guidelines and standards for COD at this on whether to regulate acetone and MEK pollutants on a daily basis, EPA also time. EPA does, however, intend to until that time. recognizes that testing for those promulgate COD limitations and NSPS c. Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX). pollutants is expensive and time for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and EPA is establishing BAT limitations, consuming. In contrast, daily Soda and Papergrade Sulfite NSPS, and pretreatment standards for monitoring for AOX as required in subcategories in a later rulemaking. For the control of adsorbable organic halide today’s rule is considerably less this purpose, EPA will gather additional (AOX) discharges from mills in the expensive. See Section VI.B.8.b(4) and data to characterize other sources of Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda DCN 14487. Additionally, under the COD that may be present at complex subcategory. EPA is also establishing mills subject to subparts B or E. This Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations, NSPS, and effort will be undertaken concurrently Incentives Program, enrolled mills are pretreatment standards to control AOX with data gathering to assess the need eligible for reduced AOX monitoring. discharges from mills in the calcium-, for establishing COD limits for mills magnesium-, or sodium-based segment See Section IX.B.2 and DCN 14488. operating in other subcategories (Phase of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. Moreover, the presence of AOX can be II rulemaking). EPA believes that this For a discussion of EPA’s pass through readily measured in mill effluent, in data-gathering effort will facilitate analysis for AOX discharges from these contrast to the presence of many of the setting limits in permits for complex mills, see Sections VI.B.5.c(2), VI.B.6.d, chlorinated organic compounds mills with other onsite process and the Supplemental Technical regulated in today’s rule, which for the operations. EPA will also decide as part Development Document, Section 8, DCN most part are likely to be present at of the Phase II rulemaking whether COD 14487. As discussed in more detail in levels that cannot be reliably measured passes through or interferes with the those sections, EPA is not setting by today’s analytical methods. See operation of POTWs and, therefore, effluent limitations guidelines and Section VI.B.5.a(4). Thus, although EPA whether pretreatment standards for COD standards for AOX for other mills in is not required under the Clean Water would be appropriate for subparts B and subpart E at this time. Act to consider the environmental or E. AOX is a measure of the total human health effects of its technology- While EPA does not have sufficient chlorinated organic matter in based regulations, EPA has also data to issue national technology-based wastewaters. At pulp and paper mills, determined that regulating AOX as part regulations for COD at this time, EPA almost all of the AOX results from of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS provides strongly urges permitting authorities to bleaching processes. Even though further assurance that human health and consider including COD limitations in dioxin and furan are no longer the environment will be protected NPDES permits for Subpart B and E measurable using today’s analytical against the potential harm associated mills on the basis of best professional methods at the end of the pipe at many with dioxin, furan, and the other judgment. See 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3). mills, the potential for formation of chlorinated organic pollutants. Pretreatment authorities should these pollutants continues to exist at d. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). establish COD local limits if COD passes through or interferes with the POTWs pulp and paper mills as long as any The proposed rule included end-of-pipe chlorine-containing compounds within the meaning of the general BAT limitations and PSES for COD. EPA (including chlorine dioxide) are used in pretreatment regulations. See 40 CFR continues to believe that COD the bleaching process. The record 403.5(c). EPA believes that permitting or limitations can be used to ensure the demonstrates a correlation between the pretreatment authorities should address operation of processes that minimize the presence of AOX and the amount of COD for the following reasons. Chronic chlorinated bleaching chemical used in discharge of all organic compounds, sublethal toxic effects have been found relation to the residual lignin in the including toxic organic compounds that to result from the discharge of treated pulp (expressed as the kappa factor). are not readily biodegraded. However, effluent from bleached and unbleached The record further shows that there is a the limited data available at this time do kraft, mechanical, and groundwood/ correlation between the kappa factor not adequately characterize other sulfite pulp mills (see DCNs 3984, and the formation of dioxin and furan. sources of COD that may be present at 13985, 13975, 13976, 13979, and Therefore, EPA concluded that reducing some complex mills, although it appears 00012). These chronic toxic effects were AOX loadings will have the effect of that the COD contributed by these measured as increased liver mixed- reducing the mass of dioxin, furan, and sources may be as great as the COD function oxydase activity and symptoms other chlorinated organic pollutants contribution from the pulp mill and of altered reproductive capacity in fish discharged by this industry. For further bleach plant areas of the mill. These (DCN 60002). This toxicity is associated discussion of EPA’s rationale for other sources of COD could include at least in part with families of non- regulating AOX, see the Supplemental paper machines, mechanical pulping, chlorinated organic materials that are Technical Development Document other on-site chemical pulping, and measured by the existing COD analytical (DCN 14487) and response to comments secondary fiber processing (including method. Some of these materials, on justification for establishing deinking). See DCN 13958 and DCN including several wood extractive limitations for AOX (DCN 14497, Vol. I). 14495. Even if sufficient data were now constituents found in pulping liquors, EPA’s decision to regulate AOX is available to establish COD limitations are refractory (i.e., resistant to rapid also based on the fact that AOX, unlike and standards for pulp mill operations biological degradation) and thus are not most of the chlorinated organic in subparts B and E, EPA does not have measurable by the five-day biochemical compounds regulated today, is sufficient information at present to oxygen demand (BOD5) analytical comparatively inexpensive to monitor evaluate the other sources of COD and method. for and is easily quantified by the performance of control technologies In order to assist permitting or applicable analytical methods. Thus, to limit COD at those sources in order pretreatment authorities in developing 18538 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

COD limitations, EPA describes below of pulping liquors (and soap and notes that where mercury was found to various processes that mills can use to turpentine) that would upset or be present, the concentrations at which control COD. The major sources of COD otherwise interfere with the operation of it was found suggests that a possible (which includes slowly biodegradable the wastewater treatment system, source of this pollutant may be and non-biodegradable organic material) refractory organic material believed to contaminants of purchased chemicals. at a pulp mill are the pulp mill and cause chronic toxic effects could still be However, the Agency did not obtain any bleach plant areas. Pulping sources of discharged at levels greater than the information or data which would either COD include digester condensates and levels achievable through optimized clearly identify the source or sources of spent pulping liquor. Open screening process technologies and effective end- mercury or the other pollutants, or processes can be a major source of COD -of-pipe treatment. For this additional provide a basis for identifying discharges. Spent pulping liquor can reason, EPA believes that COD applicable control technologies or also be lost from the process through limitations established on a best establishing effluent limitations. process spills and equipment leaks. professional judgment basis would be Therefore, EPA is not developing Bleach plant filtrates, the recovery area, appropriate. effluent limitations and standards. leaks from turpentine processing areas The COD data considered by EPA are Individual mills may still receive water at softwood mills, and pulp dryers are presented in the support document, quality based effluent limitations examples of other sources of COD at Analysis of Data for COD Limitations, (Section 301(b)(1)(C)) for any of these pulp mills. DCN 13958, for this rule. This support pollutants where necessary to protect The process changes that form the document also presents EPA’s estimates local water quality. basis of the effluent limitations (based on data available today) of the f. Biocides. EPA is retaining the guidelines and standards promulgated ranges of COD effluent load believed to current effluent limitations guidelines today include processes that can reduce be contributed by other mill operations, and standards for the biocides discharges of primarily non-chlorinated which EPA is supplying as limited pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol organic compounds. These as yet guidance to permitting and pretreatment for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now unidentified refractory organic authorities. EPA urges permitting Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda compounds have been correlated with authorities to include—and exercise— subcategory, subpart B) and former chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity from reopener clauses in NPDES permits for subparts J and U (now Papergrade pulp mill effluents. By recovering much mills subject to Subpart B or E in order Sulfite subcategory, subpart E). These of the non-chlorinated organic to impose or revise COD effluent limitations and standards are recodified compounds prior to bleaching, limitations once effluent limitations at subparts B and E. See 40 CFR discharges of chlorinated organic guidelines for COD are promulgated. 430.24(d), 430.25(d), 430.26(b), compounds also are reduced. For e. Color and Other Pollutants. EPA 430.27(b), 430.54(b), 430.55(c), example, improved brownstock proposed BAT limitations and PSES for 430.56(b), 430.57(b). For subpart B, the washing, which is part of the model color for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft limitations and standards are presented technology basis for today’s regulations, and Soda subcategory only. Commenters in the form of segments corresponding can be operated (for the purposes of asserted that EPA should not establish to the old subcategorization scheme. achieving COD limitations) to minimize effluent limitations guidelines and (EPA did not need to track the old black liquor carryover to the bleach standards for color because it is a subcategorization scheme for subpart E plant and thus reduce the formation of concern more appropriately addressed because the limitations and standards AOX and toxic chlorinated compounds. in individual permits based on for former subparts J and U were the Another process technology effective at applicable water quality standards. EPA same.) EPA is not codifying any reducing organic discharges associated agrees with this comment. The potential minimum monitoring frequency for with pulping liquors is for a mill to for significant aesthetic or aquatic these pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.02. In return all water from pulp screening to impacts from color discharges is driven addition, unless the permitting or the process, termed a closed screen by highly site-specific conditions and is pretreatment authority decides room. best dealt with on a case-by-case basis otherwise, EPA expects that mills would EPA intends for the best management through individual NPDES permits or, demonstrate compliance with these practices promulgated today for when appropriate, through local limits. limitations at the end of the pipe. Subparts B and E to lead mills to retain Therefore, the Agency is not As before, the regulations continue to spent pulping liquors in the process, to promulgating technology-based provide that a discharger is not required the maximum extent practicable, limitations or standards for color. See to meet the biocides limitations or through preventing leaks and spills and DCN 14497, Vol. I. standards if it certifies to the permitting through capturing those leaks and spills EPA did not propose effluent or pretreatment authority that it is not that do occur and returning the organic limitations for four pollutants, including using these compounds as biocides. See, material to the recovery system. The biphenyl, carbon disulfide, dimethyl e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(d). (These BMPs are also intended to lead mills to sulfone, and mercury, and indicated in certification provisions have been collect intentional diversions of spent the Technical Development Document approved by the Office of Management pulping liquors and return those (at Section 7.3.5) that these four and Budget under control number 2040– materials to the process. However, the pollutants were remaining under 0033. See 40 CFR 9.1.) EPA notes, BMP regulations do not require that the consideration for regulation. Based on however, that mills using chlorine- contained leaked and spilled material be limited data available to date, EPA has containing compounds in their recovered in the process, nor are decided not to establish effluent bleaching processes are required to meet intentional diversions required to be limitations and standards for these separate limitations or standards for returned to the process. In the absence pollutants. EPA has reached this pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5- of COD limitations, significant decision because these pollutants are trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6- quantities of this organic material could not found consistently in effluents and trichlorophenol in connection with the be metered to the wastewater treatment thus they are not directly related to new effluent limitations and standards system. As a result, while the BMP pulping and bleaching processes serving promulgated today for subparts B and E program will effectively prevent releases as the basis for BAT and NSPS. EPA regardless whether these compounds are Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18539 also used as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR unless the discharge complies with an On July 15, 1996, EPA published a 430.24(a)(1). (Those compounds are NPDES permit issued under section 402 notice of availability that, among other included within the list of the 12 of the Act. Section 301 also specifies things, summarized the changes the chlorinated phenolic pollutants levels of pollutant reductions to be Agency intended to make to the discussed in Section VI.B.3.a.) EPA is achieved by certain dates. Section proposed or promulgated analytical requiring dischargers to demonstrate 304(h) of the Act requires the EPA methods and stated that detailed compliance with these limitations and Administrator to ‘‘promulgate revisions to the methods would be standards by monitoring for those guidelines establishing test procedures added to the record at a later date. See pollutants at the point where the for the analysis of pollutants that shall 61 FR at 36848–49. In promulgating wastewater containing those pollutants include the factors which must be today’s rule, EPA has implemented the leaves the bleach plant. See, e.g., 40 CFR provided in any certification pursuant changes identified in the July 1996 430.24(e). to section 401 of this Act or permit Notice. These changes are summarized EPA believes it is appropriate to applications pursuant to section 402 of below and detailed in the response to codify separate limitations and this Act.’’ These test procedures for the comments provided in the record. standards for those pollutants, even analysis of pollutants also assist in the c. Analytical Methods Promulgated though in very rare cases a mill may be implementation of Section 301. Section Today. EPA has revised the analytical required to comply with both sets. First, 501(a) of the Act authorizes the methods compendium entitled although for the same pollutants the two Administrator to prescribe such ‘‘Analytical Methods for the sets of limitations arise from different regulations as are necessary to carry out Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and chemical applications in different parts her function under this Act. Paper Industry Wastewater’’ to of the mill. As biocides, The Administrator has also made incorporate revisions to the methods pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol these test procedures (methods) made since proposal. This compendium could be used virtually anywhere in a applicable to monitoring and reporting (EPA–821–B–97–001, August 1997) mill’s industrial process, but were of NPDES permits (40 CFR part 122, contains the analytical methods to be typically used as slimicides in §§ 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, and 123.25), used for monitoring compliance with whitewater recirculation systems. In the and implementation of the pretreatment the limitations and standards limitations and standards promulgated standards issued under section 307 of promulgated today for subparts B and E. today, however, pentachlorophenol, CWA (40 CFR part 403, §§ 403.10 and The compendium includes Method 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and 2,4,6- 403.12). Section 308 provides authority 1650 for the determination of AOX and trichlorophenol are being regulated for information gathering. Method 1653 for the determination of b. Background and History. In the because they are found in bleach plant chlorinated phenolics. These two December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA wastewater when chlorine-containing analytical methods are being compounds are used for bleaching. referenced a compendium entitled promulgated today as appendices to 40 Second, EPA expects these pollutants to ‘‘Analytical Methods for the CFR part 430. They have not yet been be reduced to quantities below the Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and promulgated at 40 CFR part 136. minimum level of the applicable Paper Industry Wastewater.’’ This analytical method as a result of bleach compendium contained methods that (1) Method 1650: AOX by Adsorption plant process changes, which is not the had not been promulgated at 40 CFR and Coulometric Titration case when they are used as biocides. part 136, but would be applicable for Method 1650 can be used to measure Thus the different limitations and monitoring compliance with the AOX in water and wastewater. AOX is standards found in subparts B and E for limitations and standards proposed for a measure of halogenated organic these pollutants respond to different part 430 at that time. The compendium compounds that adsorb onto granular situations and reflect different model included methods for the analysis of activated carbon (GAC). The method process technologies. Finally, EPA CDDs and CDFs (i.e., dioxin and furans), involves adsorption of the organic believes that mills in the Bleached AOX, chlorinated phenolics, and color. halides (chlorine, bromine, iodine) in Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory These methods were proposed for water onto GAC, removal of inorganic or the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory promulgation at 40 CFR part 430 to halides by washing, combustion of the generally do not use pentachlorophenol support the proposed regulation and organic halides (along with the GAC) to or trichlorophenol as biocides today. were included in the docket for the form hydrogen halides, and titration of See the Supplemental Technical proposed pulp and paper rule. the hydrogen halides with silver ions in Development Document, DCN 14487. EPA received more than 200 a microcoulometer. The results are Therefore, EPA expects that each mill individual comments and suggestions reported as organic chlorine even will be able to certify that it is not using concerning the proposed analytical though other halides may be present the compounds as biocides and methods. Some of these were comments because chlorine is the halide of therefore will not be subject to the on the methods not being promulgated concern in pulp and paper wastewaters. biocides-related limitations. today. Many of the comments and EPA studies have demonstrated a suggestions were technically detailed, Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 6.6 4. Analytical Methods ranging from suggestions on changing µg/L. Based on this MDL and on In this rule, EPA is promulgating the integration time in Method 1650 (for calibration of the microcoulometer, the Method 1650 for the analysis of AOX AOX) to reducing the spike levels for minimum level (ML) in Method 1650 and Method 1653 for the analysis of labeled compounds used in Method has been determined to be 20 µg/L. The certain chlorinated phenolic 1653 (for chlorinated phenolics). Other minimum level and other performance compounds. comments raised questions about EPA’s attributes for this method have been a. Authority. The analytical methods approach to technical issues and validated in single laboratory method in this final rule are promulgated under policies regarding the handling of validation studies and by use in data the authority of CWA sections 301, analytical data. EPA has included a gathering for today’s final rule. All 304(h), 307, 308, and 501(a). Section summary of the detailed comments and laboratories that used Method 1650 in 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of specific responses to those comments in the data gathering effort calibrated their any pollutant into navigable waters the record for today’s rule. instruments at the ML. 18540 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Since proposal, EPA has made manufacturer. For more information on extensively validated in field studies for changes to Method 1650 to improve the these issues, see DCN 14497, Vol. VII. this final rule. EPA believes that these ease of use and the reliability of this (2) Method 1653: Chlorophenolics by extensive studies are more than method. These changes are reflected in In-Situ Derivatization and Isotope adequate to validate Method 1653 for the version of Method 1650 being Dilution GC/MS use in data gathering to support this promulgated today and they largely Method 1653 can be used to measure final rule and for use in monitoring reflect comments and suggestions made chlorinated phenolic compounds in under this final rule. EPA also disagrees following proposal of the method. In water and wastewater amenable to in with comments that Method 1653 is response to comments, EPA made situ acetylation, extraction, and inadequate for chlorocatechols. EPA several changes to Method 1650, determination by HRGC combined with believes that Method 1653 provides including: adjustment of the low-resolution mass spectrometry more reliable data for catechols and the (LRMS). In this method, breakthrough specification to 25 percent other chlorophenolics than any other chlorophenolics are derivatized in situ based on recent data; allowance of a method available, and the commenter to form acetic acid phenolates that are 100- or 25-mL adsorption volume, provided no suggestions for how extracted with hexane, concentrated, provided the sensitivity requirements in Method 1653 could be improved for and injected into the HRGC/LRMS determination of chlorocatechols. EPA the method are met; provision of greater where separation and detection occurs. has, therefore, kept chlorocatechols in flexibility in allowable glassware sizes; EPA studies have demonstrated MDLs use of 100-mL volumes of standards for of 0.09–1.39 µg/L for chlorophenolics in Method 1653. EPA also disagrees with calibration and other purposes to water. Based on these MDLs and on comments that initial precision and conserve reagents; use of only 2-mm calibration of the GCMS instrument, recovery (IPR) and ongoing precision columns to make the column procedure minimum levels have been determined and recovery (OPR) tests should be more reproducible; adjustment of the for the 12 chlorinated phenolics in replaced with initial calibration (ICAL) QC acceptance criteria based on an today’s rule. These minimum levels of and calibration verification (VER) tests. industry interlaboratory method 2.5 or 5.0 µg/L depend on the specific (The ICAL and IPR are different in both validation study; and the addition of a compound and have been validated in form and function. The calibration test minimum integration time of 10 single laboratory validation studies and is for calibrating the analytical system minutes to assure that all AOX is by use in data gathering for today’s final while the IPR test is conducted to check measured. In addition, the format of the rule. All laboratories that used Method performance. The OPR and VER tests method has been modified to reflect the 1653 in the data gathering effort are the same; only the terminology is standardized format recommended by calibrated their instruments at the ML. different. EPA has retained use of the EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Since proposal, EPA has made OPR terminology to be consistent with Management Council (EMMC). For a changes to Method 1653 to improve the other methods.) EPA also disagrees with more detailed discussion of the changes reliability of the method and to lower comments that use of labeled made to Method 1650 since proposal, costs of measurements. These changes compounds is not worth the benefit and see DCN 14497, Vol. VII. are incorporated into the version of the that all phenols and guaiacols should be method being promulgated today; they quantitated against 3,4,5- EPA disagreed with several comments largely reflect comments and trichlorophenol. EPA believes that data on EPA’s proposed Method 1650 and suggestions made following proposal of gathered to support today’s final rule therefore did not make the changes the method. and in other studies demonstrate that suggested by commenters. In particular, In response to comments, EPA made isotope dilution provides the most EPA disagrees that the method detection several specific changes to Method precise and accurate measurement of limit (MDL) should be increased to 20 chlorophenolics and other compounds µ 1653, the most significant of which are g/L to allow for blank contamination. as follows: lowering the spike level of determined by gas chromatography/ In EPA’s view, blank contamination can the labeled compounds to reduce mass spectrometry. EPA also received µ be controlled to levels well below 20 g/ interferences with trace levels of the comments urging EPA not to allow L. EPA also disagrees that it should analytes of interest and to lower the cost modifications to the method. However, eliminate Section 8.1.2 of the proposed of labeled compounds; specifying more EPA also received a large number of method. (Section 8.1.2 contained appropriate solvents for the analytical requests that analytical methods be provisions for flexibility.) EPA has standards containing labeled and native ‘‘performance-based,’’ and has received a large number of requests that analytes; requiring laboratories to add attempted to implement the means for analytical methods be ‘‘performance- the labeled compounds to the sample allowing changes to improve detection based,’’ and has attempted to implement prior to pH adjustment; restating the and quantitation or to lower costs of the means for allowing changes in quality control acceptance criteria for measurements. Limited changes may be Section 8.1.2 (Section 9.1.2 in the recovery in terms of percent instead of made, except where specifically version of Method 1650 being concentration; and reducing method prohibited in Method 1653, provided promulgated today). Under Section flexibility in certain critical areas. In that the performance tests are repeated 8.1.2, the laboratory can make minor addition, as with Method 1650, the and the results produced by the change modifications to Method 1650 provided method has been revised into the are equivalent or superior to results that the laboratory performs all quality standardized EMMC format. produced with the unmodified method. control (QC) tests and meets all QC EPA disagreed with several comments EPA has also decided to retain the acceptance criteria. In addition, contrary on EPA’s proposed Method 1653 and mention of field duplicates in the to a suggestion from a commenter, EPA therefore did not make changes method in the event that a laboratory or has not included examples of cell suggested by commenters. EPA received discharger desires to measure sampling maintenance in Method 1650 because comments that Method 1653 has not precision. Finally, EPA has not added EPA believes that analysts who been validated adequately. EPA the requirement that laboratories should maintain the coulometric cell must be disagrees. Method 1653 has been be forced to overcome emulsions. EPA familiar with the cell maintenance validated in multiple single-laboratory believes that nearly all emulsions can be procedures provided by the instrument method validation studies and overcome and provides specific steps in Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18541 the method that the laboratory must take under this final rule. Method 1613 was volatile pollutants (chloroform); this to break the emulsion. However, EPA first proposed for general use in pollutant can be measured by already- does not wish to impose such a compliance monitoring and for other approved EPA Methods 601, 624, and requirement on laboratories in the event purposes at 40 CFR part 136 on 1624B and Standard Methods 6210B that a future sample is encountered that February 7, 1991 (56 FR 5090) and was and 6230B. Therefore, EPA has not produces an emulsion that cannot be proposed for use in pulp and paper included Method 1624C in today’s final broken. If all efforts to break the industry wastewaters at 40 CFR part 430 rule and has not formally addressed emulsion fail, Method 1653 allows the on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078). comments concerning Method 1624C. use of a dilute aliquot. For more EPA received extensive comments and EPA will consider comments on Method discussion, see Comment Response suggestions on both proposals of 1624C when this version of the method Document, Vol. VII, DCN 14497. Method 1613; in several cases, the same is promulgated for general use at 40 CFR d. Other Methods. In addition to the set of comments was submitted. EPA 136 or when the method is further methods promulgated today, the updated the final Method 1613 based on revised. effluent limitations guidelines and suggestions and comments received on (3) Other Issues Concerning Analytical standards also call for the use of Method the original proposal (56 FR 5090) and Methods Promulgated in Today’s Final 1613 (for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- on the proposal of Method 1613 for use Rule dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8- at 40 CFR part 430 (58 FR 66078). In the tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)) and docket supporting promulgation of The overall comments received from any of the approved methods for Method 1613, EPA provided a listing of the regulated industry and others chloroform to monitor compliance. detailed comments received on both provide suggestions for method These methods are discussed below. proposals of Method 1613, along with improvement but, in some cases, detailed responses to all of those question EPA’s approach to technical (1) Method 1613: CDDs and CDFs by issues in the methods and the handling HRGC/HRMS comments. Because Method 1613 was promulgated in a final rule prior to of data. For example, commenters Method 1613 uses isotope dilution promulgation of today’s final rule, and suggested that quality control tests be and high-resolution gas chromatography because EPA received comments and performed at the minimum level (ML), combined with high-resolution mass provided responses in support of that that a 3-point calibration should be used spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) for final rule, EPA is not promulgating for labeled compounds in isotope separation and detection of 17 tetra- Method 1613 as part of today’s final dilution methods, and that additional through octa-substituted dibenzo-p- rule. See the final rule promulgating QC tests should be required. dioxin and dibenzofuran isomers and Method 1613 (62 FR 48394) for all Commenters also stated that all methods congeners that are chlorinated at the 2, information concerning that method. must be subjected to interlaboratory 3, 7, and 8 positions. Separate validation, and that the compliance procedures are available for the (2) Method 1624: Volatiles by Purge- monitoring detection limit (CMDL) and determination of these analytes in water and-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS compliance monitoring quantitation and solid matrices. In the procedure, a Method 1624 is used for the limit (CMQL) should be used in place of 1–L sample is passed through a 0.45-µ determination of volatile pollutants in EPA’s method detection limit (MDL) glass fiber filter. The filter is extracted water and wastewater. It employs a gas and ML, respectively. EPA responded to with toluene in a Soxhlet/Dean-Stark chromatograph coupled to a mass these suggestions by providing specific (SDS) extractor. The aqueous filtrate is spectrometer (GC/MS) to separate and reasons why they are inconsistent with extracted with methylene chloride in a quantify volatile pollutants. Detected the provisions in other methods, are separatory funnel. Extracts from the SDS pollutants are quantified by isotope more extensive than required to assure and separatory funnel extractions are dilution. Samples of water or solids reliable results, or that they would not combined and concentrated. To remove suspended in water are purged of substantively alter the conclusions of interferences, the combined, volatile organic pollutants by a stream studies and data gathering used to concentrated extract is cleaned up using of inert gas into the gaseous phase support this final rule. The detailed various combinations of acid and base where they are concentrated onto a trap. responses to these issues are in the washes, acidic and basic silica gel, gel Subsequent heating of the trap record for this rule. permeation chromatography (GPC), introduces the concentrated volatile high-performance liquid organics into a GC/MS for separation 5. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda chromatography (HPLC), and activated and quantification. Subcategory carbon. The cleaned up extract is With no interferences present, a. BAT. (1) Technology Options concentrated to 20 µL and a 1–2 µL minimum levels of 10–50 µg/L can be Considered. aliquot is injected into the HRGC/ achieved, depending on the specific (a) Options Proposed. The Agency HRMS. pollutant. For chloroform, the minimum considered many combinations of The MDL determined for TCDD is 4.4 level is 10 µg/L. This minimum level pollution prevention technologies as part-per-quadrillion (ppq). Minimum has been validated by use. regulatory options to reduce the levels for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for When EPA initially proposed today’s discharge of toxic and nonconventional TCDD and TCDF. These MLs have been rule, it proposed to regulate four volatile pollutants from bleached papergrade validated through an interlaboratory organic pollutants. Method 1624, kraft and soda mills. These options are study and by use in the analysis of mill Revision C was proposed for monitoring discussed in the proposal and the effluents. the presence of these pollutants in Notice of Availability published on July EPA recently promulgated Method effluent discharges. Revision C 15, 1996. See 58 FR at 66109–11 and 61 1613 for the determination of CDDs and contained updates and improvements to FR at 36838–39, 36848. Five different CDFs at 40 CFR 136, Appendix A in a Method 1624, Revision B, which was options were presented in the proposal. final rule published on September 15, promulgated October 26, 1984 (49 FR The Agency proposed BAT effluent 1997 (62 FR 48394). Of the 17 congeners 43234). limitations guidelines based on an that may be measured with this method, In today’s final rule, EPA is regulating option that included the use of oxygen only TCDD and TCDF are regulated only one of the originally proposed delignification or extended cooking 18542 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations with elimination of hypochlorite and order to promote more widespread use A, with the addition of extended complete (100 percent) substitution of of advanced pollution prevention delignification (oxygen delignification chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine technologies. See 61 FR at 36849–58. As and/or extended cooking). EPA also as the key process technologies. part of this voluntary program, EPA considered a TCF option, see subsection Complete substitution of chlorine proposed to establish up to three sets of (c) immediately below, and, in the dioxide for elemental chlorine and alternative BAT limitations that would context of the Voluntary Advanced elimination of hypochlorite is known as complement the compulsory baseline Technology Incentives Program, three elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching. BAT requirements. EPA identified the sets of voluntary alternative BAT EPA’s definition of ECF bleaching proposed alternative BAT limitations as limitations. See Section IX.A. includes high shear mixing to ensure Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III BAT In a slight change from the definition adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching limitations. See 61 FR at 36850. EPA of the proposed BAT option, EPA has chemicals, as well as other technology considered basing Tier I limits on BAT defined Option B not only in terms of elements. Option B technology (if Option A were the presence of extended delignification EPA proposed this option because it chosen as the basis for the baseline BAT technology (i.e., oxygen delignification believed, based on the record at the limitations). The Tier II and Tier III or extended cooking) but also by the time, that this combination of limitations, in turn, would be based on pre-bleaching kappa number achieved technologies was both available and technologies and processes that EPA by extended delignification. Kappa economically achievable and that no expected to achieve substantial number is the measure of lignin content other available and economically reductions in pulping area condensate, in unbleached pulp and is commonly achievable option resulted in greater evaporator condensate, and bleach plant used by the industry. Many researchers effluent reductions. See 58 FR at 66110. wastewater flow. have shown (and EPA has confirmed) In the July 1996 Notice, EPA identified (b) Final ECF Options Evaluated. For strong correlations between the kappa this technology option as Option B. See this final rule, EPA considered two ECF number of the pulp entering the first 61 FR at 36838. technology options—Option A and stage of bleaching and the bleach plant EPA also considered at proposal Option B—as the basis for BAT effluent effluent loads of AOX and COD. See another option based on conventional limitations. Option A consists of DCN 14497, Vol. I. EPA concluded that pulping—complete substitution of conventional pulping followed by merely employing extended chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, complete substitution of chlorine delignification technologies, without but without the use of oxygen dioxide for elemental chlorine, as well reducing the unbleached pulp kappa delignification or extended cooking (i.e., as the following nine elements: number, is not sufficient to achieve the conventional pulping). See 58 FR at (i) Adequate chip thickness control; low effluent loadings of AOX and COD 66111. At the time of proposal, EPA was (ii) Closed brownstock pulp screen characteristic of Option B. Therefore, unable to fully analyze this alternative room operation, such that screening EPA has redefined Option B as ECF because very limited performance data filtrates are returned to the recovery with extended delignification resulting were available from mills using this cycle; in a kappa number at or below 20 for technology. Therefore, EPA solicited (iii) Use of dioxin- and furan- softwoods and below 13 for hardwoods further data and comments on this precursor-free defoamers (i.e., water- (see the Supplemental Technical option, Id. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA based defoamers or defoamers made Development Document, DCN 14487). published preliminary findings with precursor-free oils); EPA found that these kappa numbers regarding this option, which it (iv) Effective brownstock washing, are achievable by virtually all mills that identified as Option A. See 61 FR at i.e., washing that achieves a soda loss of currently have installed and are 36838–42. less than or equal to 10 kg Na2SO4 per effectively operating extended The Agency also considered a totally ADMT of pulp (equivalent to delignification technology. chlorine-free (TCF) option for the approximately 99 percent recovery of As part of the nine elements common Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda pulping chemicals from the pulp); to both Option A and Option B, EPA has subcategory at proposal. See 58 FR at (v) Elimination of hypochlorite, i.e., included strategies for minimizing 66109. TCF bleaching processes are replacement of hypochlorite with kappa factor and dioxin- and furan- pulp bleaching operations that are equivalent bleaching power in the form precursors in brownstock pulp. These performed without the use of chlorine, of additions of peroxide and/or oxygen strategies are part of Options A and B sodium hypochlorite, calcium to the first extraction stage and/or because EPA has determined that they hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine additional chlorine dioxide in final minimize the generation of dioxin, monoxide, or any other chlorine- brightening stages; furan, and AOX and, hence, are part of containing compound. EPA concluded (vi) Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced the model process sequence to achieve that TCF was not an available pollution extraction, which allows elimination of those limitations. See 61 FR at 36848 prevention technology at the time of hypochlorite and/or use of a lower and the Supplemental Technical proposal because of limited worldwide kappa factor in the first bleaching stage; Development Document, DCN 14487. experience with this process and a lack (vii) Use of strategies to minimize Kappa factor, also known as active of data for TCF bleaching of softwood to kappa factor and dioxin- and furan- chlorine multiple, is the ratio of full market brightness. To encourage precursors in brownstock pulp; chlorine bleaching power to the pulp continuing innovation in the (viii) High shear mixing during kappa number. (The kappa factor is development of processes to reduce or bleaching to ensure adequate mixing of different from the kappa number eliminate the discharge of pollutants pulp and bleaching chemicals; and discussed above.) The kappa factor used from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and (ix) Efficient biological wastewater on a particular bleach line depends on Soda subcategory, however, EPA treatment, achieving removal of the fiber furnish, final product proposed alternative BAT limits for approximately 90 percent or more of specifications, pre-bleaching processes mills adopting TCF processes. influent BOD5. These elements are employed, and optimization of In the July 1996 Notice, EPA also discussed in detail in the Supplemental bleaching costs. At the mills whose data described an incentives program that it Technical Development Document, DCN were used to characterize Option A was considering for Subpart B mills in 14487. Option B is identical to Option performance, kappa factors for softwood Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18543 furnish averaged 0.17 and all were less Nordic mill also uses extended cooking, and Soda subcategory to achieve each of than 0.2. At the mills whose data were and was able to reduce the lignin the technology options considered used to characterize Option B content of unbleached pulp to a very today. These estimated costs are performance, kappa factors for softwood low kappa number of four. At the time summarized in this section and are furnish averaged 0.23, with all but one of sampling, this mill bleached pulp to discussed in more detail in several at less than 0.21. Well-operated and a brightness of 83 ISO. The U.S. mill’s technical support documents. (See the maintained mills using comparable unbleached pulp kappa number was BAT Cost Model Support Document, kappa factors will be capable of between seven and ten. Bleached pulp DCN 13953; Memorandum: Costing achieving limitations corresponding to brightness was approximately 79 during Revisions Made Since Publication of Option A or B, respectively. Based on the first sampling episode at the U.S. July 15, 1996 Notice of Data certain site-specific factors, such as mill, but by the time of the second Availability, DCN 14493; Supplemental furnish, some mills will be capable of sampling episode, the mill had Technical Development Document, DCN achieving today’s limitations with improved its process to achieve a pulp 14487; Analysis of Impacts of BAT higher kappa factors. There are brightness of 83 ISO. Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, numerous strategies a mill can employ At both mills, chloroform or DCN 14490; Effect of Oxygen to minimize its kappa factor. See the chlorinated phenolic pollutants were Delignification on Yield of the Bleached Supplemental Technical Development not detected in samples collected by Papergrade Kraft Pulp Manufacturing Document, DCN 14487. EPA. At the U.S. mill, dioxin, furan, and Process, DCN 14491; and the Technical In addition, there are numerous AOX were not detected above the Support Document for Best Management strategies a mill can employ to minimize analytical minimum level during Practices for Spent Pulping Liquors precursors of dioxin and furan sampling fully representative of TCF Management, Spill Prevention, and contained in brownstock pulp. These operations. The average bleach plant Control, DCN 14489.) (For a discussion strategies include, but are not limited to, AOX loading measured by EPA at the of the costs associated with the improved brownstock washing, Nordic mill was 0.002 kg/ADMT Voluntary Advanced Technology improved screening to produce cleaner (compared to a long-term average of 0.51 Incentives Program BAT technologies, pulp, eliminating compression wood kg/ADMT for Option A). EPA’s dioxin see the Technical Support Document, (knots) from brownstock pulp, and sampling results for the Nordic mill DCN 14488.) All cost estimates in this using only precursor-free condensates in were surprising. Dioxin was detected at section are expressed in 1995 dollars. brownstock washers. The strategy or a concentration just above the minimum The cost components reported in this strategies appropriate for the production level in one sample of combined bleach section are engineering estimates of the of a given pulp depend on the raw plant filtrate, when the mill was cost of purchasing and installing material (wood species and the form it bleaching without the use of chlorine or equipment and the annual operating takes, i.e., chips, waste wood, or any chlorinated compounds. Furan was and maintenance costs associated with sawdust), process equipment, and the not detected. EPA believes the dioxin that equipment. See Section VIII of this specifications of the final pulp product results were unique to the operation of preamble for a discussion of the costs (brightness, cleanliness, strength, this mill and does not conclude that used in the economic impact analysis. absorbency, and others). For a TCF bleaching generates dioxin. Because EPA considers efficient discussion of these strategies, see the Neither of the two sampled mills biological wastewater treatment to be Supplemental Technical Development produced softwood pulp at full market current industry practice, EPA has not Document, DCN 14487. brightness. In the last three years, included its costs in the estimates of (c) Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF) however, several non-U.S. mills have costs of BAT. See the Supplemental Bleaching Option Evaluated. The reported the production of TCF Technical Development Document, DCN Agency received many comments that it softwood kraft pulp at full market 14487. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.c. should continue to investigate TCF brightness. EPA’s data are insufficient to below, for PSES for the Bleached bleaching because dioxin and furan are confirm that TCF processes are Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, not generated at any level with TCF technically available for the full range of EPA evaluated the same process change bleaching, thus assuring that these market products currently served by technology options that it evaluated for pollutants are not released to the ECF processes. See DCN 14497, Vol. I. BAT, with the exception of biological environment. The Agency conducted Further, EPA’s data are insufficient to wastewater treatment. As a result, EPA two sampling programs at the one U.S. define a segment of the Bleached used the same cost model to estimate mill that produces TCF bleached kraft Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory the costs of PSES and BAT. Set forth softwood pulp. EPA collected samples where TCF processing is known to be below are the total costs for all mills in of bleach plant filtrates but could not technically feasible and thus could be the subcategory (direct and indirect collect samples of treated effluent the basis of compulsory BAT dischargers) to complete the process because the mill does not employ limitations. Despite these impediments, changes that are the technology bases secondary treatment. The Agency also EPA believes that the progress being for the options considered for BAT and conducted a sampling program at a made in TCF process development is PSES. The costs of complying with Nordic mill that produces hardwood substantial, and that additional data today’s BMP requirements are also and softwood kraft pulp on two bleach may demonstrate that TCF processes are included. lines that alternate between ECF and indeed available for the full range of (i) Additional Data Gathering and TCF bleaching. Samples collected at this market products. For this reason, EPA Analysis Since Proposal. EPA updated mill could not be used to characterize also evaluated the performance of TCF its database of mill process information treated TCF bleaching effluents because mills in order to establish alternative by reviewing comments on the proposed they are combined with ECF bleaching limitations for mills that voluntarily rule and the July 15, 1996 Notice, by effluents for treatment. choose to employ TCF processes. See examining information from publicly Both of the sampled TCF softwood Section VI.B.5.a(4). available sources as well as information fiber lines employed oxygen (2) Costs of Technology Options gathered by AF&PA and NCASI, and by delignification followed by multiple Considered. The Agency estimated the contacting mills directly. The Agency stages of peroxide bleaching. The cost for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft revised the cost estimates it made at 18544 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations proposal in many ways but retained two liquor burned in the boiler by using EPA’s cost estimates for Option B now major assumptions: (1) Mills would oxygen-black liquor oxidation. EPA include the costs for new or incremental continue to make the same quantities estimates that only one boiler operated increases in OD systems for mills unable and grades of pulp; and (2) mills already by a bleached papergrade kraft and soda to achieve the kappa numbers used to using the technology bases for the BAT mill would need to be upgraded characterize the Option B technology. In technology options generally would regardless which option is selected as its July 1996 Notice, EPA described this incur only monitoring costs to comply the technology basis for today’s rule. change and additional changes to the with regulations based on those options. The cost of the upgrade is small in cost model. See 61 FR at 36840–41 and See the Supplemental Technical comparison to the cost of building or BAT Cost Model Support Document, Development Document, DCN 14487. replacing a boiler. See the Supplemental DCN 13953. EPA received comments that it Technical Development Document, DCN In response to comments on the July severely underestimated the costs of its 14487, and Analysis of Impacts of BAT 1996 Notice, EPA corrected mill-specific proposed option (now identified as Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, information and made additional Option B). Commenters contended that DCN 14490. changes to the cost model. See the this underestimate derived in large part For the purposes of estimating the Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made from EPA’s underestimate of the costs of Option B, EPA estimated costs Since Publication of July 15, 1996 increase in load of black liquor solids for implementation of oxygen Notice of Availability, DCN 14493. that will be routed to the recovery delignification (OD) based on the record Among those changes was a correction system after installation of oxygen as a whole that shows that OD does not of errors in the costs of caustic and delignification, closing screen rooms, have an impact on yield of bleached hydrogen peroxide that resulted from a improving brownstock washing, and pulp. Although some stakeholders unit conversion error (this error carried recovering additional pulping liquors asserted that EPA’s yield estimates were through the proposal and the Notice through a best management practices in error, the entire record on yield cost estimates). As a result of the (BMP) program. In addition to supports EPA’s basis for estimating the changes, including the correction made underestimating the increase in load, cost of BAT Option B. Some to the cost of caustic and hydrogen commenters claimed that EPA also commenters asserted that EPA peroxide, the net engineering operating underestimated the costs for recovery overestimated the costs for Option B and maintenance (O&M) costs for boilers to accommodate the increased presented in the July 1996 Notice by Option B for all mills in the Bleached load. Commenters asserted that most failing to account for the increase in Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory mills are recovery boiler-limited and, to yield that would result from increased from the savings of $7 employ the proposed BAT, would have implementation of OD. Industry million/year presented in the July 1996 to install new recovery boilers at a very commenters asserted that OD would Notice, to the $2 million/year increased high cost. result in reduced bleached pulp yields. costs estimated today. See the In response to these and other In response to these comments, EPA Supplemental Technical Development comments on the proposed rule, EPA reviewed all available literature reports Document, DCN 14487. and NCASI undertook several data and contacted companies operating For the purpose of estimating the cost gathering efforts aimed specifically at mills with OD systems. Although some of the regulations, EPA excluded the obtaining information to improve EPA’s laboratory and modeling analyses costs of process changes that were either cost estimates. In late 1994, NCASI indicate that OD following a modified completed or under construction as of distributed a survey to collect kraft cooking could increase yields by mid-1995. EPA incorrectly stated in the information about recovery furnace one to two percent, EPA found no July 1996 Notice that costs for process capacity and a second survey about the documentation that full-scale OD changes committed to but not yet under implementation and cost of pulping systems are being operated in this construction as of mid-1995 were also liquor spill prevention and control manner. One of the two U.S. companies excluded from the cost of this programs (i.e., BMPs). that operate more mills with OD regulation. These latter costs have been Based on this and other information, systems than any other has found no included. See the Supplemental EPA concluded that there is no statistical difference in yield measured Technical Development Document, DCN foreseeable set of circumstances where at the end of the bleach plant with the 14487. implementation of either Option A or B installation of OD. The other company (iii) Final Cost Estimates of the would force a mill to replace or even offered no specific data on yield, but has Options Considered. EPA’s final cost rebuild an existing recovery boiler. seen no substantial impact on recovery estimates for Option A and B for the Therefore, EPA strongly disagrees with boilers, indicating that no appreciable Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda comments that it severely change in yield has been experienced. subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) underestimated the costs of what is now See DCN 14491. follow in Table VI–1. known as Option B. Based on data EPA also collected additional reported in the NCASI survey, almost 60 information about the costs of process TABLE VI±1.ÐTOTAL BLEACHED percent of the recovery boilers operated equipment and updated its information PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA by the industry have sufficient capacity about the costs of chemicals, wood, to accommodate the increased loads that energy, and labor (record sections 21.1.2 SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGI- would result from implementing either to 21.1.6). EPA used this information to NEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT, Option A or B, in combination with the revise the cost model spreadsheet. See PSES AND BMPS BMP program promulgated today. At the Memorandum: Costing Revisions [1995 dollars] most of the remaining 40 percent of the Made Since Publication of July 15, 1996 recovery boilers, any increased thermal Notice of Data Availability, DCN 14493, Final cost load can be accommodated through and BAT Cost Model Support estimates improved boiler operation requiring no Document, DCN 13953. These changes Option Option capital expenditures, by increasing pulp are discussed immediately below. A B yield by using anthraquinone, or by (ii) Major Changes Since Proposal. reducing the caloric value of the black Among other changes since proposal, Capital ($ million) ...... 966 2,130 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18545

TABLE VI±1.ÐTOTAL BLEACHED precursors in brown stock pulp, high- along with details of the effluent PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA shear mixing during bleaching, and reduction calculations, are described in SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGI- efficient biological wastewater record section 22.6. NEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT, treatment). The bleaching sequences As explained in DCN 14487, after July also include medium-consistency PSES AND BMPSÐContinued 1996, EPA again recalculated the oxygen delignification. One TCF bleach [1995 dollars] effluent reductions. The baseline sequence was based on peroxide remains mid-1995. As before, EPA used bleaching (OQPP) and the other was Final cost one-half of the minimum level specified estimates based on ozone and peroxide bleaching in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the (OZEopQPZP). EPA’s final cost estimates reported detection limits to estimate Option Option for TCF bleach sequences for the total A B effluent discharge loadings when Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda pollutant concentrations were below subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) are Engineering O&M ($ minimum levels. EPA considers this a million/yr) ...... 113 2.02 as follows. See the Supplemental reasonable approach for estimating mass Technical Development Document, DCN loads because the actual concentration 14487. For both Option A and Option B, EPA of the sample is too small to measure by excluded costs for the use of dioxin- and current analytical methods, but is TABLE VI±2.ÐTOTAL BLEACHED furan-precursor-free defoamers, between zero and the detection limit. adequate wood chip size control, and PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA Furthermore, ECF processes use and efficient biological wastewater treatment SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGI- generate chlorinated compounds, so in its estimates of the costs of the final NEERING O&M COSTS OF TCF OP- EPA expects that chlorinated BAT technology options. These TIONS FOR BAT, PSES, AND BMP compounds were present (i.e., with a processes represent current industry [1995 dollars] concentration value greater than zero) in practice. See the Supplemental the samples. Thus, EPA believes that it Technical Development Document, DCN Estimated costs is appropriate to substitute a value at 14487. However, EPA’s estimate of the the midpoint between zero and the Perox- costs of BAT also includes a general detection limit (i.e., the upper bound of allowance for increased technical ide- Ozone-TCF TCF (OZEopQPZP) the concentration in the sample) for ECF supervision and process engineering (OQPP) mills. The methodology was modified that could be used, in part, to design slightly for mills that use TCF bleaching and implement a chip quality control Capital ($ million) ... 3,090 5,630 sequences. Because chlorinated program or to improve operation of Engineering O&M compounds are not used and are not existing biological wastewater ($million/yr) ...... 660 849 generated by TCF processes, EPA treatment. In addition, any mill not assumed that TCF mills would currently using dioxin- and furan- (3) Effluent Reductions Associated discharge zero kilograms per year of precursor-free defoamers can use them with Technology Options Considered. AOX and the individual chlorinated without incurring significant costs. See The Agency estimated the effluent the Supplemental Technical reductions for the Bleached Papergrade pollutants rather than an amount Development Document, DCN 14487. Kraft and Soda subcategory that will equivalent to one-half the minimum EPA evaluated the costs of retrofitting result from the BAT options it analyzed. level or detection limit multiplied by an U.S. bleached papergrade kraft and soda These estimated reductions are appropriate production-normalized flow mills to TCF bleaching to provide summarized in this section and are rate. perspective on the likelihood of TCF discussed in more detail in the EPA’s revised baselines, which were processes being found to be Supplemental Technical Development again found to be comparable to economically achievable once they are Document, DCN 14487. NCASI’s industry-wide estimates for shown to be technically available. EPA As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, dioxin and furan, were used to calculate investigated the costs of two TCF bleach EPA recalculated the effluent reduction effluent reductions summarized in sequences. These bleach sequences benefits using a new baseline of mid- Table VI–3. The table shows the included all common elements that are 1995. See 61 FR at 36840. In addition, estimated baseline and the reduction part of Option A and Option B EPA revised and simplified the from baseline expected if the option (adequate chip thickness control, closed methodology used to estimate that were implemented by all the existing brownstock pulp screen room operation, baseline (using a model mill approach). direct discharging mills in the use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free Id. EPA also used a second approach to subcategory (i.e., those mills to which defoamers, effective brownstock estimate the effluent loads of dioxin and BAT will apply). The slightly greater washing, elimination of hypochlorite, furan using data for individual mills as removals of the bleach plant pollutants oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced compiled in the NCASI 1994 Dioxin by Option B are a result of the reduced extraction, use of strategies to minimize Profile (see DCN 13764). The baseline bleach plant flow found at mills kappa factor and dioxin- and furan- calculation methodology revisions, employing Option B technology.

TABLE VI±3.ÐBASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS COMPLYING WITH BAT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED a

Mid-1995 Estimated Estimated Estimated Pollutant parameter Units baseline reductions: reductions: reductions: discharge option A option B TCF

2,3,7,8±TCDD ...... g/yr 14.0 9.88 10.8 14.0 2,3,7,8±TCDF ...... g/yr 105 98.0 99.5 105 Chloroform ...... kkg/yr 43.6 35.5 35.5 43.6 18546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI±3.ÐBASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS COMPLYING WITH BAT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED aÐContinued

Mid-1995 Estimated Estimated Estimated Pollutant parameter Units baseline reductions: reductions: reductions: discharge option A option B TCF

12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants ...... kkg/yr 51.7 42.3 44.1 51.7 AOX ...... kkg/yr 33,300 22,100 27,900 33,300 a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the reported detection limit.

The effluent reductions described and the July 1996 Notice. See 61 FR at sample-specific minimum levels for shown above are used in Section VII to 36841–42. Today’s TCDF, chloroform, some chlorinated phenolic pollutants estimate reduced human health and and AOX limitations and standards were incorrectly entered into the environmental risk attributable to have been further revised since the July databases. These values have been today’s rules. These estimates also form 1996 Notice as a result of the selection corrected. See DCN 14496, and Record the basis for estimating monetized of data sets used for the long-term Section 22.5. benefits in Section VIII. averages, variability factors, and EPA has determined that TCF (4) Development of Limitations. The limitations. See DCN 14494, 14496, and bleaching processes do not result in the proposed BAT regulations included Record Section 22.5. The rationale for generation of dioxin, furan, chloroform limitations for dioxin, furan, 12 changes in the data set selections is or chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For chlorinated phenolic pollutants, provided immediately below. See DCN this reason, EPA is not setting acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl 14487. limitations for these pollutants as part of ketone (MEK), and methylene chloride (i) Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated the voluntary alternative BAT (based on BAT process changes); and Phenolic Pollutants. For non-TCF mills, limitations and standards promulgated limitations for color, COD, and AOX EPA had proposed mass-based today for mills that certify to the use of (based on BAT process changes and limitations and standards for furan; in TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR biological wastewater treatment). In July 1996, EPA presented preliminary 430.24(a)(2). today’s rule, EPA is promulgating revised limitations and standards that (ii) AOX. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA limitations for dioxin, furan, 12 were concentration-based. EPA has presented preliminary revised AOX chlorinated phenolic pollutants, determined that a limitation on the BAT limitations and NSPS for non-TCF chloroform, and AOX. See 40 CFR concentration of furan is a more direct, mills. 430.24(a)(1). As discussed in Section and hence, a more reasonable In the July 1996 Notice, EPA VI.B.3. above, EPA is not promulgating measurement of the presence of furan indicated that although it was limitations for acetone, MEK, methylene than a mass-based limitation would be. presenting revised limitations and chloride, or color. EPA intends to When detected, furan typically is standards it would continue to analyze promulgate effluent limitations present in the effluent of Subpart B data from two mills representing the guidelines and standards for COD in a mills that use ECF bleaching at levels at performance of BAT Option A. These later rulemaking. or only slightly above the minimum data were submitted to EPA by the In addition to the new effluent level specified in the applicable industry without sufficient time for the limitations guidelines and standards for analytical method. In this case, the results to be reflected in the preliminary the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda value of mass-based limitations and limitations and standards presented in subcategory promulgated today and standards are predominantly influenced the July 1996 Notice. discussed immediately below, mills in by the variability in the bleach plant Commenters encouraged EPA to use this subcategory continue to be subject effluent flow rate and thus may not be the newly acquired data for the two to existing limitations and standards for a consistent and reliable measurement Option A mills, but also questioned why pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol of the presence of furan. Since the July certain other data in the record were not (now denominated as supplemental 1996 Notice, EPA has used one used to develop the preliminary revised limitations and standards). These mills additional data set to calculate the furan AOX limitations and standards. EPA continue to have the opportunity to be limitation; this data set was from an continued its analysis of the new data exempt from these supplemental Option B bleach line with a typical and obtained new information about limitations and standards if they certify unbleached kappa number of 20. mill operations associated with the to the permitting or pretreatment Because of this change and because of other data addressed by comments. As authority that they are not using these changes to assumptions used in the a result, EPA added data from the two chemicals as biocides. See 40 CFR statistical analysis and changes to the Option A mills to the data used to 430.24(d). computer programs, see Section characterize the performance of Option Except where noted, the following VI.B.5.a(4)(b), the value of the furan A and added data from two other mills discussion of BAT limitations also limitations and standards has changed to the data used to characterize the applies to EPA’s procedures for setting slightly from that presented in the July performance of Option B. EPA NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for Subpart B. 1996 Notice. ultimately used data from six mills to (a) Performance Data. EPA revised the EPA has made no changes to the develop the AOX limitations for each proposed limitations and standards limitations for dioxin and the 12 option, including at least one mill for based on data collected after proposal chlorinated phenolic pollutants each option for which long-term (see Pulp and Paper Mill Data Available presented in the July 1996 Notice. Upon monitoring data (for about one and a for BAT Limitations Development, DCN further review after the July 1996 half years) were available. The mills 13951) and presented the revisions in Notice, EPA discovered that some used to represent each option pulp Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18547 primarily softwood and most of them the air and effluent. Use of low air flow chloroform limitations promulgated in subsequently bleach the pulp to high washers results in less emission of this rule. See DCN 14494. brightness (i.e., greater than 88 ISO). chloroform to the air and greater loads (iv) COD. As discussed in VI.B.3.d., Tables presented in DCN 14494 show of chloroform in bleach plant effluent EPA is reserving limitations for COD at several statistics for each mill (reflecting than use of high air flow washers. See this time. the mill characteristics during the DCN 14494. In general, modern low air (b) Changes to Statistical sampling period), including furnish, flow washers (such as pressure Methodology. After the July 1996 kappa number, kappa factor, brightness, diffusion) also use less water to Notice, EPA performed a detailed type of wastewater treatment system, accomplish equivalent washing, i.e., review of the results of the statistical and approximate AOX removal in the they are more efficient than analyses, the documentation of the treatment system. For a discussion of conventional vacuum drum washers statistical methodology, the computer EPA’s development of pretreatment (high air flow washers). See DCN 14494, programs, and the data for all of the standards for AOX, see section and DCN 14497, Vol. I. Because of their limitations and standards. As a result of VI.B.5.c(6). efficient use of water and their potential this review, EPA revised the Another factor that has contributed to to reduce non-water quality assumptions regarding statistical revisions in today’s AOX limitations environmental impacts, EPA encourages analysis of data to ensure that long-term and standards is the adjustment for industry to use modern low air flow averages for TCDF and chloroform were autocorrelation in the data. See DCN washers. For this reason, EPA greater than or equal to the minimum 14496. EPA intended that this developed revised chloroform level of the analytical methods. EPA adjustment be made to the preliminary limitations and standards using only made other revisions to the statistical AOX limitations presented in the July data from mills that use low air flow assumptions and the computer 1996 Notice; however, comments on washers. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA programs that resulted in minor changes that notice stated correctly that this presented a revised bleach plant to the values of the limitations and adjustment had been excluded from the monthly average chloroform limitation standards. All of these revisions are calculations. This oversight has been of 2.80 g/kkg. This limitation was identified and described in the corrected in the calculations of today’s developed using data from four mills Statistical Support Document for the final AOX limitations and NSPS. that did not use elemental chlorine or Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart B, Since proposal, EPA has gathered hypochlorite during bleaching, and that DCN 14496. In the record, EPA has also additional data in order to establish a used low air flow bleach plant washers. provided detailed responses to final limitation for AOX for TCF EPA received comments that the comments about the statistical bleaching processes. See 40 CFR revised chloroform limitations and methodology. See DCN 14497, Vol. VI. 430.24(a)(2). EPA sampled at two mills standards were not consistently (c) Definition of Limitations and with TCF bleaching processes, one U.S. achievable by mills with the process Standards Expressed at Less Than the mill and one European mill. Analytical technologies serving as the basis for Minimum Level. In today’s rulemaking, data from sampling these two mills Options A and B. As a result of these EPA is establishing limitations and during periods representative of TCF comments, EPA re-evaluated the standards for Subparts B and E for 12 processes indicate that AOX chloroform limitations and standards chlorinated phenolic pollutants and concentrations were consistently below presented in the July 1996 Notice. dioxin that are expressed as less than minimum levels in bleach plant EPA has revised the long-term average the minimum level (‘‘

TABLE VI±4.ÐANALYTICAL METHODS AND MINIMUM LEVELS FOR REGULATED POLLUTANTS

Pollutant Method Minimum level

2,3,7,8-TCDD ...... 1613 10 pg/L 2,3,7,8-TCDF ...... 1613 10 pg/L Trichlorosyringol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 µg/L 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 µg/L 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L Tetrachlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 µg/L Tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 1653 5.0 µg/L 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 µg/L Pentachlorophenol ...... 1653 5.0 µg/L AOX ...... 1650 20 µg/L

(d) Limitations. Table VI–5 presents Kraft and Soda subcategory that are obtained from bleach plant effluent the final effluent limitations for Options based on in-plant process changes. prior to mixing with other mill A and B for the Bleached Papergrade These limitations are based on data wastestreams.

TABLE VI±5.ÐBLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA LIMITATIONS COMPARISON OF OPTIONS A AND B

Daily maximum limitation Monthly average limitation Option A Option B Option A Option B

TCDD (pg/L) ......

EPA did not establish monthly average limitation is to require permitting or pretreatment authority average limitations and standards for continuous dischargers to provide better requires more frequent monitoring for dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic control, on a monthly basis, than these pollutants than the monthly pollutants because the daily maximum required by the daily maximum monitoring frequencies specified in limitations and standards for these limitation. However, for these today’s rule, see 40 CFR 430.02, pollutants are expressed as less than the pollutants, today’s analytical methods monthly average limitations would still Minimum Level (

TABLE VI±6.ÐBLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AOX LIMITATIONS [Comparison of Options A and B, and Alternative TCF Limitations]

Alternative Option A Option B TCF limita- (kg/kkg) (kg/kkg) tions (kg/kkg)

Annual Average ...... 0.512 0.208 N/A Monthly Average Limitation ...... 0.623 0.272 N/A Daily Maximum Limitation ...... 0.951 0.476

In order for a fiber line to qualify for the December 1993 proposal and the being promulgated today for mills the voluntary alternative TCF July 1996 Notice in light of the factors subject to subpart B. As a general limitations, the discharger must certify specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) of the matter, when evaluating the economic to the permitting authority, as part of its Clean Water Act, EPA has selected impact of the candidate BAT/PSES NPDES permit application, that the fiber Option A as its technology basis for the technologies, EPA generally looks at the line bleaches pulp exclusively with TCF BAT limitations promulgated today for industry as it exists at the time the bleaching processes. See 40 CFR Subpart B. For the reasons set forth decision is made. In this industry, 430.24(a)(2). (A fiber line that swings below, EPA has also selected Option A subpart B mills will be subject to between ECF and TCF bleaching as its technology basis for the PSES significant additional costs as a result of processes, for example, would not be promulgated today for Subpart B. (For a today’s MACT I rule. See Section VIII. eligible for these alternative effluent discussion of PSES options, parameters, Therefore, although EPA has not limitations because dioxin and other and EPA’s pass-through analysis, see ascribed MACT I costs to the BAT/PSES chlorinated organic pollutants will be Section VI.B.5.c.) The record establishes costs of today’s rule, EPA is taking those generated at least some of the time and that Option A is technically available. costs into account when considering the therefore need to be controlled.) EPA See the Supplemental Technical total impact of the various BAT/PSES decided not to promulgate an additional Development Document, DCN 14487. As options on subpart B mills. This is requirement, as it had proposed, that discussed in more detail below, EPA has particularly appropriate here because would have required dischargers to also concluded that it is economically EPA undertook this Cluster rulemaking provide monitoring results for three achievable. Further, EPA has in order to consider at one time a range composite bleach plant wastewater determined, for the reasons set forth in of air and water controls and their total samples for dioxin, furan, and the 12 Section VII, that Option A has no economic consequences, among other chlorinated phenolic pollutants and unacceptable adverse non-water quality things. Thus, EPA believes that its BAT/ three grab samples for chloroform in environmental impacts. Finally, EPA PSES analysis more accurately reflects order to qualify for those limitations. determined that Option A achieves the actual costs and economic impacts See 58 FR at 66195. EPA believes that greater environmental benefits than any that mills in the Bleached Papergrade the additional proposed requirement is other economically achievable Kraft and Soda subcategory will unnecessary because EPA has no reason technology considered by EPA and, for experience. EPA also performed its to believe that a discharger would falsify that reason, also represents the best economic achievability analysis based its TCF certification and because a technology among those considered. on the impact of BAT/PSES costs discharger certifying to TCF processes at EPA considered the age, size, without considering the impact of the a particular fiber line is required in any processes, other engineering factors, and MACT I rule on subpart B mills. This case to notify the permitting authority if non-water quality environmental analysis did not change EPA’s final it converts the fiber line in whole or in impacts pertinent to mills in this conclusions. Additionally, in response part to bleaching processes employing subcategory for the purpose of to comments, and because more chlorine or chlorine-containing evaluating the BAT and PSES information is now available regarding compounds. As a result of this technology options. None of these estimated costs, EPA also considered notification, the discharger’s TCF-based factors provides a basis for selecting the economic impacts of the MACT II permit limits would need to be modified different technologies than EPA has requirements being proposed at this to reflect the new processes. See, e.g., 40 chosen as the basis for today’s BAT time. The additional consideration of CFR 122.21(g)(3), 122.21(g)(7), and limitations and PSES. projected MACT II costs also does not 122.41(l). In order to evaluate economic alter EPA’s determination of economic (5) Selection of BAT/PSES achievability, EPA concluded that it was achievability in this instance. Technology Basis. After considering all appropriate to examine BAT/PSES in EPA has determined that the selected of the technology options described in view of the MACT requirements also BAT/PSES model technology (Option A) 18550 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations is economically achievable for the the technology upon which the option of the employment losses associated Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda is based for all of its facilities. The with this option for the Bleached subcategory as a whole for several substantially higher capital cost Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. reasons. When EPA considered the associated with Option B results in the See DCN 14379, 14382, and 14388 effect of BAT/PSES compliance in light potential failure of one or more firms (contained in CBI record). In addition, of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills, that Option A does not cause. In most weaker companies might be forced to EPA estimated that the selected BAT/ cases, requirements to raise capital to sell off blocks of assets, or their PSES Option would cause two mill upgrade each mill to meet Option B corporate existence might be closures, with related direct loss of 900 limitations and standards may seriously endangered. Companies may choose to jobs and a $275 million decrease in jeopardize some companies’ ability to close marginal plants to avoid the cost shipments, and no firm failures that are cover interest on the new investments as of upgrade or to sell off mills both to likely to result in additional job loss. well as other costs. In other words, some avoid the costs of upgrade and to raise (See Section VIII.F and Table VIII–4 for companies with insufficient cash or capital to upgrade the remaining mills. other economic impacts associated with equity resources to cover the costs of Closed mills’ equipment could be sold the selected BAT/PSES option, with and these upgrades may be in jeopardy of to overseas companies, who could without MACT I compliance costs.) The bankruptcy. It takes an event of initiate low cost pulp or paper number of closures (two) is less than 3 considerable magnitude to induce production and gain market share from percent of the affected mills (86) in the bankruptcy in a firm. The fact that U.S. firms as a result. Foreign subcategory. The loss of jobs associated Option B, even when considered companies acquiring U.S. mills might with these closures is about one percent without regard for the impact of the close or alter those mills to gain market of subcategory employment. EPA MACT I rule on this subpart, is share (although such behavior is not believes that, even with these projected projected to drive one or more firms into necessarily economically efficient). impacts, the selected BAT/PSES is bankruptcy indicates to EPA the Substituting foreign for domestic economically achievable for this significant magnitude of Option B’s production means an additional loss of subcategory as a whole. When the cost capital requirements. In EPA’s view, the jobs and income for Americans. See of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills overall effect of Option B on those firms Economic Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN is not considered, the selected BAT/ would be substantial. See Section VIII.F. 14649). PSES would cause one mill closure and For a more detailed discussion of EPA’s EPA also considered the effects of no firm failures they are likely to result firm failure analysis, see the Economic delaying the implementation of Option in additional job loss. See Section Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN 14649). B for five years. EPA acknowledges that VIII.E. For confidentiality reasons, the uncertainties of the pulp and paper The magnitude of the effects that may related losses of jobs and shipments market and the financial circumstances arise from large firm bankruptcies is a cannot be disclosed in this Federal of individual firms make questionable substantial indicator of the economic Register notice, but are described in the the validity of any assumptions unachievability of Option B. The CBI portion of the record. regarding the relative effects of a five- EPA concluded that Option B is not negative effects are indefinite and year delay. EPA’s evaluation of delaying economically achievable for the unquantifiable, but EPA has reason to the implementation of Option B for five Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda believe, based on the recent history of years involves consideration of subcategory as a whole. When EPA the domestic pulp and paper industry, discounting Option B costs for five considered the effect of BAT/PSES that they are likely to be significant. The years, the expected industry price and compliance in light of the MACT I rule effects include, as examples, stock price revenue cycle, and resulting aggregate on subpart B mills, EPA estimated that turmoil, reduced workforces, and costs, closures, and firm failures. EPA Option B would cause four mill foreign ownership of formerly has determined, due to expected effects closures, with a related direct loss of up American-owned assets. Which impacts of the industry cycle, that deferring the to 4,800 jobs, and a $1.3 billion decrease occur would depend on the responses of costs of this technology for five years in shipments, and one or more firm the potentially affected firm(s) to the would not appreciably reduce the failures that are likely to result in increased costs. Companies that enter economic impacts for this subcategory additional job loss. (See Section VIII.F bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy are more as a whole compared to immediate and Table VIII–4 for other economic likely to see their stock prices fall, compliance. See Economic Analysis, impacts associated with Option B with causing substantial loss of investor Chapter 6 (DCN 14649). For example, and without MACT I compliance costs.) value and possibly becoming the target EPA found that under the most likely EPA estimates that when the cost of the of a hostile takeover by a domestic or scenario (in which the costs of MACT I rule is not considered, Option foreign company. Recent history of complying with MACT I are taken into B would cause two mill closures, with hostile or friendly takeovers shows that account), the same number of mills a related direct loss of 900 jobs and a the acquiring companies subsequently (four) would be predicted to close even $275 million decrease in shipments, and divested themselves of unproductive if implementation of Option B were one or more firm failures. See Section assets, closed a number of mills and delayed for five years. Firm failure VIII.F.1. eliminated over 15,000 jobs, affecting predictions could not be made for five While the increased number of both smaller and larger communities, years hence because the analysis is closures and related job losses with the most devastating consequences based on several financial components, associated with Option B are strong on the smaller communities. Some each of which may change dramatically indicators of economic unachievability, companies may downsize some and unpredictably in the interim. the potential firm failures (i.e., operations without closing any mills, Based on the above discussion, EPA bankruptcies) associated with this thus potentially causing job losses in concludes that only the selected BAT/ Option are particularly problematic. For communities that depend on the mills PSES technology option—Option A—is each option, EPA’s bankruptcy analysis directly or indirectly for their economic economically achievable today for the focuses on whether each affected well-being. The potential job losses Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda company can afford to make the associated with the likely firm failure(s) subcategory as a whole. EPA collective investment required to install represent an unacceptably large portion acknowledges that the number of Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18551 predicted closures attributable to Option technology economically achievable for on dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 B, when considered without regard for subpart B at this time. chlorinated phenolic compounds at the the impact of the MACT I rule on EPA also evaluated the economic bleach plant (in addition to compliance subpart B mills, is the same as the achievability of TCF process with AOX limitations) in order to number of predicted closures under technologies for subpart B mills. EPA ensure that the removals represented by Option A when MACT I impacts are concluded that the annualized cost of the MACT technology floor—complete considered. (This is also true for job retrofitting existing sources for TCF is substitution of chlorine dioxide for losses and effects on shipments.) substantially greater than the elemental chlorine and elimination of However, EPA does not believe that annualized cost of Option B (regardless hypochlorite—are attained. these impacts alone are a compelling which bleaching chemicals are used), Mills using the model BAT decision basis for this rulemaking. Not with additional impacts ranging from technology, described in section only would such an analysis fail to seven estimated closures and 7,100 job VI.B.5.a(1), are able to achieve at the account for the real-world economic losses to the potential that a greater bleach plant concentrations of dioxin number of firms would be placed in and the 12 chlorinated phenolic impacts of the concurrent MACT I jeopardy of bankruptcy. See Section pollutants at levels below the minimum rulemaking, but the closures and related VIII.F. (When this option is considered levels of currently available analytical impacts by themselves fail to express in light of MACT I compliance costs, the methods. Furan concentrations, in turn, the total economic impacts EPA predicts economic impacts would be even are very near the analytical minimum for Option B. For the reasons described greater. See id.) EPA, therefore, levels. (At the end of the pipe, furan in above, EPA concludes that it is concluded that TCF bleaching processes many mills’ effluent cannot be detected appropriate to take into account the are not economically achievable for the by available analytical methods.) potential firm failures attributable to subcategory as a whole at this time. Because only 10 to 40 percent of the Option B in this rulemaking. Further, Nevertheless, EPA is promulgating wastewater discharged by mills in EPA concludes that it is appropriate in voluntary alternative BAT limitations subpart B originates in the bleach plant, this rulemaking to base the economic and PSES based on TCF bleaching (see the Supplemental Technical achievability determination on the total processes in order to encourage mills to Development Document, DCN 14487) economic impacts (the closures and the use this technology whenever possible. the concentrations of pollutants in the projected firm failures, coupled with See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2), 430.26(a)(2). final effluent would be one-tenth to two- predicted regional and market impacts) EPA determined that Option A is the fifths of their concentrations at the of its BAT/PSES options on the best technology because no other option bleach plant. In the biological industry. Those total economic impacts that was both available and wastewater treatment system, the constitute the principal and deciding economically achievable resulted in pollutants may be present but in difference between the selected BAT/ greater reductions in effluent loadings concentrations below the applicable PSES technology basis and Option B. for dioxin, furan and other significant analytical minimum levels. When they Based on that conclusion, EPA has pollutants of concern. (See 58 FR at are discharged to receiving streams, determined that only Option A is 66110 for other options considered at however, dioxin and furan economically achievable for subpart B proposal.) For a discussion of the bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. as a whole, both when the impacts of effluent reduction benefits associated Were EPA to allow compliance compliance with the MACT I rule are with Option A, see Section VIII.G. monitoring of the final effluent, there considered and when they are not. (6) Point of Compliance Monitoring. would be no way to determine whether EPA is requiring mills in subpart B to the bleach plant effluent has been EPA is also rejecting Option B demonstrate compliance with BAT adequately controlled or whether the because its capital costs are simply too limitations for dioxin, furan, effluent has simply been diluted below high when compared to Option A. chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic the analytical minimum level by the Implementation of Option B would pollutants inside the discharger’s other flows. Diluting pollutants in this result in capital costs that are more than facility at the point where the manner rather than preventing their $1 billion greater than those associated wastewater containing those pollutants discharge is inconsistent with achieving with Option A. EPA believes that this leaves the bleach plant. EPA is the removals represented by the consideration is particularly relevant in authorized by the Clean Water Act and technology-based levels of control, and this rulemaking for several reasons. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i), hence with the purpose of the BAT First, these Cluster Rules represent the 122.45(h), and 125.3(e) to specify an in- limitations. It is also inconsistent with fourth set of effluent limitations plant point of compliance monitoring the goals of the Clean Water Act in guidelines and standards promulgated for technology-based limitations. general. See sections 101(a) and for subpart B mills. Since 1977, the Hereafter, EPA refers to the BAT 301(b)(2)(A). While no mill is required industry has incurred substantial capital limitations for which compliance must to install EPA’s model BAT technology, costs to achieve its current level of be demonstrated in-plant as ‘‘in-plant establishing limitations at the bleach pollutant control and has achieved limitations.’’ As set forth in more detail plant is the only way EPA can ensure significant pollutant loading reductions. below, EPA is establishing in-plant that none of these pollutants will be This is also the first pulp and paper limitations on bleach plant effluent discharged at concentrations greater regulation to employ process changes, because limitations imposed on those than the levels achievable through rather than treatment technologies, as pollutants at the point of discharge are implementation of the best available the core of its model BAT/PSES impractical and infeasible as measures technology. See E.I. du Pont de technology. EPA is authorized, in the of the performance of process Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, exercise of its discretion, to consider technologies representing the 129 (1977). these factors as the Administrator deems technology-based levels of control. With respect to the 12 chlorinated appropriate in selecting BAT. See CWA Moreover, in-plant effluent limitations phenolic pollutants, EPA acknowledges section 304(b)(2)(B). For all of these are consistent with the MACT standards that these pollutants could be degraded additional reasons, EPA has concluded for chloroform, which independently by biological treatment of the facility’s that Option B is not the best available require achievement of BAT limitations combined wastewater. However, the 18552 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations same process technologies necessary to limitations guidelines and standards for pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade address dioxin and furan also reduce the organic chemicals, plastics and Kraft and Soda subcategory based on the the levels of chlorinated phenolic synthetic fibers industrial category in combination of both oxygen pollutants to concentrations below 1987. See 52 FR 42522, 42658–62 (Nov. delignification and extended cooking minimum levels at the bleach plant. 5, 1987). In that rulemaking, the issue followed by 100 percent substitution of Commenters have supplied no data before EPA was whether to use in-plant chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine showing that the chlorinated phenolic limitations and standards to regulate air and elimination of hypochlorite pollutants should or indeed, as a emissions of certain volatile and semi- (identified at proposal as Option 5). The practical matter, could be segregated volatile pollutants; EPA chose not to set proposed technology bases for NSPS from the dioxin- or furan-bearing in-plant requirements for that purpose also included the other elements wastestreams in order to utilize a mill’s because it determined that the described as part of BAT in VI.B.5.a(1). secondary treatment system fully. Nor is regulation of such emissions was best EPA also proposed NSPS for BOD5 and there any assurance that BAT accomplished in a Clean Air Act TSS based on the single best limitations for these pollutants, if proceeding, which EPA was demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary monitored at the end of the pipe, would commencing at that time. See 52 FR at wastewater treatment system. See 58 FR be achieved by treatment rather than 42560–62. In contrast, EPA in this at 66116–18, 66197. To encourage simply by the effects of dilution. See 40 rulemaking integrated its decision- continuing innovation in the CFR 122.45(h). Thus, EPA believes that making under the Clean Water Act and development of processes to reduce or it is appropriate to require compliance the Clean Air Act expressly to address eliminate the discharge of pollutants monitoring for the BAT limitations on these cross-media issues. Taking into from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants account both the air and water Soda subcategory, EPA also proposed at the point they most easily can be objectives of these Cluster Rules, EPA alternative NSPS limits for mills achieved and measured—at the bleach therefore concludes that it is highly adopting TCF processes. See 58 FR at plant. appropriate for EPA to set effluent 66111. In the case of chloroform, in-plant limitations under the Clean Water Act to (2) Options Considered. In addition to limits are authorized by 40 CFR correspond to and support its the option proposed for NSPS, EPA 122.45(h) because they offset the effects concurrent regulation of air emissions considered three other options for the of dilution, in this case, the occurrence under the Clean Air Act. technology basis of NSPS for toxic and of uncontrolled volatilization. In other b. New Source Performance nonconventional pollutants. These regulatory contexts, EPA recognizes that Standards. (1) Background. The Agency options are summarized below. For dilution includes not only mixing a proposed to revise NSPS for the further discussion of these options, see pollutant of concern with other Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda the Supplemental Technical wastestreams, but also mixing it with subcategory. New mills have the Development Document, DCN 14487. excess air in the form of uncontrolled opportunity to incorporate the best The first alternative option is identical volatilization. See 52 FR 25760, 25778– available demonstrated technologies, to BAT Option B, described above. This 79 (July 8, 1987). Volatilization, like including process changes, in-plant revised NSPS option includes extended dilution, does nothing to remove, controls, and end-of-pipe treatment delignification (i.e., oxygen destroy, or immobilize pollutants, and technologies. delignification and/or extended for this reason is not in itself a form of (a) Definition of ‘‘New Source’’. EPA cooking) to produce softwood pulps treatment. id. at 25779. The policy had proposed supplemental definitions with a kappa number of approximately reasons supporting that principle in the of the term ‘‘new source,’’ as provided equal to or less than 20 (approximately hazardous waste context similarly apply in National Pollutant Discharge 13 for hardwoods), followed by here. Elimination System (NPDES) permit complete (100 percent) substitution of Finally, EPA is setting effluent program regulations found at 40 CFR chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine limitations at the bleach plant in order 122.2 and 122.29, for the pulp and and elimination of hypochlorite for to avert the non-water quality paper industry only. See 58 FR at bleaching. EPA concluded that there are environmental impacts caused by the 66116–17. EPA is codifying a definition no performance differences between the volatilization of chloroform to the air of ‘‘new source’’ in Part 430 for subparts proposed NSPS option and this revised and in order to be consistent with its B and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(j). The new option. See the Supplemental Technical Clean Air Act determination that the definition provides that new source Development Document, DCN 14487. MACT floor for chloroform consists of performance standards are triggered by EPA also considered an ECF bleach plant process modifications, i.e., new ‘‘greenfield’’ mills, complete technology used at two U.S. mills complete chlorine dioxide substitution replacements of entire fiber lines (e.g., consisting of oxygen delignification and elimination of hypochlorite as pulping and bleaching), or the followed by ozone bleaching, enhanced bleaching agents. Specifically, EPA is construction of a new source whose extraction, and final chlorine dioxide requiring under the Clean Air Act that processes are substantially independent brightening. This technology is used to chloroform emissions be controlled by of an existing source, such as a new produce pulps of somewhat lower complying with the BAT requirements fiber line built to supplement an brightness than market pulps. Finally, for all regulated pollutants. See 40 CFR existing fiber line. Specifically excluded the Agency considered a TCF process 63.445(d). Therefore, EPA has from the definition of new source are technology that one U.S. mill is determined under its Clean Air Act existing mills that modify existing fiber currently using to produce pulps with authority that bleach plant lines for purposes of complying with brightness up to 83 ISO. technologies—and bleach plant either BAT limitations or PSES, and For conventional pollutants, EPA limitations on dioxin, furan, chloroform existing mills that replace entire fiber considered the proposed NSPS option and the 12 chlorinated phenolics—are lines in order to comply with Advanced based on the single best available necessary to regulate air emissions of Technology BAT limitations. For more demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary chloroform. The situation presented details, see Section VI.B.8.a(2). wastewater treatment and a second here is very different from the situation (b) Proposed NSPS. EPA proposed option based on the best available EPA faced when promulgating effluent NSPS for toxic and nonconventional demonstrated performance of a Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18553 secondary wastewater treatment system is inviting additional data and comment source fiber line at an existing mill or as characterized by the average of the on the full range of market a new greenfield mill. Moreover, the best 50 percent of the existing mills in specifications currently being achieved process technologies that form the basis the subcategory. for TCF kraft pulp (e.g., brightness, for NSPS result in lower pollutant (3) Option Selected, Pollutants strength, and cleanliness). EPA will loadings requiring biological treatment. Regulated, and Costs. EPA is evaluate whether the performance of Loadings of BOD5 from a bleach line promulgating NSPS for the Bleached this technology will result in greater employing NSPS will be approximately Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory removals than the performance of the 30 percent lower than loadings from a for toxic and nonconventional NSPS technology option being selected conventional bleach line. Compared to pollutants based on the NSPS option today. Depending on these findings, the cost of treating wastewater from a equivalent to BAT Option B. EPA has EPA will determine whether to propose conventional bleach line to meet current determined that Option B technology revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and, BPT/BCT effluent limitations represents the best demonstrated control if appropriate, flow reduction guidelines, the cost of treating technology, process, operating method, technologies. wastewater from a NSPS bleach line to or other alternative available at this In addition to NSPS relating to the meet NSPS for conventional pollutants time. The toxic and nonconventional Voluntary Advanced Technology will be the same or lower. Finally, as of pollutants regulated by NSPS are the Incentives Program, which is discussed mid-1995 there are 14 existing mills same as those regulated by BAT. For below in this section, EPA is also representing approximately 16 percent further discussion of the NSPS model promulgating alternative NSPS for of the bleached papergrade kraft technology, the Supplemental Technical Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda production that employ the Option B Development Document, DCN 14487. mills voluntarily choosing to use TCF technology. For these reasons, EPA EPA rejected as possible NSPS technologies. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(2). concludes that the costs of complying technologies the technologies that have For the conventional pollutants BOD5 with NSPS for toxic, non-conventional not been demonstrated to achieve full and TSS, EPA is basing NSPS upon the or conventional pollutants do not market pulp specifications. EPA knows best available demonstrated present a barrier to entry. See the of two ECF bleach lines using ozone- performance of a secondary wastewater Supplemental Technical Development based bleaching in the U.S. One line treatment system as characterized by the Document, DCN 14487. See also Section uses an OZEoDD bleach sequence to average of the best 50 percent of the VIII and Chapter 6 of the Economic bleach hardwood to 83 GE brightness existing mills in the subcategory. EPA Analysis, DCN 14649. (less than 82 ISO). The other line uses has determined that the performance of The Agency also considered energy an OZEoD bleach sequence to bleach the single best mill does not account for requirements and other non-water softwood to 84 ISO, somewhat less than all sources of process-related variability quality environmental impacts for the full market brightness. EPA collected in conventional pollutant generation selected NSPS option. EPA concluded data from this line that confirm that and treatability expected in the entire that increased chemical recovery and OZEoD bleaching results in much lower subcategory, including raw materials reduced energy consumption and water use and pollutant loadings than (i.e., furnish), process operations, and operating costs would occur for this either Option A or Option B. Because of final products. In selecting the final option. EPA also concluded that non- this level of performance, EPA strongly NSPS technology basis for conventional water quality environmental impacts encourages further development of pollutants, EPA found it necessary to were only marginally different than for ozone-based bleaching sequences—as consider the secondary wastewater the selected BAT technology option and part of either ECF or TCF sequences. It treatment performance of the best 50 are acceptable. Thus, EPA concluded is possible that lines using ozone-based percent of the existing mills in this that none of the statutory factors bleaching sequences will achieve the subcategory in order to ensure that the justified selecting a different NSPS AOX limits promulgated as part of the resulting standards reflect the full range model technology than the one chosen. Voluntary Advanced Technology of processes and raw materials to See Section VII. See also the Incentives Program, which is described produce the full range of products Supplemental Technical Development in Section IX of this Notice. covered by this subcategory. For further Document, DCN 14487. With respect to TCF bleaching discussion, see the Supplemental EPA is also promulgating NSPS as processes, several non-U.S. mills have Technical Development Document, DCN part of the Voluntary Advanced reported the production of TCF 14487, and DCN 14497, Vol. I and II. Technology Incentives Program with softwood kraft pulp at full market EPA is not revising NSPS for pH for standards set at the Tier II and Tier III brightness. However, EPA’s data are not subpart B; however, for the convenience levels. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). For a sufficient to confirm that TCF bleaching of the permit writer, EPA has recodified discussion of this program, see Section processes are technically demonstrated the 1982 NSPS for pH as part of the IX. A new source may choose to enroll for the full range of market products table of newly promulgated NSPS for in the Voluntary Advanced Technology currently served by the kraft process. toxic, non-conventional, and other Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier EPA is also unable to define a segment conventional pollutants. See 40 CFR III NSPS level and therefore to commit of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and 430.25(b). to achieve those standards at the time it Soda subcategory for which TCF In selecting its model NSPS commences operation. Alternatively, a bleaching processes are known to be technologies, EPA considered all of the new source may choose to commence technically feasible and thus could be factors specified in CWA section 306, operation at the compulsory NSPS level the basis for NSPS. EPA believes that including the cost of achieving effluent and then later enroll in the Incentives progress being made in developing TCF reductions. The incremental capital cost Program at the Tier II or Tier III level as bleaching processes is substantial, of complying with the selected NSPS for an existing source, or enroll in the however, and that additional data may all pollutants, as compared to the costs Incentives Program once Tier II or Tier demonstrate that TCF processes are of complying with standards based on III limitations are achieved. indeed available for the full range of the next best technology, BAT Option A, Finally, EPA notes that the previously market products. To this end, elsewhere is only 0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total promulgated NSPS for the biocides in today’s Federal Register Notice, EPA capital cost of constructing either a new pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol 18554 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations continue to apply to all new sources. VI–6 for BAT Option B. See 40 CFR Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory See 40 CFR 430.25(d). 430.25(b)(1). For a discussion of EPA’s have been revised from those provided (4) Limitations and Point of development of those standards in the July notice. For a discussion of Compliance Monitoring. EPA is (presented in the context of possible these changes, see the Statistical promulgating NSPS for dioxin, furan, BAT limitations derived from Option B Support Document, DCN 14496. The chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic technologies), see Section VI.B.5.a(4). final NSPS for BOD5, TSS and pH are pollutants, and AOX for Subpart B at The numerical values of today’s NSPS presented in Table VI–7 below. the levels set forth in Tables VI–5 and for BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached

TABLE VI±7.ÐNEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

NSPS Continuous Non- dischargers continuous Pollutant or dischargers pollutant property Maximum for any 1 day Monthly aver- Annual aver- (kg/kkg) age (kg/kkg) age (kg/kkg)

BOD5 ...... 4.52 2.41 1.73 TSS ...... 8.47 3.86 2.72 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and Mill Study,’’ which EPA undertook in compliance with the NSPS for dioxin, AOX pass through POTWs. Therefore, cooperation with industry in 1988/89. furan, chloroform and the 12 the Agency is promulgating PSES and That study shows that direct chlorinated phenolic pollutants inside PSNS for these pollutants. See 40 CFR discharging bleached papergrade kraft the discharger’s facility at the point 430.26(a)(1) and 430.27(a)(1). and soda mills operating secondary where the wastewater containing those EPA’s record shows that both direct biological treatment systems (without pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See discharging mills and POTWs accepting the addition of bleach plant process 40 CFR 430.25(e). EPA bases this wastewaters from pulp and paper mills controls) discharge dioxin and furan in decision on the reasons discussed in in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and detectable quantities. When mills in that Section VI.B.5.a(6) for BAT limitations. Soda subcategory operate secondary subcategory later implemented bleach EPA is not specifying a point of biological treatment systems. The plant process changes and controls compliance monitoring for AOX, BOD5, indirect discharging mills in this comparable to the model BAT TSS, pH, or the biocides. subcategory contribute the majority of technologies considered in c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing the pollutant loading and up to 90 promulgating today’s BAT effluent Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment percent of the flow to these POTWs. limitations guidelines, the data show Standards for New Sources (PSNS). (1) (EPA refers to these POTWs as that dioxin and furan discharges Background. EPA proposed the same ‘‘industrial POTWs.’’) EPA has reviewed dropped below the minimum level at technology option for PSES as it did for data available in the record for BOD5 which those pollutants can be reliably BAT. This proposed option would have and TSS, among other pollutants, and measured. This was the case even where set PSES for the same pollutants has determined that the biological there was no concurrent change to the controlled by BAT. For new indirect treatment systems at these POTWs are secondary biological treatment systems. discharging facilities, EPA proposed comparable to the biological treatment (Indeed, EPA’s candidate BAT that PSNS be set equal to NSPS for the systems operated by direct discharging technologies assume secondary toxic and nonconventional pollutants. mills in subpart B. See the biological treatment systems operating At proposal, EPA also discussed three Supplemental Technical Development at the 1989 level). Because, as discussed options for implementing the Document, DCN 14487. above, the industrial POTWs receiving pretreatment standards. See 58 FR at EPA reviewed all available data in the effluent from bleached papergrade kraft 66123–25. EPA also solicited comment record to conduct a pass-through and soda mills operate biological on whether pretreatment standards for analysis. EPA compared the percent of treatment systems that are comparable BOD5 and TSS were warranted to ensure removals achieved by subpart B mills to those operated by direct discharging that pass-through of these and other implementing the BAT technologies to mills in the ‘‘104-Mill Study,’’ EPA pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur. the percent of the same pollutants concluded that subpart B mills (2) Pass-through Analysis for PSES removed by the industrial POTWs implementing the selected in-plant BAT and PSNS. EPA promulgates receiving effluent from subpart B mills. model technology achieve substantially pretreatment standards for pollutants EPA’s record shows that dioxin and greater reductions of dioxin and furan that pass through or interfere with furan are not removed by biological than industrial POTWs can achieve POTWs. EPA performed a pass-through treatment systems and so are not from effluent not subject to BAT-level analysis as part of this rulemaking, removed by the POTW. Therefore, these process controls. EPA finds that in the which is summarized below. See also pollutants pass through untreated and absence of PSES equivalent to BAT the Supplemental Technical are discharged to receiving streams, levels of control, dioxin and furan Development Document, DCN 14487. where dioxin and furan bioaccumulate would pass through POTWs. EPA also EPA has determined for subpart B mills in aquatic organisms. EPA bases this believes that the presence of these that dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12 conclusion on data reported in the ‘‘104- pollutants in the POTWs’ secondary Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18555 sludge could possibly interfere with model BAT technologies are and TSS, EPA concluded that pollutant their sludge disposal options. substantially greater than removals reductions attained by direct For chloroform, EPA also evaluated achieved by POTWs, chlorinated dischargers’ biological wastewater the removal efficiencies achieved by phenolic pollutants pass through treatment systems and by POTWs POTWs by comparing the removals POTWs. accepting similar wastewaters are achieved by direct discharging mills EPA has also determined that AOX comparable and that pass-through of using BAT process technologies to the passes through. EPA bases this these pollutants does not occur. As a removals achieved by POTWs receiving conclusion on its review of all available result, EPA is not promulgating national effluent from subpart B mills. The data regarding removals of AOX PSES or PSNS for BOD5 and TSS for the record shows that, without the BAT achieved by industrial POTWs that Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda process changes, a very high percentage receive a majority of their flow or a subcategory. Other regulatory of chloroform volatilizes from majority of their BOD5 or TSS loadings authorities may determine, based on a collection, conveyance, and aeration from indirect dischargers covered by site-specific review of treatment system systems. EPA has consistently refused subpart B. Although the data show that performance, that locally imposed limits in these circumstances to regard such the performance of these POTWs in are necessary to prevent the POTW from transfers of pollutants from wastewater removing AOX is comparable to the violating its NPDES permit. See 40 CFR to air as treatment. See, e.g., 59 FR performance of end-of-pipe biological 403.5. 50638, 50665 (Sept. 28, 1993) treatment systems operated by direct (3) Options Considered. In this final (pesticides chemicals guidelines); 58 FR dischargers in this subcategory, the data rule, EPA considered the same process 36872, 36886–88 (July 9, 1993)(organic also show that direct dischargers technology options and best chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers meeting limitations based on the model management practices for PSES and guidelines). Therefore, because of this BAT technology consistently achieve far PSNS as it did for BAT and NSPS. In a volatilization of chloroform in the greater AOX removals than biological change from the proposal, EPA did not absence of bleach plant process changes, treatment alone can achieve (e.g., at a consider for PSES/PSNS the biological the quantity of chloroform actually POTW). (See the Supplemental treatment technology that forms part of available to be removed by the POTWs’ Technical Development Document, DCN the candidate BAT and NSPS secondary treatment works is less than 14487.) Therefore, in the absence of technologies. Since proposal, EPA has the quantity of that pollutant removed pretreatment standards analogous to made new findings with respect to the by the direct discharger employing BAT. BAT, the affected POTWs receiving pass-through of BOD5 and TSS. EPA has Accordingly, EPA concludes that there pulp and paper wastewaters cannot also received comments indicating that is pass-through of chloroform in the achieve the same overall removals of the lack of sufficient land for the absence of pretreatment standards for AOX as achieved by direct dischargers installation of biological treatment at this pollutant, as well as unacceptable complying with the BAT limitations for some indirect dischargers makes such non-water quality environmental AOX. The same is also true when systems infeasible and unavailable. This impacts from air emissions. For a considering removals achieved by new finding, combined with EPA’s finding detailed discussion of chloroform sources complying with NSPS. that biological wastewater treatment volatilization, see Section 8.8 of the Therefore, contrary to the preliminary systems at POTWs treating pulp and Supplemental Technical Development finding in the July 1996 Notice, EPA paper wastewaters are comparable to the Document, DCN 14487, and the Air concludes that AOX passes through biological wastewater treatment systems Docket, No. A–92–40, Item IV–A–8. POTWs and is setting pretreatment EPA’s determination that the operated by direct discharging mills in standards for AOX for new and existing subpart B, has lead EPA to conclude chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass indirect discharging mills. See 40 CFR through the POTW is based on data in that biological wastewater treatment 430.26(a) and 430.27(a). should not be included as part of the the record showing that the selected The pretreatment standards PSES or PSNS candidate technologies. BAT process technology option (Option promulgated today for AOX are A) reduces all 12 of the chlorinated equivalent to the AOX loadings present (4) Effluent Reductions. As discussed phenolic pollutants to concentrations in the bleach plant wastewaters of mills in Section VI.B.5.a.(3) above, after less than minimum levels for these employing the BAT/NSPS technologies proposal EPA recalculated the effluent pollutants in bleach plant wastewaters, prior to biological treatment systems at reductions attributable to its PSES prior to end-of-pipe biological direct discharging mills. EPA expects technology options using a new baseline wastewater treatment systems. While that removals achieved by indirect of mid-1995. See the Supplemental biological wastewater treatment systems dischargers employing the PSES or Technical Development Document, DCN comparable to POTW treatment systems PSNS model technology, in combination 14487. have been found to remove a portion of with removals achieved by biological Table VI–8 shows the estimated these chlorinated phenolic pollutants, treatment systems at POTWs, will be baseline and the reduction from the removals achieved are less than the comparable to the removals achieved by baseline expected if the presented removals achieved by the BAT process direct dischargers complying with BAT options were implemented by all the changes alone. Therefore, because limitations or NSPS. existing indirect discharging mills in the overall chlorinated phenolic pollutant In reviewing the information available subcategory (i.e., those mills to which removals with implementation of the in the record for the pollutants BOD5 PSES will apply).

TABLE VI±8.ÐBASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED a

Estimated Estimated Estimated Pollutant parameter Units Baseline reductions: reductions: Reductions: discharge Option A Option B TCF

2,3,7,8±TCDD ...... g/yr ...... 1.25 0.92 1.00 1.25 18556 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI±8.ÐBASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED aÐContinued

Estimated Estimated Estimated Pollutant parameter Units Baseline reductions: reductions: Reductions: discharge Option A Option B TCF

2,3,7,8±TCDF ...... g/yr ...... 9.47 8.94 9.04 9.47 Chloroform ...... kkg/yr ...... 4.89 4.28 4.28 4.89 12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants ...... kkg/yr ...... 3.58 2.81 2.97 3.58 AOX ...... kkg/yr ...... 3,010 2,100 2,600 3,010 a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half the minimum level of the analytical method.

(5) PSES/PSNS Option Selection. EPA use those processes when possible. See TABLE VI±9.ÐBLEACHED PAPERGRADE is promulgating PSES and PSNS for 40 CFR 430.26(a)(2) and 430.27(a)(2). KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 The pretreatment standards for the PSES AOX LIMITATIONS chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda AOX based on the process technologies subcategory also include best Daily Monthly maximum average that form the bases for BAT and NSPS, management practices. See 40 CFR Pollutant parameter respectively. limitation limitation 430.03. These regulations are described (kg/kkg) (kg/kkg) The Agency considered the age, size, in Section VI.B.7. For a discussion of processes, other engineering factors, and the pass through of pollutants AOX ...... 2.64 1.41 non-water quality environmental controlled by BMPs, see Section VI.B.7. Similarly, with the exception of AOX, impacts pertinent to Subpart B mills in In addition, the previously promulgated developing PSES/PSNS. None of these the PSNS promulgated for Subpart B for PSES and PSNS for former subparts G, toxic and nonconventional pollutants factors provided any basis for H, I and P for the biocides establishing different PSES/PSNS. EPA are identical to the NSPS promulgated pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol for this subpart. See 40 CFR has no data to suggest that the continue to apply unless the discharger combination of technologies upon 430.27(a)(1). For a discussion of the certifies that it does not use those which today’s PSES/PSNS are based development of those pretreatment compounds as biocides. See 40 CFR results in unacceptable non-water standards, see Section VI.B.5.a(4). EPA 430.26(b) and 430.27(b). quality environmental impacts. has developed AOX limits for PSNS (6) Limitations. With the exception of based on bleach plant data for six mills Because the costs of the selected BAT AOX, the limitations promulgated as that employ the process technologies and PSES model technologies are incorporated in Option B. These attributable solely to process changes, PSES for Subpart B are identical to those promulgated as BAT limitations pretreatment standards are presented in the costs for an existing indirect- Table VI–10. discharging bleached papergrade kraft for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.26(a)(1). For a discussion of the and soda mill to comply with PSES are TABLE VI±10.ÐBLEACHED PAPER- development of those pretreatment comparable to a similar direct- GRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUB- discharging bleached papergrade kraft standards see Section VI.B.5.a(4). CATEGORY PSNS AOX LIMITATIONS and soda mill. See Section VI.B.5.a(2). EPA found that while end-of-pipe As discussed in Section VI.B.5.a(5), EPA biological treatment systems at Daily Monthly found PSES based on BAT Option A to industrial POTWs and at direct Pollutant parameter maximum average be economically achievable. Similarly, dischargers achieve comparable limitation limitation (kg/kkg) (kg/kkg) EPA considered the cost of the PSNS removals of AOX, the total AOX technology for new mills (based on BAT removals achieved by direct discharging AOX ...... 1.16 0.814 Option B) and determined that such mills are greater because of the process costs do not present a barrier to entry, changes that are part of the model BAT/ (7) Point of Compliance Monitoring. as reflected in the barrier to entry PSES technologies. Therefore, EPA has For many of the same reasons set forth discussion for NSPS in Section established AOX pretreatment standards in Section VI.B.5.a(6) above in VI.B.5.b(3). based on the performance of process connection with EPA’s decision to The rationale for choosing BAT changes alone (biological treatment is specify an in-plant point of compliance Option A as the basis for PSES is set not a component of PSES/PSNS). EPA monitoring for many of the BAT forth in Section VI.B.5.a(5). The has developed AOX limits for PSES parameters, EPA is requiring indirect rationale for selecting NSPS Option B as based on bleach plant data for eight discharging mills subject to Subpart B to demonstrate compliance with PSNS is the same as that provided in mills that employ the process Section VI.B.5.b for selecting that model pretreatment standards for dioxin, technologies incorporated in Option A. technology as the basis for NSPS for this furan, chloroform, the chlorinated These pretreatment standards are subcategory. Although for the reasons phenolic pollutants, and AOX at the presented in Table VI–9. set forth in those sections EPA is not bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.26(c) and selecting TCF bleaching processes as the 430.27(c). As is the case for direct model technology for PSES or PSNS, dischargers, data for indirect EPA nevertheless is promulgating discharging mills show that standards voluntary alternative pretreatment imposed at the point of discharge to the standards based on TCF bleaching POTW would make it impractical for processes in order to encourage mills to the permitting authority to assure that Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18557 the indirect discharger is achieving and in paragraphs b(1)–(2) below. EPA forth below. EPA also included for all removal of the pollutants as required by is promulgating final effluent segments the performance of existing the pretreatment standards. Moreover, limitations guidelines and standards for secondary biological wastewater EPA is concerned that dioxin and furan, each segment. The three segments are: treatment as part of the basis for even when present in nondetectable (1) Production of pulp and paper at nonconventional and conventional amounts at the point of discharge to the papergrade sulfite mills that use an pollutant effluent limitations and NSPS. POTW, could pass through the POTW acidic cooking liquor of calcium, For a more detailed discussion of these and accumulate in the biosolids, thus magnesium, or sodium sulfite, unless options, see the Supplemental possibly interfering with the beneficial those mills are specialty grade sulfite Technical Development Document, DCN reuse of that biosolids material. The mills. See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(1). Mills in 14487. extent to which sludge can be this segment are ‘‘calcium-, magne- (i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium- beneficially reused is the subject of a sium-, or sodium-based sulfite mills;’’ Based Sulfite Mills. The technology separate ongoing rulemaking under (2) Production of pulp and paper at option considered for papergrade sulfite CWA Section 405. Finally, under EPA’s papergrade sulfite mills that use an products made by this segment was TCF regulations, indirect dischargers are acidic cooking liquor of ammonium bleaching, as proposed. See 58 FR at prohibited from substituting dilution for sulfite, unless those mills are specialty 66114–15. Existing TCF mills in this treatment, except where dilution is grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR segment produce the same products expressly authorized by the applicable 430.51(c)(2). Mills in this segment are they had been able to produce using pretreatment standard. See 40 CFR ‘‘ammonium-based sulfite mills;’’ and elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching 403.6(d). (That is not the case here.) (3) Production of pulp and paper at processes, at up to 91 ISO brightness. This prohibition theoretically could be specialty grade sulfite mills, or Therefore, EPA did not consider ECF enforced on a pollutant-by-pollutant, ‘‘specialty grade sulfite mills.’’ Specialty bleaching as a technology option for this case-by-case basis. However, EPA is grade sulfite mills are those mills where segment, because, while technically concerned that such a solution to the a significant portion of production is available and economically achievable, effluent’s detection and dilution characterized by pulp with a high it was not the best such technology for problems may impose an unnecessary percentage of alpha cellulose and high this segment. financial and technical burden on brightness sufficient to produce end (ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. POTWs. products such as plastic molding The technology options considered for At the time of proposal, EPA compounds, saturating and laminating this segment were TCF bleaching and proposed that compliance with PSES/ products, and photographic papers. EPA ECF bleaching. ECF bleaching is any PSNS AOX limitations would be considers a significant portion of process for bleaching pulps that does demonstrated at the point of discharge production to be 25 percent or more. not employ elemental chlorine or to the POTW. Since biological treatment The specialty grade segment also hypochlorite. There are numerous is no longer part of the model includes those mills where a major variations of ECF bleaching processes. technology for PSES/PSNS, AOX portion of production is 91 ISO The ECF process considered for the limitations based upon the performance brightness and above. EPA considers a ammonium-based segment includes of the PSES/PSNS technology are more major portion of production to be 50 peroxide-enhanced extraction. appropriately set, and compliance percent or more. (iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. The demonstrated, at the bleach plant, prior See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(3). In order to technology bases considered for this to mixing with other wastestreams. This determine whether a sulfite mill belongs segment were TCF bleaching and ECF will reduce the burden on the in the specialty grade segment, bleaching. The ECF process considered pretreatment authority in implementing permitting authorities should consider for the specialty grade segment includes the PSES/PSNS limitations, as no the expected production mix over the oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced additional allowance will need to be full permit term. For mills that are extraction. factored into the AOX limitations that converting to production in the (2) Selection of BAT Technologies. In would apply due to sources of AOX specialty grade segment, EPA expects evaluating and selecting BAT beyond the bleach plant. In this respect, these mills will be subject to these technologies for the segments in this the decision to establish in-plant points limits prior to the time that these mills subcategory, EPA considered the age, of compliance monitoring for all PSES/ achieve the production mixes described size, processes, other engineering PSNS regulated parameters also furthers above. factors, and non-water quality the goals of the Unfunded Mandates b. BAT. (1) Options Considered. EPA environmental impacts pertinent to Reform Act. For all of these reasons, had proposed BAT effluent limitations Subpart E mills. None of these factors EPA is establishing in-plant points of for AOX and COD for the entire provided a basis for selecting different compliance monitoring for PSES/PSNS Papergrade Sulfite subcategory based on BAT technologies. For each segment, on a nationwide level. totally chlorine-free bleaching EPA selected the best technology processes. Totally chlorine-free (TCF) available to produce the products in 6. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory bleaching processes are bleaching each segment. Each of the selected BAT a. Segmentation of the Papergrade operations that are performed without technologies is economically achievable Sulfite Subcategory. In this final rule, the use of chlorine, sodium or calcium and has no unacceptable adverse non- EPA is dividing the Papergrade Sulfite hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine water quality environmental impacts. subcategory into three segments to monoxide, or any other chlorine- See the Supplemental Technical better reflect product considerations, the containing compound. After concluding Development Document, DCN 14487. variation in manufacturing processes, that the proposed technology was not The reasons discussed below also and the demonstration of pollution demonstrated for the full range of support EPA’s decision to select the prevention process changes within the products produced by mills using BAT model technology for each segment category for the purpose of establishing ammonium sulfite cooking liquor or for as the basis for PSES for that segment. BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. EPA’s specialty grade products, EPA (i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium- reasons for doing so are discussed in the segmented the subcategory and Based Sulfite Mills. As proposed, EPA July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36844–45, considered other BAT options as set has concluded that TCF bleaching is the 18558 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations appropriate technology basis for BAT systems already are in place at direct DCN 14494, and DCN 14118 in the limitations for the calcium-, discharging mills. (This is true for the record at Section 21.11.3. magnesium-, or sodium-based segment other papergrade sulfite segments as Therefore, for papergrade sulfite mills of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. well.) As part of that analysis, EPA also using an acidic cooking liquor of (The following discussion also applies included the costs of complying with ammonium sulfite, EPA is promulgating to PSES.) For this segment, TCF today’s BMP regulations. Because of the BAT limitations and PSES based on an technology consists of oxygen- and small size of this segment, EPA is not ECF bleaching technology. The peroxide-enhanced extraction, followed disclosing here the estimated capital technology basis for BAT limitations for by peroxide bleaching, and with all costs, operation and maintenance costs, this segment is use of dioxin- and furan- chlorine-containing compounds or post-tax annualized costs for this precursor-free defoamers, complete (100 eliminated (e.g., elemental chlorine, segment in order to protect confidential percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide hypochlorite, chlorine monoxide, etc.). business information. However, EPA for elemental chlorine, peroxide- Although still TCF, the bleaching has determined that no mills are enhanced extraction, and elimination of sequence is a change from proposal, projected to close and no firms are hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also when TCF bleaching was based on an projected to fail as a result of today’s includes high shear mixing to ensure oxygen stage with peroxide addition, BAT limitations and PSES for this adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching followed by a peroxide bleaching stage. segment. This result obtains both when chemicals. This technology basis This change to the TCF bleaching the impacts of today’s BAT/PSES are reflects the results of laboratory trials sequence reflects the more common considered together with the impacts of showing the ability to produce the full approach to TCF bleaching within this compliance with the MACT I costs, and range of products manufactured by mills segment of the Papergrade Sulfite when they are considered alone. in the ammonium segment, with subcategory and also reflects the Therefore, EPA has concluded that TCF acceptable final product characteristics. technology basis of the mill from which bleaching is economically achievable for See the record at section 30.11, DCN TCF performance data have been the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium- 14497, Vol. I, and DCN 14494. (The only collected. EPA also included pulp based sulfite pulp segment. See DCN exception is specialty grade sulfite mills cleaning to ensure that existing product 14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI). using ammonium cooking liquors.) quality specifications would continue to For these reasons, EPA has selected EPA is also promulgating voluntary be achieved. EPA has selected this the model TCF bleaching processes alternative BAT limitations and PSES technology because it is technically described above as the basis for BAT based on TCF bleaching processes in available and economically achievable limitations and PSES for the calcium-, order to encourage mills to use this for mills in this segment. magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite technology whenever it is consistent In evaluating the technical availability pulp segment. with their product mix. See 40 CFR of TCF processes for this segment, EPA (ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. 430.54(a)(2) and 430.56(a)(2). developed a database of mills in the EPA had proposed BAT based on TCF Alternative TCF limitations are also United States and Europe that produce bleaching technology for all mills in the available for new sources in this pulp using TCF bleaching technology. Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, segment. There is at least one mill in the United including those mills using ammonium- In addition to finding that the ECF States and 13 in Europe using acid based acidic cooking liquor. EPA bleaching process described above is cooking liquors of calcium, magnesium, received comments and data technically available for the ammonium- or sodium sulfite that are using TCF challenging the applicability of TCF based segment, EPA has also bleaching processes. Among them, these bleaching to ammonium-based sulfite determined that it is economically mills produce a full range of paper mills. After reviewing these comments achievable. In order to evaluate the products at up to 91 ISO brightness and data, EPA concluded that TCF economic achievability of ECF using TCF bleaching. These mills are bleaching is not demonstrated and may bleaching for this segment, EPA able to produce the same products using not be feasible for the full range of considered the costs that existing mills TCF technology that they produced products produced by ammonium-based would incur to convert to the ECF prior to converting to TCF, with no sulfite mills in the United States. See process under consideration. As part of negative impact on product quality. EPA DCN 14497, Vol. I. (The following that analysis, EPA also included the has incorporated pulp cleaners as an discussion also applies to PSES for this costs of complying with today’s BMP element of TCF technology to ensure segment.) regulations. Because of the small size of that pulp quality requirements are This conclusion is based primarily on this segment, EPA is not disclosing here maintained. See the Supplemental the greater difficulty in bleaching the estimated capital costs, operation Technical Development Document, DCN ammonium-based sulfite pulps and maintenance costs, or post-tax 14487. For these reasons, EPA (especially those pulps derived from annualized costs for this segment in concluded that TCF bleaching is softwood) without the use of chlorine- order to protect confidential business technically available for the calcium-, containing compounds compared to information. However, EPA has magnesium-, or sodium-based segment. other sulfite pulps, and the inability to determined that no mills are projected See the record at section 21.2.1. (As maintain product specifications for to close and no firms are projected to noted above, EPA has established a certain products within this segment fail as a result of today’s BAT separate segment for specialty grade using TCF bleaching. TCF bleaching has limitations and PSES for this segment. sulfite mills using these cooking not been demonstrated for products This result obtains both when the liquors.) with a high percentage of ammonium- impacts of today’s BAT/PSES are In order to evaluate the economic based sulfite pulp that also require low considered together with the impacts of achievability of TCF bleaching for this dirt count and high strength. Laboratory compliance with the MACT I costs, and segment, EPA considered the costs that scale data submitted by a firm when they are considered alone. existing mills would incur to convert to producing such products indicate that Therefore, EPA has concluded that ECF TCF processes. However, costs for such products can be produced with bleaching is economically achievable for secondary biological treatment systems elemental chlorine-free (ECF) the ammonium-based segment. See DCN have not been included because these technologies. See DCN 14497, Vol. I, 14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18559

For the foregoing reasons, EPA has capital costs, operation and basis on these parameters cannot be selected the model ECF bleaching maintenance costs, or post-tax accurately predicted from laboratory- processes described above as the basis annualized costs for this segment in scale data. One mill is currently for BAT limitations and PSES for the order to protect confidential business installing, on a full scale, the ammonium-based segment. information. However, EPA has promulgated BAT technology basis. EPA (iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills determined that the sole existing mill in expects to have data to develop EPA received comments and data this segment is not projected to close, chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations indicating that key pulp and product nor is its firm projected to fail, as a for this segment once this installation is characteristics for specialty grade sulfite result of today’s BAT limitations and complete, the mill is operating the new pulps have not been achieved using TCF PSES for this segment. This result equipment in a routine manner, and bleaching technologies. Firms obtains both when the impacts of appropriate samples are collected and producing specialty grade pulps today’s BAT/PSES are considered analyzed. indicate that required product together with the impacts of compliance (iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. characteristics are achievable using with the MACT I costs, and when they EPA is promulgating effluent limitations certain ECF bleaching technologies. See are considered alone. Therefore, EPA for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated the record at sections 19.1 and 21.11.6; has concluded that ECF bleaching is phenolic pollutants for the specialty DCN 25502; DCN 20071a8; DCN 14497, economically achievable for the grade segment, based on laboratory scale Vol. I; and DCN 14494. As indicated in specialty grade segment. See DCN 14376 data. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(3). EPA is the July 1996 Notice, EPA has continued and DCN 14388 (both CBI). reserving promulgation of chloroform, to monitor research efforts of specialty For the foregoing reasons, EPA has AOX, and COD limitations for this grade pulp producers in the field of selected the model ECF bleaching segment until such time that sufficient pollution-preventing process changes. process described above as the basis for full scale performance data are available These research efforts have progressed BAT limitations and PSES for the because the performance of the BAT to the point where data are available at specialty grade segment. technology basis on these parameters this time to promulgate limitations for (3) Pollutant Parameters Regulated for cannot be accurately predicted from this segment for dioxin, furan, and Each Segment. (i) Calcium-, laboratory scale data. chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite (4) Costs. As discussed in the July specialty grade sulfite mills, the Mills. Because the Agency is 1996 Notice, EPA revised its cost technology basis for limitations is use of promulgating BAT effluent limitations estimates for mills in the Papergrade dioxin- and furan-precursor-free for this segment based on TCF bleaching Sulfite subcategory by using the revised defoamers, complete (100 percent) technology, the maximum reduction in bleaching sequences outlined in substitution of chlorine dioxide for the discharge of chlorinated pollutants paragraph (2) above. EPA also updated elemental chlorine, oxygen- and from bleaching operations will be equipment cost curves and unit peroxide-enhanced extraction, and achieved. This is because no chlorine or operating costs. See 61 FR at 36845. The elimination of hypochlorite. ECF chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals detailed basis of these revised cost bleaching also includes high shear are used and, hence, no chlorinated estimates are provided in the record. mixing to ensure adequate mixing of pollutants are generated during The following cost estimates reflect pulp and bleaching chemicals. This bleaching. For this reason, EPA is not the total costs that mills in the technology basis reflects the results of setting effluent limitations for dioxin, Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are laboratory trials showing the ability to furan, chloroform, or the 12 specified likely to incur as a result of today’s BAT produce the full range of products chlorinated phenolic pollutants for TCF limitations, PSES, and BMP regulations, manufactured by specialty grade mills, bleaching. However, EPA is setting and are the bases for EPA’s economic with acceptable final product limitations on AOX (expressed as a level impact analyses discussed in paragraph characteristics. (This discussion also below the Minimum Level identified in (2) above. For this subcategory, EPA’s applies to PSES for this segment.) today’s analytical method for AOX) for estimated capital costs are $73.8 EPA is also promulgating voluntary mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or million, operation and maintenance alternative BAT limitations based on sodium-based sulfite pulp segment of costs are $7 million, and post-tax TCF bleaching processes in order to the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory in annualized costs are $9.8 million. (The encourage mills to use this technology order to reflect the performance of TCF general and administrative costs whenever it is consistent with their bleaching processes. See 40 CFR discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c are product mix. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(3) 430.54(a)(1). EPA is reserving already included here.) See Section VIII and 430.56(a)(3). Alternative TCF promulgation of COD limitations for this for additional discussion of costs and limitations are also available for new segment until such time that sufficient economic impacts. sources in this segment. performance data are available because (5) Effluent Reductions. EPA has In addition to finding that the ECF the performance of the BAT technology updated the calculation of effluent bleaching process described above is basis on this parameter cannot be reductions for each papergrade sulfite technically available for the specialty accurately predicted from laboratory- mill, adjusting the baseline to mid-1995. grade segment, EPA has also determined scale data. EPA used methodology similar to that that it is economically achievable. In (ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. used for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft order to evaluate the economic EPA is promulgating effluent limitations and Soda subcategory. As a result of the achievability of ECF bleaching for this for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated BAT limitations and PSES promulgated segment, EPA considered the costs that phenolic pollutants for the ammonium- today, EPA estimates that for the the one mill currently in this segment based segment. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2). Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, would incur to convert to ECF EPA is reserving promulgation of discharges of dioxin and furan will be processes. As part of that analysis, EPA chloroform limitations, AOX reduced by seven grams to less than one also included the costs of complying limitations, and COD limitations for this gram per year. (EPA expects no with today’s BMP regulations. Because segment until such time that sufficient discharges of dioxin and furan from TCF of the small size of this segment, EPA performance data are available because bleaching.) Total discharges of is not disclosing here the estimated the performance of the BAT technology chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be 18560 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240 dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated parameters cannot be accurately kilograms per year. As a result of the phenolic pollutants for this segment. predicted from laboratory scale data. TCF limitations and PSES on mills in These limitations are expressed as (7) Point of Compliance Monitoring. the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium- ‘‘evidence specifically identified as toxic pollutants and hazardous substances of such interference and pass-through pollutants or hazardous substances subject to section 304(e) and hence may was found in data from this mill and the under sections 307(a) and 311 and be controlled by regulation. Moreover, POTW, which showed higher mass implementing regulations. Although EPA determined that implementing the effluent loadings for COD, TSS and reductions of these pollutants are BMP program by regulation is necessary BOD5 before the mill implemented a significant in environmental effect, their to ensure that each pulp and paper mill BMP program. After the BMP program control is incidental to the control of all with pulp production in subparts B or was implemented, mass effluent the pollutants subject to section 304(e). E implements the type of BMPs that loadings of these pollutants were Second, EPA has independent authority EPA has determined are fundamental to reduced. Data for COD, in particular, under section 402(a)(1) to establish an effective BMP program for this indicated that short-term interference of NPDES permit conditions, including industry. While the BMP regulation is POTW operations previously observed BMPs, for any pollutant when such intended to provide considerable at higher COD levels was being conditions are necessary to carry out the flexibility to mills in designing their mitigated. EPA also bases its pass- provisions of the statute. See 40 CFR BMP programs, EPA has also through finding on an incident 122.44(k). This authority operates determined that the various BMPs occurring in 1993 at a different mill independently of section 304(e). Indeed, specified in the regulation are necessary where an intentional diversion of spent when Congress enacted section 304(e) to assure uniform and fair application of pulping liquor debilitated the mill’s specifically for toxic pollutants and the requirements. Finally, EPA believes secondary treatment system and killed hazardous substances, it acknowledged that the regulation represents an fish in the receiving waters. These data that section 402(a)(1) already provided appropriate and efficient use of its led EPA to conclude that inadequate authority for imposing BMPs in NPDES technical expertise and resources that, management and control of leaks and permits. See Statement of Sen. Muskie when exercised at the national level, spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, and (Dec. 15, 1977), reprinted in Legislative will relieve permit writers of the burden turpentine interfered with POTW History of the Clean Water Act of 1977, of implementing this aspect of the Clean operations and caused pass-through of at 453. EPA’s authority to establish Water Act on a case-by-case basis. pollutants. Because direct discharging permit conditions under section EPA also disagrees with comments mills using these BMPs achieve very 402(a)(1) is very broad. See NRDC v. asserting that EPA lacks authority to high removals and because POTWs Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. impose BMPs on indirect discharges. cannot achieve similar removals in the 1977). EPA has determined that mills These BMPs are pretreatment standards absence of BMPs employed by the without an adequate BMP program, under section 307(b) and (c). indirect discharger, EPA has determined such as that codified today, may Pretreatment standards for new and that pollutants in spent pulping liquor, experience undetected and uncontrolled existing sources under section 307 are soap, and turpentine, in the absence of leaks and spills that could disrupt the designed to prevent the discharge of controls on leaks, spills, and intentional efficiency of their treatment systems, pollutants that pass through POTWs or diversions, can cause disruption and thus resulting in exceedances of the that interfere with or are otherwise interference and do indeed pass through 18566 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations at POTWs. For this reason, EPA is would not be process wastewaters. EPA definition of process wastewater in including as part of its pretreatment proposed to require separate permitting order to clarify the applicability of standards the requirement that indirect for the discharge of such groundwaters. subparts B and E and to assist permit discharging mills implement BMPs in The proposed definition also writers and pretreatment authorities in accordance with this regulation. specifically excluded certain process developing limitations and standards. The effluent limitations guidelines and 8. Regulatory Implementation for materials from the definition of process standards promulgated today do not Effluent Limitations Guidelines and wastewater. These process materials apply to discharges that are not Standards included: Green liquor at any liquor solids level; white liquor at any liquor associated with manufacturing or a. Applicability of Effluent solids level; black liquor at any liquor processing. Any mill wishing to Limitations Guidelines and Standards. solids level resulting from processing discharge such wastewaters would need Effluent limitations act as a primary knots and screen rejects; black liquor to obtain authorization in an NPDES mechanism to control discharges of after any degree of concentration in the permit or individual control mechanism pollutants to waters of the United kraft or soda chemical recovery process; administered by a POTW. States. These limitations are applied to reconstituted sulfite and semi-chemical EPA’s use of the term ‘‘during individual mills through NPDES pulping liquors prior to use; any manufacturing or processing’’ should permits issued by EPA or authorized pulping liquor at any liquor solids level not be taken to exclude wastewaters States under section 402 of the CWA. In resulting from spills or intentional generated during routine maintenance, addition, the pretreatment standards are diversions from the process; lime mud including maintenance occurring during directly applicable to indirect and magnesium oxide; pulp stock; a scheduled temporary mill shut-down. dischargers. Once today’s regulations bleach chemical solutions prior to use; Maintenance wastewaters were not become effective, the effluent and papermaking additives prior to use explicitly excluded from the definition limitations and standards for the (e.g., alum, starch and size, clays and of process wastewater at proposal, nor appropriate subcategory must be coatings). The proposed regulation then are they excluded from the definition applied in all Federal and State NPDES would have prohibited the discharge of promulgated today. Wastewaters permits issued to direct dischargers these materials into POTWs or waters of generated during routine maintenance affected by this rule. See Section the United States without an NPDES are a result of pulp manufacturing 301(b)(2), 402(a). This section describes permit or other authorization. processes and as such are included in the applicability of these limitations and the definition of process wastewater. standards to process and other In this final rule, EPA is promulgating (2) Definition of New Source. In wastewaters generated by the mills in a definition of process wastewater today’s rule, EPA is promulgating a the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda applicable to subparts B and E. In definition of ‘‘new source’’ applicable to and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories, response to the comments opposing the Part 430, subparts B and E. See 40 CFR defines new sources subject to today’s exclusion of these process materials, 430.01(j). This definition restates the NSPS and PSNS, defines non- EPA revised the proposed definition of definition set forth in 40 CFR continuous dischargers and the process wastewaters to eliminate the 122.29(b)(1), but with the additional applicable limitations, and describes the exclusion of the named process reference to certain process changes retention of the previously promulgated materials. See 40 CFR 430.01(m). The that, in and of themselves, would not limitations and standards. proposed language would have cause a mill to become a new source. (1) Applicability of Limitations to effectively required ‘‘closed cycle’’ See 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA intends Process and Other Wastewaters. The mills, which was not EPA’s intent. The that permit writers will consult the effluent limitations guidelines and exclusion of contaminated groundwater specific ‘‘new source’’ criteria in Part standards for the pulp and paper has been retained. Because the quantity 430, rather than the more general industry apply to discharges of process and quality of such groundwaters are criteria set forth in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1) wastewaters directly associated with the likely to be highly variable on a site- and 403 when determining whether manufacturing of pulp and paper. See specific basis, the Agency concluded pulp and paper mills subject to subparts 40 CFR 430.00. EPA proposed a that their discharge to surface waters B or E are new sources. The other definition of process wastewater as any should be regulated separately from, or provisions of 40 CFR 122.29 continue to water that, during manufacturing or in addition to, process wastewaters on apply to these subparts, as do 40 CFR processing, comes into direct contact a case-by-case basis. EPA also has 122.2 and 40 CFR 403.3(k). The with or results from the production or included leachate wastewaters from definition of ‘‘new source’’ in Part 430 use of any raw material, intermediate landfills owned and operated by mills does not affect the definition of ‘‘new product, finished product, byproduct, or generating wastes associated with source’’ for purposes of the NESHAP waste product. The proposed definition manufacturing or processing subject to portion of these integrated rules. specifically included boiler blowdown; subparts B and E, where these leachate EPA is aware that application of the wastewaters from water treatment and wastewaters are commingled with other definitions in Part 122 to pulp and other utility operations; blowdown from process wastewaters. These leachate paper mills in the Bleached Papergrade high rate (e.g., greater than 98 percent) wastewaters typically comprise a very Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite recycled non-contact cooling water small proportion of the total volume subcategories has sometimes caused systems to the extent they are mixed received in end-of-pipe wastewater controversy, leading to disagreement and co-treated with other process treatment facilities. In cases where the between the permitting authority and wastewaters; and stormwaters from the volumes or pollutants found in leachate the facility whether a particular change immediate process areas to the extent wastewaters are of concern, permit at the mill triggers NSPS or PSNS. EPA they are mixed and co-treated with writers may develop individual permit is promulgating a definition of ‘‘new other process wastewaters. The limitations on a case-by-case basis. source’’ specifically for subparts B and proposed definition specifically EPA’s definition continues to define E in order to set forth the specific factors provided that contaminated process wastewater in terms of relevant to a new source determination groundwaters from on-site or off-site manufacturing or processing. EPA has for covered mills and thus, EPA hopes, groundwater remediation projects promulgated a subcategory-specific to end the disputes regarding a mill’s Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18567 new source status. Indeed, the decision the final product is bleached pulp, the incrementally while maintaining use of to promulgate subcategory-specific fiber line encompasses pulping, de- the existing fiber line in the interim. criteria in this rule is specifically knotting, brownstock washing, pulp Similarly, the Advanced Technology contemplated by the general criteria screening, centrifugal cleaning, and BAT limitations at the Tier I level codified at 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1). EPA multiple bleaching and washing stages.) promote pollution prevention believes this tailored definition is Among the changes specified in the opportunities not necessarily assured by particularly important in view of the regulation that alone do not cause an NSPS, even though the technology bases Voluntary Advanced Technology existing fiber line at a mill to be for NSPS and Tier I are similar. EPA has Incentives Program EPA is also considered a new source are: Upgrades established different limitations for Tier promulgating today for subpart B mills. of existing pulping operations; upgrades I than for NSPS because the regulations Through the Voluntary Advanced or replacement of pulp screening and are intended to achieve different Technology Incentives Program, EPA is washing operations; installation of objectives. The new source performance encouraging mills to install new process extended cooking and/or oxygen standards for AOX are more stringent technologies and even to redesign delignification systems or other post- because, as a statistical matter, EPA bleach plant operations in order to digester, pre-bleaching delignification determined that this performance level achieve effluent reductions beyond systems; and bleach plant modifications reflects the best demonstrated those required at the baseline BAT level. including changes in methods or performance by mills using the NSPS EPA does not want existing mills that amounts of chemical applications, new technology. The Tier I limitations for voluntarily choose to participate in the chemical applications, installation of AOX, in contrast, are intended to reflect Voluntary Advanced Technology new bleaching towers to facilitate a more inclusive performance level that Incentives Program to be required to replacement of sodium or calcium EPA believes existing mills employing meet NSPS simply as a consequence of hypochlorite, and installation of new extended delignification can achieve, in that election. Therefore, by pulp washing systems. 40 CFR order to encourage more mills to promulgating a definition of ‘‘new 430.01(j)(2)(i)–(iv). By expressly implement extended delignification source’’ specifically for subparts B and excluding these process modifications technologies. The Tier I limitations also E, EPA hopes not only to clarify from the new source definition, EPA require the recycle of filtrates to the application of the Part 122 definitions thus allows a mill to implement the recovery systems and impose but also to provide certainty to subpart baseline BAT/PSES technologies limitations on the lignin content of B mills choosing to participate in the without triggering NSPS or PSNS. EPA unbleached pulp, which EPA hopes will Voluntary Advanced Technology believes that interpreting process promote the use of particular pollution Incentives Program that they will not modifications that are designed to prevention technologies and, in turn, inadvertently become a new source, achieve compliance with baseline BAT/ encourage mills to look beyond Tier I to which would subject them to PSES limitations as an existing source the Tier II and Tier III levels. This goal compulsory NSPS. modification is consistent with contrasts with the objective of NSPS, For the convenience of the permit Congress’ intentions in the Clean Water which simply is to compel mills to writer, the definition of new source Act concerning the respective roles of achieve certain discharge levels by any being codified in part 430 restates the standards for existing and new sources. combination of technologies the mill As discussed in more detail below in three criteria already codified in selects, and would be defeated if the connection with the third new source § 122.29(b)(1). The first criterion definition of new source would have the provides that a source is a new source criterion, EPA believes it is appropriate effect of moving Tier I mills into NSPS. if it is constructed at a site at which no to define a new fiber line as a new Therefore, EPA has decided that, on other source is located. Section 430.01 source because the construction of the balance, imposing NSPS on mills that (j)(1)(i); see 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)(i). As new fiber line (whether to supplement replace fiber lines for the purpose of applied to part 430, this criterion is or replace an existing fiber line) participating in the Voluntary Advanced intended to ensure that a greenfield mill presents the type of pollution Technology Incentives Program would is characterized as a new source and prevention opportunities customarily discourage rather than encourage the hence is subject to NSPS or PSNS. represented by NSPS. However, EPA The second criterion specified in believes it is also appropriate to treat the long-term goal of achieving even greater today’s definition of new source replacement fiber line as an existing environmental performance. incorporates the language of 40 CFR source if that fiber line is enrolled in the The third criterion appearing in the 122.29(b)(1)(ii) with two additions. Voluntary Advanced Technology definition of new source in First, it provides that a fiber line that Incentives Program. See 40 CFR § 430.01(j)(1)(iii) is identical to the third totally replaces an existing fiber line is 430.01(j)(2)(v). EPA has decided to do criterion at § 122.29(b)(1)(iii), and a new source (unless that fiber line is this because requiring the new fiber line provides that a source is a new source enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced to meet baseline NSPS requirements if its processes are substantially Technology Incentives Program). would defeat the purpose of the independent of an existing source at the Second, it includes a list of Voluntary Advanced Technology same site. In determining whether modifications that would not trigger the Incentives Program by undercutting the processes are substantially independent, new source definition if made by more environmentally protective the permitting or pretreatment authority subpart B or E mills. See 40 CFR pollution prevention opportunities and is directed to consider such factors as 430.01(j)(1)(ii) and (2). This criterion limitations associated with that the extent to which the new facility is provides essentially that a fiber line that program. In the first place, Advanced integrated with the existing plant, and is modified to comply with baseline Technology BAT limitations at the Tier the extent to which the new facility is BAT effluent limitations or that is II and Tier III levels are more stringent engaged in the same general type of totally rebuilt to comply with Advanced than the baseline NSPS requirements; activity as the existing source. For Technology BAT limitations is not a EPA’s definition of new source thus is example, if a mill operating in the new source. (A fiber line is a series of intended to allow mills to commit to Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda operations employed to convert wood or greater pollutant reductions than EPA subcategory builds and operates an other fibrous raw material into pulp. If could otherwise compel and to do so entirely new fiber line that permanently 18568 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations supplements the capacity of an existing production levels and that many of (4) Retention of Previously fiber line (and also, incidentally, these changes do not result in or from Promulgated Effluent Limitations increases the total quantity of pollutants substantially independent facilities or Guidelines and Standards. As discussed discharged by the mill), the new fiber the total replacement of existing in more detail in Section VI.B.2, EPA is line would be considered a new source facilities. See DCN 25538 at 70–72. not revising BPT or BCT effluent subject to NSPS. Therefore, the mere fact that a mill limitations for conventional pollutants EPA believes it is appropriate to increases its production levels does not for subparts B and E. Therefore, EPA is subject a new fiber line that is mean that it concurrently has the retaining the previously promulgated substantially independent of an existing opportunity to install the type of limitations for these pollutants and fiber line to new source performance advanced pollution prevention subparts. See 40 CFR 430.22, 430.23, standards because a mill designing that technologies represented by NSPS. 430.52, 430.53. new fiber line has pollution prevention (3) Non-Continuous Discharger. EPA EPA is also retaining previously opportunities akin to those available to is changing the regulatory language promulgated NSPS for subparts B and E greenfield mills. For example, a mill defining non-continuous dischargers as because new sources that commenced would have the opportunity to it applies to subparts B and E. See 40 operation prior to the effective date of incorporate pollution prevention CFR 430.01(k)(2). EPA is also today’s NSPS remain subject to the principles when designing a new fiber republishing, without change, the earlier standards for ten years beginning line, including a new flow scheme and current definition of non-continuous on the date construction of the new water balance. This new fiber line dischargers because it continues to source was completed. CWA section would provide the opportunity to take apply to the other subparts in part 430 306(d); see 40 CFR 430.25(a), 430.55(a). advantage of pollution prevention and to the determination of technology- Finally, as discussed in more detail in Section VI.B.3.f, subparts B and E savings attributable to reduced chemical based effluent limitations on include previously promulgated end-of- needs (and costs), increased energy conventional pollutants for existing pipe effluent limitations guidelines and recovery, the possibility of improving dischargers subject to subpart B or E. standards for pentachlorophenol and yield, and other operation and See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(1). maintenance improvements. trichlorophenol. EPA is also retaining EPA notes that a fiber line that is EPA had proposed a new definition the accompanying provisions substantially independent of an existing that would have defined as a non- authorizing mills that do not use those fiber line is a new source even if the continuous discharger a mill that stored chemicals as biocides to certify this fact new fiber line is enrolled in the wastewaters for periods of at least 24 to the permitting or pretreatment Voluntary Advanced Technology hours and that released that wastewater authority with the result that they Incentives Program. EPA believes that on a batch basis. In the final definition would not be subject to those this is appropriate because the applicable to subparts B and E, EPA is limitations or standards. Id. supplemental fiber line increases both retaining the storage component of the In addition to today’s new regulations the mill’s production capacity and its proposed (and existing) regulation but is for subparts B and E, EPA is recodifying discharge of pollution to the not specifying a minimum 24-hour the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, environment. However, the fiber line storage period because EPA determined BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for the could qualify for incentives if it is that it had no particular significance for other subparts of the pulp, paper, and enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced these subparts. However, as indicated in paperboard category. These limitations Technology Incentives Program for the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36842, regulate the discharges of BOD5, TSS, NSPS at the Tier II or Tier III level. EPA is adding language defining as a zinc, and other analytes. Although EPA As reflected in the July 1996 Notice, non-continuous discharger a discharger is reorganizing the former subcategories 61 FR at 36848, EPA had considered that releases stored wastewater on a in accordance with the new subcategory excluding from the definition of new variable flow or a pollutant loading rate designations, EPA is not changing these source those mills that renovated basis. Finally, in this new definition, limitations and standards. See Section existing fiber lines but remained at EPA is clarifying that it applies to VI.B.1. existing production levels. In response storage or release of wastewaters b. Determination of Effluent to comments, EPA has decided not to required by the permitting authority for Limitations for Permits. (1) Definition of introduce production levels as a factor the purpose of protecting receiving Production and Production-Normalizing in determining new source status. First, water quality, among other purposes. Parameters. The Agency has based some taking production levels into account in See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). For subparts B of the effluent limitations guidelines determining whether an existing source and E only, EPA also is eliminating the and standards promulgated today on becomes a new source would be a requirement in the existing regulation, pollutant concentrations. Others are departure from current practice that at 40 CFR 430.01(c) (1996 ed.), for the mass-based, that is, normalized on the EPA believes is not justified in this case. NPDES authority to include maximum basis of an appropriate measure of EPA believes that the new source status day and maximum 30-day average production. Limitations and standards of a subpart B or E mill should be concentration limitations consistent for AOX, chloroform, BOD5, and TSS determined by the degree of process and with BPT, BCT, or NSPS limitations as fall into this category. production changes made at a mill’s appropriate. See 40 CFR 430.01(k). EPA This appropriate measure of fiber lines—such as the replacement of will defer to the NPDES authority to production is known as the existing digesters and bleach plants establish maximum day and maximum ‘‘production-normalizing parameter.’’ with new equipment—because those 30-day average limitations that are The current definition of ‘‘production- changes, not production levels, present necessary to protect receiving water normalizing parameter’’ is annual off- the real opportunities for pollution quality. In later final rulemaking phases the-machine production (including off- prevention represented by NSPS or (see section II, table II–2), EPA intends the-machine coating, where applicable) PSNS. Moreover, EPA agrees with to adopt for remaining subcategories the of pulp, paper, and/or paperboard, comments stating that mills subject to same definition for non-continuous divided by the number of operating days subpart B or E frequently undergo dischargers as is being promulgated that year. Most paper and paperboard changes in various degrees to increase today for subparts B and E. production is measured at the off-the- Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18569 machine moisture content, while market Mills. For facilities with multiple point line operated at the mill. At most mills, pulp is measured as air-dry metric tons source categories, subcategories, and wastewaters from acid and alkaline (10 percent moisture). EPA is not segments, the appropriate guidelines for bleaching stages are discharged to changing this definition of production each category, subcategory (or subpart), separate sewers. At some mills, as it applies to the effluent limitations and segment are used to determine a however, bleach plant wastewaters are and standards for any subcategory in single permit limit for each pollutant. discharged to a combined sewer Part 430 other than subparts B and E. Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES containing both acid and alkaline EPA is also retaining the existing Permit Writers’ Manual (EPA–833–B– wastewaters. definition of production for the NSPS 96–003, December 1996) provides For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated for conventional pollutants being guidance in determining permit limits phenolic compounds, compliance with promulgated today for subpart B and in situations when the effluent the effluent limitations and standards subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1). guidelines for one subcategory regulates can be demonstrated by collecting However, EPA is codifying a new a different set of pollutants than the separate samples of the acid and definition of production for the AOX effluent guidelines applicable to another alkaline discharges and preparing a and chloroform limitations being subcategory. For mill subject to today’s flow-proportioned composite of these promulgated today for subparts B and E. rule, this situation may arise in setting samples, resulting in one sample of See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(2). Under the new permit limits for AOX when the mill has bleach plant effluent for analysis. specialized definition, the production- production in multiple subcategories. However, in determining the normalizing parameter to be used by For pollutants regulated today at the limitations, EPA used data from acid permit writers in calculating mass-based bleach plant (i.e., dioxin, furan, and alkaline bleach plant effluents that limitations for chloroform and AOX is chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and had been analyzed separately. (EPA also air-dried metric tons of brownstock pulp chloroform, and, for subpart B PSES/ used data from combined sewers.) In a (10 percent moisture) entering the PSNS, AOX), EPA does not believe that comment on Method 1653 (DCN 20095 bleach plant at the stage during which multiple guidelines will be relevant. A8), the commenter reported problems chlorine or chlorine-containing The bleach plant is unlikely to be used in achieving the Minimum Level in compounds are first applied to the pulp. for more than one subcategory (or Method 1653 for samples of composited In the case of bleach plants that use segment in subpart E), and thus, the acid and alkaline filtrates. If necessary totally chlorine-free bleaching, the permit limit will be determined by the to achieve the Minimum Level, EPA production-normalizing parameter used limitations and standards for a single recommends that the facility test the to calculate mass-based limitations shall subcategory (or segment). effluents separately for reliable be air-dried metric tons of brownstock There may be instances where a determination of the chlorophenolics, pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the pollutant is regulated under the TCDD, and TCDF. first stage of the bleach plant from limitations and standards promulgated For chloroform, however, separate which wastewater is discharged. Id. today and the permitting authority also samples and analyses of all bleach plant Production, in turn, is defined as the wishes to establish limits for that filtrates discharged separately are annual unbleached pulp production that particular pollutant have yet to be required to prevent the loss of enters the bleach plant (at ten percent established. For example, the permitting chloroform through air stripping as the moisture) divided by the number of authority might need to use best samples are collected, measured, and operating days of the bleach plant. Id. professional judgment to determine end- composited or through chemical The Agency had proposed to change of-pipe limits for AOX for a mill with reaction when the acid and alkaline the current definition of production in production not only in subpart B or E samples are combined. If separate acid part 430 by adding the following (for which AOX limitations are being and alkaline sewers do not exist, statement: ‘‘Production in each of the promulgated today) but also in another compliance samples must be collected foregoing cases shall be determined for subpart (for which no AOX limitations from the point closest to the bleach each mill based upon the highest annual have been promulgated) that generates plant that is or can be made physically production in the past five years AOX. In these instances, the permitting accessible. divided by the number of operating days authority would use best professional (2) Compliance with ML Limitations. that year.’’ See 58 FR at 66189. EPA has judgment to develop pollutant limits for In today’s rulemaking for the Bleached decided not to revise the definition to wastestreams and pollutants not Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, include a new time basis because EPA covered by today’s rulemaking and EPA is establishing limitations and is not revising the current BPT and BCT apply those limits to determine a proper standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic effluent limitations guidelines at this permit limitation for the mill. pollutants and dioxin, and alternative time for subparts B and E. Codifying a Following promulgation of today’s TCF limitations and standards for AOX, new time basis for determining rules, EPA will develop and publish that are expressed as less than the production of AOX and chloroform additional guidance for the pulp and Minimum Level (‘‘

TABLE VI±11.ÐEXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH ML LIMITATIONS

Is concentration Value reported reported as ``de- by laboratory Does the tected'' or ``non- (ML in these sample dem- Explanation for compliance detected'' in the examples is 10 onstrate compli- determination sample? ppq) ance?

Detected ...... 4 ppq ...... Yes ...... 4 ppq is less than the ML specified in § 430.01. Detected ...... 10 ppq ...... No ...... Compliance is demonstrated only with measurements less than the ML specified in § 430.01. Detected ...... 11 ppq ...... No ...... The measured value is greater than the ML specified in § 430.01. Non-detected .... <5 ppq ...... Yes ...... <5 ppq is less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 430.01. Non-detected .... <10 ppq ...... Yes ...... Compliance is demonstrated for all values less than the ML specified in § 430.01. Non-detected .... <11 ppq ...... No ...... The sample-specific ML must be less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 430.01.

(3) AOX at Calcium-, Magnesium-, or data does not account for potential deinking processes to strip color from Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. The AOX sources of AOX other than the bleach post-consumer waste. limitation for calcium-, magnesium-, or plant. Examples of these potential AOX contributions from deinking sodium-based papergrade sulfite mills is sources of AOX include the release of operations are not covered by this rule expressed as less than the Minimum AOX from purchased pulp used in and would be addressed in developing Level (ML) of the analytical method. As papermaking, the use of chlorinated appropriate permit limitations as discussed in section VI.B.6, this AOX compounds for control of biological described in VI.B.8.b(2) above. AOX limitation is based on transfer of data growth on paper machines, chlorine use contributions due to chlorine use in collected at the bleach plant effluent to in water treatment, and bleaching treating process water supplies are not taken into account in the development the end-of-pipe for BAT. EPA received colored broke in the stock preparation of limitations and standards for the comments asserting that this transfer of area. Hypochlorite is also used in calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18571 sulfite pulp segment. In cases where Management and Budget (OMB) under with the effluent limitations and other sources of AOX, such as paper the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. standards and to mills to quickly machines, make the end-of-pipe AOX 3501, et seq. For monitoring become aware of and react to releases limitations in this rule impractical or requirements applicable to direct that may be harmful to the environment. infeasible for the purpose of assessing dischargers, EPA will seek to amend the The Agency has selected a minimum the contribution of AOX from bleach NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report monitoring frequency of once per month plant sources, the AOX limitation may ICR No. 229, OMB approval number for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated be imposed on internal waste streams 2040–0004, prior to its expiration on phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR (i.e., bleach plant effluent) before May 31, 1998. For indirect dischargers, 430.02(a). These pollutants are the most mixing with other waste streams EPA will seek to add specified toxic and bioaccumulative among those containing AOX. See 40 CFR 122.45(h). monitoring requirements for indirect regulated yet also are the most costly to (4) Minimum Monitoring Frequencies. dischargers to the National Pretreatment analyze (total cost of approximately (a) Rationale for Establishing Minimum Program ICR No. 2, OMB approval $1,325 per sample; $825 per sample for Monitoring Frequencies. EPA proposed number 2040–0009, when it expires on dioxin, furan, and $500 per sample for specific minimum monitoring October 31, 1999. EPA will not seek to all 12 chlorinated phenolic analytes). frequencies for pollutants in bleach amend this ICR prior to its expiration EPA expects that 12 data points for each plant and end-of-pipe effluent date because the monitoring pollutant per year, together with daily discharges. See 58 FR at 66189. requirements for indirect dischargers do end-of-pipe AOX data and information Although EPA proposed minimum not become effective until April 16, on process conditions from detailed mill monitoring requirements for BOD5 and 2001 for existing indirect dischargers, logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa TSS limitations established as part of and EPA anticipates no new indirect numbers, bleach plant kappa factors, NSPS, EPA is not specifying such dischargers commencing discharge prior bleached pulp brightness, etc.) that are requirements in the final rule because to the ICR expiration date. reviewable upon request, will yield a permit authorities have ample (b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring meaningful basis for establishing experience regulating these pollutants Frequency. The final rule includes compliance with the promulgated and can determine the appropriate minimum monitoring frequency limitations through long-term trends monitoring frequencies. See Section requirements for demonstrating and short-term variability in dioxin, VI.A.3 for a discussion of BOD5 compliance with limitations and furan, and chlorinated phenolic monitoring requirements under today’s standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, pollutant discharge loading patterns. air rule. See also Section VI.B.7 for a the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, The Agency has selected a minimum discussion of monitoring requirements and AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR monitoring frequency of once per week associated with BMPs. 430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). The final rule specifies minimum authorities retain authority to specify This minimum monitoring frequency monitoring frequencies for AOX, dioxin, more frequent monitoring on a case-by- has been selected because data available furan, chloroform, and chlorinated case basis and must specify AOX indicate there can be considerable phenolic pollutants for non-TCF mills monitoring frequency for TCF mills on temporal variability of this pollutant in because of the nature and composition a best professional judgment basis. The bleach plant wastewaters. Therefore, of the discharges from non-TCF minimum monitoring frequencies are more data are required to adequately bleached papergrade kraft and soda and applicable to mills in Subparts B and E assess compliance with the promulgated papergrade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR for a duration of five years after limitations and standards on both a 430.02 (a) and (b). Wastewaters from inclusion in NPDES permits for direct long-term and short-term basis. While these mills have been found to contain dischargers. See 40 CFR 430.02(b). For the cost for laboratory analysis of chlorinated organic compounds that are existing indirect dischargers, the chloroform (approximately $270 per highly toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g., minimum monitoring requirements sample) is much lower than for dioxin, dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic apply until April 17, 2006 which furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants). Process-related variability reflects a five-year monitoring period pollutants, chloroform sampling in generating these pollutants is clearly following the termination of the three- requirements are more extensive and reflected in available data. Therefore, year compliance period authorized by rigorous (e.g., sampling of all bleach given the environmental significance of CWA Section 307(b)(1). Id. For new plant filtrates using special equipment these pollutants, minimum monitoring indirect dischargers, the five year and containers to prevent is both necessary and appropriate to minimum monitoring period volatilization). Weekly data (52 data ensure that data are available to commences upon operation. Id. points) and information on process permitting authorities to have an EPA has determined the minimum conditions from detailed mill logs that adequate basis to verify compliance monitoring frequencies established by are reviewable upon request are with the technology-based effluent this rule are necessary to demonstrate expected to yield an adequate basis for limitations and standards. In contrast to compliance with the effluent limitations establishing long-term compliance discharges of BOD5 and TSS, receiving guidelines and standards promulgated trends in chloroform discharge loadings water effects from discharges of these today, particularly considering the and developing process control chlorinated pollutants are not as easily degree of change that is expected to strategies to ensure the short-term detected, are not as well understood, occur to pulping and bleaching compliance in chloroform discharge and do not manifest themselves in a processes as this rule is implemented. In loadings. manner that enables a mill to quickly establishing the minimum monitoring The Agency has selected a minimum become aware of and react to releases frequencies for the regulated pollutants, monitoring frequency of once every day that may be harmful to the environment. the Agency has struck a balance for AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR The monitoring requirements between the cost of the monitoring 430.02(a). This minimum monitoring imposed in 40 CFR 430.02 will not take regimen and the need to ensure that frequency has been selected because effect until EPA has obtained approval sufficient data are consistently available there can be considerable daily of these information collection to permitting authorities to provide an variability in chlorinated organic requirements from the Office of adequate basis to verify compliance discharge loadings to receiving streams 18572 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations reflecting both bleach plant discharge or enforcement history, or other site- Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, patterns and secondary biological specific factors indicate a need to however, EPA is proposing to allow treatment system performance that is impose more frequent monitoring than mills to demonstrate compliance with readily measured at reasonable cost. At that specified in this rule. chloroform limitations by certifying that this time, AOX analysis costs $120 per EPA has issued interim guidance for they use ECF bleaching processes and sample. This cost is likely to decrease performance-based reductions of NPDES that these processes are operated in a after this regulation is promulgated with permit monitoring frequencies, which manner consistent with certain process increased capacity at commercial may be useful for permit writers and and related factors. In this notice, EPA laboratories and analytical laboratories pretreatment authorities in determining also is seeking additional chloroform on-site at many mills. While this bulk alternative monitoring frequencies at the data, along with corresponding process parameter measures all chlorinated close of the compulsory five-year period data, to determine whether an ECF organic constituents in wastewater and imposed by this rule. (See Interim certification process for chloroform not individual pollutants, daily Guidance for Performance-Based should require certification of certain monitoring will provide an essentially Reductions of NPDES Permit process factors; for example, factors continuous data stream on a quick Monitoring Frequencies, April 1996, relating to residual lignin content, turnaround basis to mill operating EPA–833–B–96–001). This document chemical application rates, and other personnel and permit compliance provides guidance to permit writers on process variables. authorities to assess and control process implementing EPA’s NPDES regulations d. Intake Credits, Upsets, and technologies and manage the regarding appropriate monitoring in Bypasses. An intake credit is an performance of end-of-pipe biological permits and describes the conditions adjustment made to an effluent treatment systems. under which reduced monitoring would limitation to reflect the presence of a The minimum monitoring frequencies be justified. Pretreatment control pollutant in the discharger’s intake in this rule as described above will authorities also may find this guidance water beyond what is removed by an provide sufficient information to useful in setting monitoring frequencies installed technology that would evaluate mill compliance with the for industrial users of POTWs. The otherwise meet the technology-based promulgated limitations over the long current guidance applicable to all effluent limitation or standard. EPA’s term and allow permitting and industrial point sources is dated April regulations concerning intake credits are pretreatment authorities to judge 19, 1996, and is subject to revision. set forth at 40 CFR 122.45 and 40 CFR whether a different frequency of (c) Certification for TCF Bleaching. 403.15. monitoring is warranted after the initial Mills certifying in their permit A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion compulsory period of minimum application process that all bleaching of waste streams from any portion of a monitoring has been completed. These processes are totally chlorine-free are treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an data will prove useful to permitting exempted from the minimum exceptional incident in which there is authorities and also to mill operators in monitoring frequencies established in unintentional non-compliance with developing a robust mill-specific this rule, provided that analytical data technology-based permit effluent compliance data base with which to routinely submitted as part of the permit limitations because of factors beyond analyze the effects of mill processes on application confirm the absence of the reasonable control of the permittee. effluent trends. The five-year duration chlorinated compounds. See 40 CFR EPA’s regulations concerning bypasses of the minimum monitoring 430.02. EPA believes it is appropriate to and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR requirements is consistent with permit exclude TCF mills from the minimum 122.41 (m) and (n). issuance cycles, will ease administrative monitoring frequencies for chlorinated e. Variances and Modifications to burdens on operators and permitting compounds since any process change Permits. (1) Variances. Dischargers authorities, and will provide data useful that introduces chlorinated compounds subject to the BAT and PSES limitations for establishing appropriate monitoring to the bleaching process requires promulgated in these final regulations requirements during future permit notification to the permitting authority may apply for a Fundamentally renewals. and would result in reopening the Different Factors (FDF) variance under Following completion of the permit for modification. See, e.g., 40 the provisions of section 301(n) of the compulsory five-year monitoring period CFR 122.21(g)(3), 122.21(g)(7), and CWA. The FDF variance considers those set forth by this rule, the permitting or 122.41(l). facility-specific factors that a permittee pretreatment authority has discretion to (d) ECF Certification in Lieu of believes to be uniquely different from adjust monitoring requirements as Monitoring. In response to comments, the factors considered by EPA in deemed appropriate on a case-by-case EPA has considered whether developing an effluent guideline to basis. For those mills consistently certification of ECF bleaching processes determine whether the effluent demonstrating reductions superior to can be used in lieu of monitoring. guidelines limitations should be those required merely to comply with Because of the effect that operation and inapplicable to the permittee’s facility. their permit requirements, EPA believes control of pulping and bleach plant An FDF variance is based only on that it may be appropriate to allow less processes have on generation of information submitted to EPA during frequent monitoring to reduce the chlorinated pollutants, EPA has the rulemaking establishing the effluent regulatory burden. EPA expects the determined that the information limitations, or on information the permitting or pretreatment authority available at this time does not applicant did not have a reasonable also to consider the mill’s compliance demonstrate that ECF certification alone opportunity to submit during the and enforcement history in determining is sufficient to ensure compliance with rulemaking process. See CWA section monitoring frequencies. This avenue for the regulations promulgated today. 301(n)(1)(B). If fundamentally different relief provides incentives for voluntary Therefore, this rule does not allow factors are determined to exist, the reductions of pollutant discharges certification of ECF bleaching to replace alternative effluent limitations for the through such means as reuse and monitoring. (See DCN 14497, Vol. I, and petitioner must be no less stringent than recycling. EPA also expects permitting section VI.B.5 of this preamble for a those justified by the fundamental and pretreatment authorities to consider discussion of factors affecting difference. See CWA section whether poor performance, compliance chlorinated pollutant generation.) 301(n)(1)(C). The alternative effluent Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18573 limitation must not result in non-water permittee suggests a need for a reductions described in this section quality environmental impacts modification. Any interested person generate the quantified and monetized significantly greater than those accepted may request that a permit modification benefits described in Section VIII of this by EPA in promulgating the effluent be made. There are two classifications of preamble. This section also discusses limitations guidelines or pretreatment modifications: major and minor. From a the non-water quality environmental standards. See CWA section procedural standpoint, they differ impacts of the effluent limitations 301(n)(1)(D). FDF variance requests, primarily with respect to the public guidelines and standards promulgated along with all supporting information notice requirements. Major today, including air emissions, energy and data, must be received by the modifications require public notice requirements, solid waste generation, permitting authority within 180 days while minor modifications do not. See water use, and wood consumption. after publication of the final effluent 40 CFR 122.63. Virtually all Sections II.B.2 and VII.A describe air limitations guideline or standard. See modifications that result in less and water pollution control CWA section 301(n)(a). The specific stringent conditions are treated as a technologies for each subcategory regulations covering FDF variance major modification, with provisions for regulated today: Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and requirements and administration are public notice and comment. Conditions Semi-chemical mills that are subject to found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1), 40 CFR that would necessitate a major MACT I and MACT III standards; and Part 125, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 403.13. modification of a permit are described bleached papergrade kraft and soda and Dischargers may also apply for a in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications papergrade sulfite mills that are subject variance from the BAT limitations on are generally non-substantive changes. to effluent limitations guidelines and non-conventional pollutants in these The conditions for minor modification standards. EPA estimates that the final regulations under CWA section are described in 40 CFR 122.63. application of these technologies by the 301(c) (for economic reasons) and 301(g) 155 mills regulated by today’s air rules, VII. Environmental Impacts (for water quality reasons). Regulations including 96 of those mills also for the administration of these variances This section of the preamble describes regulated by today’s water rules, will are specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2). the environmental impacts of the air substantially reduce air emissions and New sources subject to NSPS or PSNS and water regulations being water pollution discharges, as described are not eligible for variances. See E.I. promulgated today, and the in Section VII.B. DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977). environmental impacts of the MACT II A. Summary of Sources and Level of (2) Permit Modifications. It may be regulations being proposed today. These Control necessary to modify a permit at some impacts are described in terms of point after it has been issued. In a reductions in air pollution emissions Table VII–1 shows a summary of permit modification, only the expected as a result of the final MACT sources and technology bases/level of conditions subject to change are I and proposed MACT II rules, as well control for the final BAT/PSES effluent reconsidered. All other permit as the reduction in water pollution limitations guidelines and standards, conditions remain in effect unchanged. (effluent) discharges expected as a result and the final MACT I standards. The A permit modification may be triggered of today’s effluent limitations guidelines summary of sources and level of control in several ways, such as when the and standards for Subparts B and E. (In for MACT II are discussed in the regulatory agency inspects the facility this section, all references to MACT I preamble for the proposed MACT and finds a need for the modification, or include MACT III unless expressly standards elsewhere in today’s Federal when information submitted by the noted.) The emissions and effluent Register. 18574 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VII±1.ÐFINAL CLUSTER RULESÐSOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY BASES/LEVEL OF CONTROL

Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III technology bases) by subcategory levels of control) by subcategory Papergrade sulfite Best Man- agement Secondary Bleached Calcium, Practices Soda and and nonwood papergrade magnesium, Ammonium Specialty (BMP), (Sub- Kraft semi- Sulfite fiber, and kraft and soda and sodium sulfite grade parts B and chemical mechanical sulfite E) wood fiber

Selected BAT/PSES Spent Control LVHC System Vents See Bleach Pulping Plant Block Liquor Spill Below Prevention and Con- trol. ECF: 100% TCF: ECF: 100% ECF: 100% ...... Control Se- Control Pulp Control Pulp Substitution Oxygen- Substi- Substi- lected Washing Washing of Chlorine and perox- tution of tution of HVLC System System with Chlorine ide-en- Chlorine Chlorine Vents and Vents at Vents, and Dioxide; ef- hanced ex- with Chlo- with Chlo- Named New Control fective traction; rine Diox- rine Diox- High HAP Sources. Liquor and brownstock peroxide ide; peroxide; Con- Acid Tank washing; bleaching; ide-en- oxygen- centrated Vents at elimination of elimination hanced ex- and perox- Conden- New hypochlorite; of all chlo- traction; ide-en- sate Sources. oxygen-and rine-con- elimination hanced ex- Streams. peroxide-en- taining of hypo- traction; hanced ex- com- chlorite; elimination traction; pounds; and use of of hypo- closed and im- dioxin-and chlorite; brown-stock proved furan-pre- and use of screening; pulp clean- cursor-free dioxin and and other ing. defoamers. furan pre- processes cursor-free discussed at defoamers. Section VI.B.5.a(1). Bleach Plant: Control Chlorinated HAP from Vents at Stages That Use Chlorinated Bleaching Chemicals, and Control Chloroform Emissions by Complying with BAT codified at 40 CFR 430.24(a) and (e) and 40 CFR 430.54(a) and (c) or by 100% substitution of chlorine with chlorine dioxide and elimination of hypochlorite.

B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Cluster Rules in combination with the monoxide are estimated to increase Reductions MACT II proposed standards. under the final rules, but are expected The air emission impacts presented in to decrease when combined with the 1. Air Emissions Reductions Table VII–2 are calculated based on proposed MACT II standards. Emissions The reductions described in this mill-specific processes and emission of sulfur dioxides, and, to a lesser section are derived from estimated air control information, emission factors, degree, nitrogen oxides are estimated to emissions reductions at all 155 pulp and and control levels summarized in Table increase. Sulfur dioxide emissions are paper mills in the CAA kraft, soda, VII–1. A more detailed discussion of the generated primarily from the sulfite and semichemical subcategories calculation of the environmental combustion of sulfur-containing that are subject to MACT I and MACT impacts for the final MACT standards is compounds, such as TRS, in the vent II standards. These mills include the 96 presented in Chapter 20 of the streams at kraft mills. The increases in Background Information Document carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and mills subject to the effluent limitations described in Section XI of this particulate matter air emissions are guidelines and standards promulgated preamble. A detailed discussion of the primarily from the combustion of air today. All references in this section to environmental impacts of the proposed vents in the pulping area and increased MACT I air emissions refer to the MACT II is contained in the docket for energy to produce additional steam for expected effects of implementing both the proposed MACT II standard. As steam strippers and chlorine dioxide for the air and water portion of the final shown in Table VII–2, these final the bleaching system. However, these Cluster Rules. Cluster Rules not only reduce HAP emission increase estimates are likely Implementation of the MACT portion emissions from all CAA and CWA overstated because they do not account of the Cluster Rules is expected to subcategories regulated, but they also for the fact that some mills in sensitive significantly decrease HAP emissions. result in decreases of volatile organic areas for sulfur dioxide already have Table VII–2 presents the environmental compounds and total reduced sulfur sulfur dioxide controls in place or may impacts of the Final Cluster Rules (BAT, using industry data updated to 1996. choose alternative controls available in PSES, BMPs, and MACT I) and the Final Emissions of particulate and carbon the final MACT rule that mitigate these Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18575 increases. The health effects and and increases are discussed in Section benefits of these emission reductions VIII.G.1 of this notice.

TABLE VII±2.ÐAIR EMISSION IMPACTS OF PULP AND PAPER RULES (ALL CAA SUBCATEGORIES)

Air emission reductions Baseline air (Mg/year) Air pollutants emissions Final cluster (Mg/year) Final cluster rules and pro- rules posed MACT II

Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... 240,000 139,000 142,000 Volatile Organic Compounds ...... 900,000 409,000 440,000 Total Reduced Sulfur ...... 150,000 79,000 79,000 Particulate ...... aNA b(83) 24,000 Carbon Monoxide ...... NA (8,700) 49,000 Nitrogen Oxides ...... NA (5,200) (5,700) Sulfur Dioxides ...... NA (94,500) (94,400) a Industry process data was not collected to calculate emissions for these pollutants increases and decreases for these pollutants reflected in columns to the right are increases or decreases of these pollutants caused by projected installation of MACT control equipment and secondary air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs. b Values in ( ) are estimated emission increases over baseline air emissions.

2. Water Pollutant Reductions Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. estimated effluent reduction benefits Table VII–3 shows the estimated (Hereafter, references to BAT/PSES associated with the BAT limitations baseline (as of mid-1995) and the impacts include impacts associated with promulgated for the Voluntary reductions from baseline expected from today’s BMP requirements.) Calculation Advanced Technology Incentives the BMP requirements being of these pollutant reductions is Program for the Bleached Papergrade promulgated today for the Bleached discussed in Sections VI.B.5.a(3) and Kraft and Soda subcategory, see Section Papergrade Kraft and Soda and VI.B.6.b(5). For a discussion of the IX. A.6 and Table IX–1.

TABLE VII±3.ÐESTIMATED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BASELINE FOR BAT/PSES

Estimated Estimated re- Baseline reductions: Baseline dis- ductions: Pollutant parameter Units discharge Final BAT/ charge for Final BAT/ for BPK PSES for PS mills PSES for PS mills BPK mills mills

2,3,7,8-TCDD ...... g/yr ...... 15 11 0.78 0.65 2,3,7,8-TCDF ...... g/yr ...... 115 107 6.7 6.4 Chloroform ...... kkg/yr ...... 48 40 5.4 5.2 Chlorinated Phenolics ...... kkg/yr ...... 55 45 2.0 1.8 AOX ...... kkg/yr ...... 36,300 24,200 4,380 4,010 BPKÐBleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. PSÐPapergrade Sulfite subcategory. gÐgrams. kkgÐmetric ton (1,000 kilograms or 1 megagram (Mg)).

The air quality impacts shown in EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy estimated air emission impacts of BAT, Table VII–2 and the water pollutant requirements, solid waste generation PSES, and BMPs on the 86 mills with effluent reductions shown above are impacts, and other environmental production in the Bleached Papergrade used in the following section to estimate impacts of the compulsory BAT, PSES, Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 reduced human health and and BMPs being promulgated today for mills with production in the Papergrade environmental risk attributable to the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Sulfite subcategory. (One mill has co- today’s rules. These estimates also form and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. located operations in both subcategories the basis for estimating monetized The results of this analysis are that separately contribute to the number benefits in the following section. presented below. In performing the of mills in each subcategory.) analysis, EPA assumed that each mill in C. Non-Water Quality Environmental The control technologies that form the the regulated subcategory would install Impacts of Effluent Limitations basis of effluent guidelines and the model technologies upon which Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, standards promulgated today involve today’s limitations and standards are and BMPs) changes in the processes used to based. produce bleached pulp. These changes Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B) 1. Air Emissions affect the rate at which air pollutants, of the Clean Water Act require EPA to including HAPs, are emitted from the consider the non-water quality The air emissions reductions of BAT, pulping and bleaching processes that environmental impacts of effluent PSES, BMPs, and MACT I, in are subsequently controlled by MACT I. limitations guidelines and standards. To combination, are presented in Section As shown in Table VII–4, the process address these statutory requirements, VII.B.1 above. This section presents the changes at bleached papergrade kraft 18576 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations and soda and papergrade sulfite chloroform in the Bleached Papergrade total HAPs from the sources controlled facilities subject to BAT, PSES, and Kraft and Soda subcategory by 66 by MACT I from 149,000 Mg/year to BMPs decrease the emissions of some percent [but will have a much smaller 139,000 Mg/yr (7 percent reduction) HAPs but have little impact on others. impact on the emission of methanol.] without taking into account further For example, the elimination of chlorine The application of the BAT, PSES, and reductions achieved by MACT I and hypochlorite from bleaching BMPs promulgated today for the controls. processes, part of the basis for BAT and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda PSES, will reduce the emission of subcategory will reduce the emission of

TABLE VII±4.ÐIMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS AIR EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY MACT I

Bleached papergrade kraft Papergrade sulfite (all and soda [Mg/year] segments) [Mg/year] Emission Emission Air pollutants reductions reductions Baseline from BAT/ Baseline from BAT/ emissions PSES/ emissions PSES/ BMPs BMPs

Total Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... 149,000 10,000 5,190 1,930 Chloroform ...... 9,510 6,060 13 8 Volatile Organic Compounds ...... 569,000 11,000 6,020 2,270 Total Reduced Sulfur ...... 100,000 1,300 0 0

The process changes that form the combustion of spent pulping liquor by sources (235 Mg/yr) represents 1.1 basis of BAT, PSES, and BMP’s increase bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite percent of the HAP emissions from all by approximately 1.5 percent the mills. As a result, as shown in Tables sources subject to control by MACT I, II, amount of spent pulping liquor VII–5a and VII–5b, the emission of total and III. Although BAT, PSES, and BMPs combusted by bleached papergrade kraft HAPs from spent pulping liquor result in a small increase in HAP mills and papergrade sulfite mills. See combustion sources (i.e., recovery emissions from recovery boilers, the the Supplemental Technical boilers) will increase by 1.1 percent at combined effect of the Cluster Rules Development Document, DCN 14487. bleached papergrade kraft and soda (including proposed MACT II) is a net HAPs and criteria air pollutants (volatile facilities and 1.9 percent at papergrade decrease of 60 percent in total HAP organic compounds, particulate matter, sulfite facilities above the 1995 baseline. emissions from all controlled sources. carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and However, the net increase in HAP See Table VII–2. sulfur dioxides) are generated from emissions from these combustion

TABLE VII±5A.ÐIMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AIR EMISSIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILERS AT BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA MILLS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED MACT II [MG/YEAR]

Emission 1995 increases MACT II Net change baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT emission PSES/ reductions IIa BMPs

Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... 19,900 220 25 195 Volatile Organic Compounds ...... 19,500 213 0 213 Total Reduced Sulfur ...... 2,650 27 0 27 Particulate Matter ...... 31,400 360 12,900 (12,540) Carbon Monoxide ...... 124,000 1,440 0 1,440 Nitrogen Oxides ...... 36,100 423 0 423 Sulfur Dioxides ...... 67,800 784 0 784

a Parentheses indicate emissions decreases below baseline.

TABLE VII±5B.ÐIMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: AIR EMISSIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILERS AT PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED MACT II [MG/YEAR]

Emission 1995 increases MACT II Net change baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT emission PSES/ reductions II BMPs

Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... 2,110 40 N/S 40 N/SÐNot Significant. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18577

Increases in the emission of criteria —HAP emissions would increase by less Sulfite subcategory are summarized in pollutants are also listed in Table VII– than one percent from bleached kraft Table VII–6. The process changes that 5a. The emission of total criteria air combustion sources and increase by form the basis of the regulations pollutants from spent pulping liquor less than two percent from papergrade promulgated today are estimated to combustion sources (i.e., recovery sulfite combustion sources; and result in an increased energy boilers) at mills in the Bleached —The increase in criteria air pollutants requirement of 3.70 trillion Btu/yr in oil Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and equivalent at the 96 affected pulp and will increase by 1.2 percent as a result Soda and Papergrade Sulfite paper mills. This represents a 0.82 of BAT, PSES, and BMPs and will be subcategories is minor relative to percent increase from the current total only slightly mitigated by MACT II current national industrial emissions. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda controls. The increases in nitrogen EPA examined the effect of BAT subcategories energy consumption oxides (423 Mg/yr), sulfur dioxides (784 combined with BMPs on the generation (papergrade sulfite total energy Mg/yr), and carbon monoxide (1440 Mg/ of CO2 by considering the overall mill consumption is minor relative to yr) emissions are minor relative to carbon balance and the energy balance. bleached papergrade kraft) of 499.4 nationwide emissions, which are 19.8 Anthropogenic generation of water trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent (DCN million Mg/yr for nitrogen oxides, 16.6 vapor is minuscule relative to 14510). The increased energy use is due million Mg/yr for sulfur dioxides, and atmospheric recycling and is normally to the increased off-site chemical 83.6 million Mg/yr for carbon monoxide ignored in greenhouse gas analysis. manufacturing electrical demand (met (OAQPS, 1995). Therefore, water vapor is ignored here. by off-site electric generating stations) EPA concludes that the technologies EPA concluded that neither option and on-site electrical demand (also met that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and would have an impact on the total by off-site electric generating stations, BMPs for bleached papergrade kraft and emission of greenhouse gasses from and commonly referred to as soda and papergrade sulfite mills pose mills due to pulping processing. There, ‘‘purchased energy’’). These increased no significant adverse impacts to and EPA concludes that the increased CO2 demands are partially offset by the indeed have some benefits for air emissions attributable to BAT pose no decreased steam demand (met by on-site power boilers and recovery furnaces). quality. EPA bases this determination significant adverse non-water quality Oil equivalent is used to express the on the following: environmental impact. combined effects of changes in thermal —Total HAP emissions from the sources 2. Energy Impacts energy and electric power. It is based on subject to control by MACT I and The impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs the assumption that marginal changes in proposed MACT II from kraft and on the energy use of the 86 mills with electric power demand caused by the sulfite pulping and bleaching production in the Bleached Papergrade regulation will be supplied by processes decrease as a result of BAT, Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 conventional condensing-type oil-fired PSES, and BMPs; mills with production in the Papergrade power stations. See DCN 14487.

TABLE VII±6.ÐENERGY IMPACTS OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Bleached Papergrade Energy impacts Units papergrade sulfite (all Combined Kraft segments) total

On-Site Electricity Demand* ...... Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ...... (2.37) (0.0381) (2.41) Off-Site Electricity Demand* ...... Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ...... 10.0 (1.05) 8.95 Steam Demand ...... Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ...... (2.88) (0.010) (2.89) Total Energy Demand** ...... Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent ...... 4.78 (1.08) 3.70 Total Energy Equivalent ...... Number of Households*** ...... 46,100 (10,400) 35,700 Parentheses indicate energy savings. * Assumes an overall electrical generating efficiency of 25 percent. (DCN 14797). * * Totals do not equal the sum of each line item due to rounding. Refer to Section 11 of the Supplemental Technical Development Document which presents detailed energy estimates. ** * Assumes 103.6 million Btu/household/yr (Energy Information Administration (DOE) 1993).

The manufacture of sodium chlorate, the energy required for 35,700 by approximately 1.5 percent the the raw material used at pulp mills to households. Compared to the most amount of spent pulping liquor manufacture chlorine dioxide, requires recent data for total national energy collected and combusted by bleached much more electrical energy than the consumption, the rule represents a papergrade kraft and soda mills. Spent manufacture of chlorine or other 0.004 percent increase in energy pulping liquor is a significant source of commonly used bleaching chemicals. demand. EPA concludes that the BOD5 loadings at these mills. The As a result, off-site electrical demand technologies that form the basis of BAT, collection and combustion of this spent increases by 8.95 trillion Btu/yr (2.61 PSES, and BMPs for bleached pulping liquor results in an million MWhr/yr) because of the papergrade kraft and soda and approximately 20 percent decrease in effluent limitations guidelines and papergrade sulfite mills do not pose BOD5 load into treatment. (EPA expects standards promulgated today. EPA significant adverse impacts in nation- that papergrade sulfite mills will have estimates of changes in energy demand wide energy demand. similar trends, but lacks data to as mills install advanced technologies calculate residuals.) 3. Incidental BOD5 Removal and Sludge can be found in DCN 14488. Sludge is generated as a byproduct of The total increase in energy demand The process changes that form the the wastewater treatment systems used resulting from this rule is equivalent to basis for BAT, PSES, and BMP increase at pulp and paper mills. Primary sludge 18578 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

(i.e., solids removed during physical somewhat depending on the compliance implementation could result in further wastewater treatment processes such as schedule incorporated in the permit and effluent flow decreases of two percent. sedimentation prior to biological the type of treatment system in place at EPA estimates a small reduction in treatment) is high in wood fiber and each mill. See the Supplemental wastewater effluent flow from mills in volatile solids. Secondary sludge is the Technical Development Document, DCN the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. product of biological treatment in which 14487. EPA concludes that the technologies microorganisms consume organic matter EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and (BOD5) in the wastewater. Secondary that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft sludge is a gelatinous mixture of BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite bacterial and fungal organisms. Because and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are beneficial from the of the reduction in BOD5 load into subcategories are beneficial from the standpoint of wood use and wastewater treatment, the combined application of standpoint of solid waste generation. generation, and will not produce BAT limitations, PSES, and BMPs The technologies both reduce the significant adverse non-water quality promulgated today will decrease sludge quantity of solid waste generated and environmental impacts. generation by 35,900 kkg/yr (39,600 also improve its quality by reducing the short tons/yr), which represents a 2 pollutant loading in the sludge D. Non-Water Quality Environmental percent reduction from the mid-1995 generated. Impacts of New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards baseline for subpart B and E mills. 4. Other Environmental Impacts Sludge generated at bleached for New Source (NSPS and PSNS) papergrade kraft and soda and Wood consumption at the bleached EPA analyzed the projected non-water papergrade sulfite mills may contain papergrade kraft and soda mills will be quality environmental impacts of BAT dioxin and furan if these pollutants reduced by up to 0.3 percent by the final for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and contaminate the wastewater treated at BAT limitations and PSES promulgated these mills. At proposal, the Agency today. The wood savings results from a Soda subcategory for BAT, PSES, and estimated that the mills in these two reduction in losses of useful fiber BMPs based on complete substitution of subcategories generated 177 g/yr TEQ associated with the recovery of liquor chlorine dioxide for chlorine and other dioxin and furan in their wastewater spills and improvements in brownstock technology elements. This section treatment sludge. Since the proposal, washing and screening of pulp. EPA presents the non-water quality industry has significantly reduced the estimates no change in wood environmental impacts of a second level of dioxin and furan in its consumption at mills in the Papergrade technology configuration (NSPS and wastewater. The Agency estimates that Sulfite subcategory. PSNS) which is equivalent to BAT, the dioxin and furan content of the The control technologies that form the PSES, and BMPs with the addition of sludge has decreased similarly, to basis of the effluent limitations extended delignification (oxygen approximately 50 g/yr TEQ. See the guidelines and standards promulgated delignification or extended cooking) on Supplemental Technical Development today will reduce bleached papergrade a new 1000 tpd bleached papergrade Document, DCN 14487. kraft and soda mill effluent wastewater kraft fiber line. The process changes that form the flows. The greatest reductions would be Table VII–7 presents the non-water basis of the BAT limitations and PSES realized in mills presently discharging quality environmental impacts of the promulgated today limit the the highest flows. In 1995, the average selected technology basis for NSPS and concentration of dioxin and furan bleached kraft mill discharged PSNS, compared to conventional allowed to be discharged to the approximately 95 m3/metric ton effluent pulping and bleaching technology. wastewater treatment system. As a (23,000 gallons/metric ton). For a 1,000 These estimates are based on the same result, the Agency estimates that when metric ton/day mill, the average effluent calculational methodology described fully implemented, the combined flow is similar to that from a city of under BAT and PSES, applied to a 1000 application of BAT limitations and 250,000 people. The effluent limitations tpd model mill. Based on these PSES will reduce the present sludge guidelines and standards will reduce estimates, EPA concludes that the loading of dioxin and furan TEQ by 43 total effluent flow in two ways: (1) process technologies that form the basis g/yr, approximately an 85 percent Closure of brownstock screening for NSPS and PSNS for the Bleached reduction from current levels. The systems, and (2) BMPs. At a mill with Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory period of time before individual mills open screening, closure could reduce pose no significant adverse non-water have reached this level will vary total effluent flow by 25 percent. BMP quality environmental impacts.

TABLE VII±7.ÐNON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

1000 tpd fiber line

Wood Consumption ...... No Difference. Effluent Flow ...... Moderate Decrease.1 BOD to Treatment ...... Decrease by 11,300 kg/day. Sludge Generation ...... Decrease by 890 kg/day. Carbon Dioxide ...... Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year. Energy Impacts: Total Electricity Demand ...... Decrease by 222,600 million BTU/year in oil equivalent. Total Steam Demand ...... Increase by 60,180 million BTU/year in oil equivalent. Total Energy Demand ...... Decrease by 162,400 million BTU/year in oil equivalent. Air Emissions: Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... Increase by 407 Mg/year. Chloroform ...... No Difference. Volatile Organic Compounds ...... Increase by 707 Mg/year. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18579

TABLE VII±7.ÐNON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORYÐContinued

1000 tpd fiber line

Total Reduced Sulfur ...... Increase by 28 Mg/year. Particulate Matter ...... Decrease by 12 kg/year. Carbon Monoxide ...... Decrease by 3 Mg/year. Nitrogen Oxides ...... Decrease by 28 Mg/year. Sulfur Dioxides ...... Decrease by 56 Mg/year. 1 See Section 11.4.1.3 of the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.

NSPS and PSNS that EPA is compliance costs and the economic industry managers will consider in promulgating today for the Papergrade impacts of those costs in this section, making financial decisions. The Sulfite subcategory are equivalent to the Agency believes the most accurate economic impacts described in this BAT and PSES. Therefore, the NSPS estimation of the economic impacts that section (such as facility closures, job and PSNS present no additional non- the pulp and paper industry will losses, and reduced shipments) result water quality environmental impacts. experience is derived by considering from the total costs that a facility will total (combined) compliance costs of bear (including environmental VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic both the CAA and CWA rules. Under compliance costs) compared to the Impacts, and Benefits the CWA, EPA considered the economic facility’s expected revenues. EPA also A. Summary of Costs and Economic impacts of each option by subcategory, evaluated the aggregate costs for all Impacts combining indirect and direct facilities borne by each company to dischargers. EPA combined these groups determine if each company will be in This section presents a summary of because there are no differences jeopardy of bankruptcy as a result of EPA’s evaluation of the costs, economic between direct and indirect dischargers aggregate compliance costs. impacts, and benefits of the Cluster in each subcategory with respect to In this section, EPA also describes the Rules. A more detailed analysis is characteristics of wastewater generated qualitative, quantitative, and monetized contained in the Economic Analysis for or the model process technologies benefits of environmental improvements the National Emission Standards for considered. expected to result from compliance with Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source The compliance costs described in these rules, and compares these benefits Category: Pulp and Paper Production; this section are EPA’s best estimates of to the costs of the rules. EPA identified Effluent Limitations Guidelines, the actual costs facilities will incur to 158 mills at proposal with kraft, soda, Pretreatment Standards, and New comply with the promulgated and sulfite or semi-chemical pulping Source Performance Standards: Pulp, proposed rules. processes. Of these, EPA now projects Paper, and Paperboard Category—Phase The total annualized and operation that 155 mills will bear costs under the 1 (DCN 14649; hereafter, the Economic and maintenance (O&M) costs differ final MACT I and 149 mills will bear Analysis). somewhat from the engineering cost costs under the proposed MACT II (six Today’s action is a significant estimates shown in Section VI. The mills do not practice chemical departure from prior EPA rulemakings annual O&M costs shown in this section recovery). These numbers could change in that, for one industry, EPA is include a general and administrative over time as mills change processes or considering the ramifications of cost of four percent of capital costs, close operations. implementing two major environmental which makes these O&M costs EPA separately evaluated the statutes with respect to pollution significantly higher than the engineering compliance costs and economic impacts control, industrial technology and O&M cost estimates shown in Section of: (1) MACT I for the 155 mills that operations, environmental impacts, VI. The annualized costs shown in pulp wood using kraft, soda, sulfite, or costs, and economic impacts. As noted Section VIII are both pre-tax and post- semi-chemical pulping processes; (2) in Section II of this preamble, today’s tax. Pre-tax costs, because they capture combined final MACT I and proposed rulemaking establishes regulations that total economic losses to society, are MACT II for those mills; and (3) implement elements of both the CAA considered the social costs of the rule proposed MACT II for combustion and CWA. The objective of this and are used for examining cost- sources at the 149 mills. Although all of economic analysis is to provide the effectiveness (Sections VIII.D.4 and the regulatory options and alternatives most accurate portrayal possible of the VIII.F.1) and for comparing the costs under consideration for MACT II are aggregate costs that the industry will and benefits of the rule (Section VIII.H). evaluated in the EA, only the economic face by implementing these regulations, Post-tax costs, which represent the impacts related to the proposed as well as the economic, financial, and projected costs to a firm after tax shields regulatory alternative are presented social impacts that EPA estimates will for depreciation and other factors are here. EPA estimates that there will be no result from these costs. The economic accounted for, are used in the economic economic impacts associated with the impacts of the combined, or joint, costs achievability determination under the MACT III regulations, which are of the final CWA (BAT, NSPS, PSES, Clean Water Act to evaluate facility promulgated for mills that practice PSNS, and BMP) requirements and the closures, firm failures, and related mechanical, secondary fiber, or non- final and proposed CAA requirements impacts. Post-tax costs are used in wood pulping or that produce paper or (MACT I, MACT III, and proposed Sections VIII.A, VIII.B, VIII.C, VIII.E, paperboard from purchased pulp, MACT II) are different than the impacts VIII.J, and most of Sections VIII.D and because EPA believes that compliance that would result from the costs of the VIII.F. with MACT III requirements will CWA or CAA requirements considered EPA’s financial and economic neither impose costs nor result in separately. While EPA presents analyses reflect as accurately as possible additional emissions reductions. For separately the CWA and CAA the information that pulp and paper this reason, Section VIII presents no 18580 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations further analysis of the MACT III by both rules. EPA also provides an shipments, balance of trade effects, and regulations. estimate of the economic impacts when indirect effects (reduced regional and EPA separately evaluated the impacts the proposed MACT II costs are national output and employment which of the BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS, and combined with the MACT I and BAT/ reflect the fact that impacts on the pulp BMP requirements for the 86 mills PSES costs for these 96 mills. Finally, and paper industry will resonate currently in the Bleached Papergrade the economic impacts and costs for all throughout the economy). Table VIII–1 Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi- presents a summary of annualized costs mills currently in three segments of the chemical mills affected by air and/or and projected mill closures for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (One water regulations are reported. various rules and rule combinations. mill is in both CWA subcategories.) EPA also evaluated the impacts of The level of detail for reporting results Both direct and indirect discharging NSPS or PSNS costs for new sources, mills are subject to BMPs. Hereafter, both singly and in combination with in the preamble (and in the EA) is EPA’s reference to BAT/PSES costs MACT I and proposed MACT II costs. sometimes constrained in order to includes the costs of complying with the EPA evaluated economic achievability protect confidential business final BMP requirements. based on the relative magnitude of information. For that reason facility EPA also evaluated the costs and compliance costs (in the form of total closures and job losses, for example, are impacts for the combination of MACT I annualized costs) and the resulting not identified for certain combinations and BAT/PSES for the 96 bleached potential facility closures, potential job of rules. All of the results are contained papergrade kraft and soda and losses, firm failures (potential in the confidential portion of the papergrade sulfite mills that are affected bankruptcies), reduced value of rulemaking record.

TABLE VIII±1.ÐSUMMARY: COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CAA AND CWA RULES

Rules

Costs and impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES MACT I and MACT I, MACT I, (final) (all (proposed) (final) BAT/PSES BAT/PSES BAT/PSES 1 (final) and MACT and MACT mills) (all mills) (BPK&PS) (BPK&PS) II (BPK&PS) II (all mills)

Pre-Tax Annualized Costs ($ MM) 2 ...... 125 32 263 351 366 420 Post-Tax Annualized Costs($ MM) ...... 82 23 172 229 240 277 Mill Closures ...... 0 0 1 2 3 3 Firm Failures ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. 2 Pre-Tax costs are not used in determining economic achievability.

MACT Costs: Total annualized MACT EPA introduced in that section, are also a result of compliance costs. EPA I costs for 155 facilities in all used here. EPA selected Option A as the estimates that no firm failures will subcategories regulated today are $82 technology basis for BAT/PSES for the result from BAT/PSES in these million (all annualized costs presented Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories. Based on current in Section VIII are post-tax costs in 1995 subcategory (see Section VI.B.5.a(5)). information, EPA projects that there dollars, except where noted). These For the 11 mills in three segments of the may be some new sources, most likely costs differ from the engineering MACT Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, the new fiber lines at existing pulp and control cost estimates presented in Agency estimated the economic impacts paper mills. EPA has identified the per Section VI, as noted above and in of one technology for each segment. plant NSPS/PSNS costs for the Bleached Section VIII.B.1.c. Total annualized EPA selected those technologies as the Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the proposed MACT II costs for all bases for BAT/PSES for this subcategory Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA subcategories that EPA proposes to (see Sections VI.B.6.b and d). EPA did not have sufficient information to regulate are $23 million. No mill presents a summary of the economic reliably project the likely number of closures, job losses, or firm failures are impacts of the selected BAT/PSES new sources (see Section VIII.D). EPA projected when either MACT I or technology bases immediately below. A also expects that many replacement proposed MACT II costs are analyzed summary of the economic impacts for fiber lines constructed at Subpart B individually. When the costs for final the rejected BAT/PSES options in the mills will be enrolled in the Voluntary MACT I and proposed MACT II are Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Advanced Technology Incentives combined, the (post-tax) annualized subcategory is presented in Section Program and will therefore be existing costs are $105 million and result in one VIII.F. sources rather than new sources. 40 CFR estimated mill closure and losses of up Total annualized costs for the selected 430.01(j)(2). EPA also conducted a to 700 jobs. No firm failures are BAT/PSES for the 96 mills in the barrier to entry analysis for new sources, predicted as a result of the combined Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda discussed below. costs of MACT I and MACT II. and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are Combined Costs: The combined BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated $172 million. One mill closure is annualized costs for MACT I and BAT/ economic impacts for three BAT/PSES predicted for the Bleached Papergrade PSES, affecting 96 bleached papergrade options (Option A, Option B, and TCF) Kraft and Soda subcategory as a result kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite for all bleached papergrade kraft and of compliance costs. Estimates of job mills, are $229 million. As a result of soda mills. Section VI.B.5.a(1) of this losses are not presented in order to these costs, two mills in the Bleached preamble contains a description of each protect confidential business Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory option. The naming conventions of information. EPA estimates no closures are projected to close with an associated Option A, Option B, and TCF, which for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as loss of 900 jobs. See Table VIII–3. No Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18581 mills are projected to close in the selected BAT/PSES option, but a brief At proposal, EPA used both a Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a discussion of the impacts for the financial model and a comprehensive result of compliance costs. No firm rejected options appears below in market model to assess economic failures are predicted. Section VIII.F. For the Papergrade effects. Much of the information in the The combined annualized costs for Sulfite subcategory, EPA’s economic market model was derived from the the proposed and final rules (MACT I, analysis (and the summary presented 1989 survey. A number of substantial BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II) here) analyzes only the technologies changes have occurred in pulp and affecting the 96 bleached papergrade selected as the bases for the BAT/PSES paper markets since 1989 that the kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite for each segment. This is because EPA market model does not reflect. EPA mills are $240 million. With these identified no technically available decided not to update the market model combined costs, three mills are options for the three papergrade sulfite (which estimated price increases), projected to close. The associated job segments other than those considered because an update would have required losses increase with the additional and selected. a new survey of every mill and all projected closure, but the estimate is not NSPS/PSNS costs for new sources are product lines, which would have been reported here in order to protect presented in Section VIII.D. unnecessarily costly and burdensome to confidential business information. No c. Methodology. The methodologies mill operators. EPA was also concerned firm failures are expected to result from used by EPA to evaluate economic that the amount of time required for the combined costs of MACT I, BAT/ impacts at the time of proposal are fully conducting and analyzing a second PSES, and proposed MACT II for these discussed in the Economic Impact and survey would unnecessarily delay the mills. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the final rule. This would further extend the The annualized costs for the proposed Proposed Effluent Limitations industry’s inability to plan and make and final rules (MACT I, BAT/PSES, Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp, capital investments with certainty and MACT II) applicable to all 155 kraft, Paper, and Paperboard Industry (EPA– regarding regulatory requirements. soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical mills 821–R–93–021, November, 1993). Instead, EPA modified the financial are $277 million. With these combined Revisions to these methodologies are model to incorporate product supply costs for all rules and all 155 mills, the discussed below and more fully in and demand elasticities, which are impacts are unchanged; i.e., three mills Chapters 3 and 4 of the Economic estimates of changes in demand or are projected to close, job losses exceed Analysis (DCN 14649). supply in response to price changes. 900, and no firm failures are expected. As discussed or referenced in the July The summary of results presented in 15, 1996 Notice, EPA revised this preamble does not reflect the effects B. Overview of Economic Analysis components of the economic of price increases, because such changes 1. Revisions in Analysis From Proposal methodology to account for recent did not materially affect EPA decisions. changes that have occurred in the pulp Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis a. Subcategories. Based on the and paper industry, including: (1) (DCN 14649) presents all of the results. subcategorization described in Sections revision of the discount rate; (2) The last year of price information II.C.1, VI.A and VI.B.1, EPA estimated integration of market (price change) available at proposal was 1988. Between impacts for four CAA subcategories— effects into the financial closure model; 1988 and 1995, the pulp and paper Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical (3) incorporation of new industry cycle industry completed a full industry Process—and two CWA subcategories— data into the forecasting methodology; revenue cycle, with revenues peaking in Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached (4) adjustment of the starting year for 1988, falling through 1992, and reaching Papergrade Kraft and Soda. The the analysis to 1996; (5) incorporation of historic heights in 1995. For the final economic analysis addresses 155 mills updated mill ownership data in the firm rule, this newer information was in the CAA subcategories and 96 mills failure model; and (6) a revised method incorporated into the forecasting in the CWA subcategories. The 96 CWA for calculating annual costs. See 61 FR methods for the financial closure model, mills are a subset of the 155 CAA mills. at 36843–44. Each of these methodology which assumes this seven-year cycle (a b. Options. (1) Air Emissions revisions is briefly discussed below. six-year cycle was used at proposal) of Standards. The selected technology At proposal, EPA used a facility- falling and rising prices will continue bases for the MACT I & III standards are specific cost of capital (an average of into the future. Additionally, the discussed fully in Section II.B.2 of this nine percent real cost of capital) derived starting year for the analysis was preamble. Regulatory options and from responses to a 1989 industry adjusted to 1996 (from 1989, which was alternatives for MACT II are discussed survey) that reflected financing costs in used at proposal). in Section IV.F of the preamble to the 1989. Real (inflation-adjusted) financing To identify potential firm failures proposed MACT II standards, which costs declined considerably between (i.e., bankruptcies) using the Altman’s Z appears elsewhere in today’s Federal 1989 and 1995. For the final rule, EPA financial ratio analysis, EPA obtained Register, and in the Economic Analysis primarily used an inflation-adjusted updated financial information, (DCN 14649). EPA’s economic analysis seven percent cost of capital or discount including mill ownership data, for presents results for eight regulatory rate in the economic analysis because publicly held companies. Because alternatives. The summary presented this rate better reflects real industry updated information for privately held here pertains only to the final MACT I financing costs from 1995 to 1997, and companies was not available from standard and proposed MACT II the Agency does not have accurate public sources, EPA did not evaluate standard. information on current facility-specific possible failures among private firms. (2) Effluent Limitations Guidelines financing costs. Additionally, the Office To include these companies would have and Standards. For the BAT/PSES of Management and Budget required a new industry survey. analyses for the Bleached Papergrade recommends a seven percent discount A facility-level financial analysis that Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA’s rate to evaluate the social costs of was conducted at proposal was economic analysis addresses three federal regulations. In Chapter 6 of the discontinued because EPA was also technology options. The summary Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), EPA unable to update facility-level financial presented in this section of the presents a sensitivity analysis of results information without a new survey. The preamble focuses on Option A, the using alternative discount rates. facility-level analysis is not a 18582 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations component of the Altman’s Z analysis, 14086). GAC is added after the discussion of the control costs for the on which EPA has relied to identify firm engineering estimates prior to cost final MACT standard, including failures for this final rule. While annualization; this explains the emission reductions and cost- providing some useful information, the differences between engineering and effectiveness, is provided in Chapter 20 facility financial analysis was not used economic estimates of operating and of the Background Information to identify firm-level bankruptcies at maintenance costs. Document. Table VIII–2 also presents proposal and did not provide the basis All of the previously discussed the capital costs and pre-tax and post- at proposal for making determinations revisions were made in an effort to tax annualized costs used in the of economic achievability. conduct an economic analysis of the air economic analysis. EPA has determined As noted in Section VIII.A., EPA and water regulations that is more that the MACT III standards will impose considers general and administrative as representative of current economic no costs; therefore, none is presented well as variable annual costs in the cost conditions in the pulp and paper here or in Table VIII–2. annualization calculation. At proposal, industry and that provides more general and administrative costs (GAC) accurate economic impact results. As noted in Section VIII.A. and had been calculated as 4 percent of Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis, the capital costs plus 60 percent of variable C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air engineering control cost estimates of the annual costs. Subsequent analysis Emissions Standards cost of MACT regulations differ from the indicated that the engineering estimates Table VIII–2 presents the engineering costs used in EPA’s economic impact for effluent control already included the control cost estimates for MACT I and analysis of those standards. The 60 percent of variable annual costs. To for the regulatory alternative proposed economic analysis also differentiates remove this double-counting, GAC is for MACT II: $755 million in total between pre-tax annualized costs and now calculated as four percent of capital capital costs and $172 million in post-tax annualized costs as discussed costs for effluent control (see DCN annualized costs. A more detailed in Section VIII.A.

TABLE VIII±2.ÐESTIMATES OF THE COST OF AIR REGULATIONS [Millions of dollars]

MACT control cost Economic analysis MACT cost estimates estimates Regulation Annualized costs Capital Annualized Capital cost costs cost Pre-tax Post-tax

MACT I ...... $496 $130 $501 $125 $82 MACT II ...... 259 42 258 32 23 Total Air ...... 755 172 759 157 105

Based on the economic analysis, EPA and annualized costs are $162 million. 3. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory predicts no firm failures, mill closures, When considering these costs alone, the a. BAT/PSES. As explained in Section or associated job losses as a result of the economic analysis predicts closure of VI.B.6.a, EPA is dividing the Papergrade costs of the MACT rules considered one mill as a result of this rule and no Sulfite subcategory into three segments. individually. When the costs of the firm failures. Other economic impacts For BAT/PSES for all three segments MACT rules are combined, EPA projects (e.g., job losses) are reported in the CBI combined, capital costs are $73.8 one mill closure with up to 700 job portion of the rulemaking record. million, O&M costs are $7 million, and losses. No firm failures are anticipated annualized costs are $9.8 million. No for the combined MACT rules. b. NSPS and PSNS. EPA considered the cost of NSPS and PSNS technology mills are projected to close as a result D. Costs and Economic Impacts for for new source mills in the Bleached of these compliance costs, and no firms Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. are projected to fail. There is no Standards EPA expects few new source mills or expected loss of jobs, shipments, or exports. 1. BPT and BCT fiber lines to be constructed that will be subject to NSPS/PSNS. Even if new b. NSPS/PSNS. EPA considered the As explained in Section VI.B.2, EPA source mills or fiber lines are costs of NSPS/PSNS for new source is exercising its discretion not to revise constructed that are subject to NSPS/ mills in the Papergrade Sulfite BPT limitations for conventional PSNS, EPA estimates that the selected subcategory. Because NSPS/PSNS pollutants at this time for Subparts B equals BAT/PSES, EPA concluded that NSPS/PSNS would not present a barrier and E. In addition, candidate BCT such costs were not sufficient to present to entry. EPA estimated the average technologies do not pass the two-part a barrier to entry. First, the cost of the BCT cost reasonableness test. Therefore, incremental capital costs of NSPS/PSNS NSPS/PSNS technology is an EPA is not revising the current BCT compliance (compared to Option A insignificant fraction of the capital cost limitations for Subparts B and E mills; technology) to be approximately 0.50 to of a new source mill or fiber line (less as a result, these mills will incur no 2.0 percent of the capital cost of than one percent). Also, the costs of incremental BPT or BCT costs. constructing a new source mill or fiber including the selected NSPS/PSNS line and concluded that this cost was technology at a new source mill are 2. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda not sufficient to present a barrier to substantially less on a per ton basis than Subcategory entry for proposed entrants, particularly the costs of retrofitting existing mills. a. BAT/PSES. For the selected BAT/ considering the lower operating costs of Moreover, the increased chemical PSES (Option A), capital costs are $966 Option B. recovery and reduced operating costs for million, O&M costs are $151 million, the NSPS/PSNS option allow firms to Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18583 recover the capital cost associated with effectiveness ratio for both BAT and incur costs to comply with the CAA the NSPS/PSNS technology. PSES is $14 per toxic pound equivalent rules; 96 bleached papergrade kraft and removed. The cost-effectiveness ratios soda and papergrade sulfite mills will 4. Cost-Effectiveness for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory incur costs to comply with the CWA EPA uses a cost-effectiveness ratio of are $13 per toxic pound equivalent rule, and the same 96 mills will incur dollars per toxic pound equivalent removed for BAT and $45 per toxic both CAA and CWA rule costs. Table removed (see Economic Analysis (DCN pound equivalent for PSES. EPA VIII–3 is a summary of the expected 14649), Chapter 5) to evaluate the considers the selected technology bases costs and impacts for various relative efficiency of a technology for the BAT/PSES limits for both combinations of CAA and CWA rules. option in removing toxic pollutants. The subcategories to be cost-effective. The losses of jobs, shipments, exports, results reported below are expressed in and indirect effects reported in Table E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated 1981 dollars, as prescribed by EPA’s VIII–3 are the impacts derived from mill Rules cost-effectiveness methodology (DCN closures. Some results are not disclosed 14649). For the Bleached Papergrade EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda, where confidentiality might be Kraft and Soda subcategory, the cost- sulfite, and semi-chemical mills will compromised.

TABLE VIII±3.ÐCOSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CAA AND CWA RULES

Rules

MACT I, MACT I, Costs and Impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES MACT I & BAT/PSES BAT/PSES 1 BAT/PSES & MACT II (final) (proposed) (BPK&PS) (96 mills) (BPK&PS) & MACT II (96 mills) (155 mills)

Capital Costs ($MM) ...... 501 258 1,039 1,394 1,524 1,799 Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM) ...... 82 23 172 229 240 277 Mill Closures ...... 0 0 1 2 3 3 Firm Failures ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 Job Losses (from mill closures) ...... 0 0 400 900 1,700 1,700 Decreased Shipments ($MM) ...... 0 0 150 273 479 479 Decreased Exports ($MM) ...... 0 0 19 19 22 22 Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM) ...... 430 795 1,393 1,393 1 BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

While no mills are predicted to close subcategories as a result of either the In response to public comments, EPA due to MACT I costs alone, and one mill promulgated CAA or CWA regulations also estimated the economic impacts in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and or a combination of both. associated with the combined costs of Soda subcategory is predicted to close EPA examined the indirect effects of promulgated and proposed rules. When due to BAT/PSES costs alone, EPA the final regulations (MACT I, MACT III the MACT I, BAT/PSES, and MACT II estimates that two mills in the Bleached and BAT/PSES) on employment and costs are considered jointly, EPA Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory output using a national-level input- projects an additional mill closure with may close as a result of the combined output model developed by the U.S. 800 additional jobs lost and further costs imposed by these rules. The two Department of Commerce. The model decreases of $206 million in shipments predicted closures represent provides multipliers that enable EPA to and $3 million in exports. The total approximately 2.3 percent of the 86 estimate national-level impacts based on projected effects of the combined MACT bleached papergrade kraft and soda the loss of employment and output from 1, BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are mills and 1.3 percent of all 155 kraft, closing mills. Total projected effects on approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4 sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical mills the U.S. economy of the combined billion in lost economic output. affected by this rulemaking. As a result MACT I and BAT/PSES are of these two closures, 900 jobs could be approximately 5,700 jobs lost and $795 F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/ lost. These jobs represent 0.9 percent of million in lost economic output. While PSES Options for the Bleached the jobs in the Bleached Papergrade some local communities could Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory Kraft and Soda subcategory. These costs experience some economic dislocation 1. Summary of Results generate a maximum estimated price as a result of closures, overall national increase of 1.5 percent for any product impacts would be insignificant. For Table VIII–4 presents costs and (pulp, paper or paperboard). Estimated comparison, the 1995 U.S. gross impacts for two options (Option B and losses in the value of shipments are domestic product was $7.3 trillion. The TCF) that EPA evaluated, but did not approximately $273 million, or 0.8 loss is approximately one-tenth of 1 select, as the basis for BAT/PSES for the percent of bleached papergrade kraft percent of the gross domestic product Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and soda shipments, while losses in the for 1995. EPA also evaluated regional subcategory. EPA’s rationale for value of bleached papergrade kraft and (county-level) economic impacts when selecting Option A for BAT/PSES for soda exports are approximately $19 determining the economic achievability this subcategory is presented in Section million, or 0.5 percent of subcategory of the regulation. For the final MACT I VI.B.5.a(5). Table VIII–4 presents results exports. and BAT/PSES, in the two counties in three ways: considering CWA costs No mills are projected to close in the where mills are projected to close, the and impacts alone; considering the costs CWA Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, or unemployment rate would increase by and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES the CAA soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent respectively. options and MACT I; and considering 18584 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations the costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options, MACT I, and MACT II.

TABLE VIII±4.ÐCOSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY

Rules Option B TCF + Option B TCF, (BAT/ Costs & Impacts Option B TCF (BAT/ (BAT/ (BAT/ (BAT/PSES) PSES) (BAT/PSES) PSES) PSES)+ PSES) MACT I & MACT I & MACT I MACT I MACT II MACT II

Capital Costs ($MM) ...... 2,100 3,100 2,600 3,600 2,700 3,700 Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM) ...... 216 688 292 764 300 772 Mill Closures ...... 2 7 4 9 ND1 9 Firm Failures ...... (3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3) Job Losses (from mill closures) ...... 900 7,100 4,800 10,200 ND 10,200 Decreased Shipments ($MM) ...... 273 2,300 1,300 3,200 ND 3,200 Decreased Exports ($MM) ...... 19 308 24 310 ND 310 Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM) ...... 795 NR 3,850 NR ND NR 1 ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information. 2 NR: not reported. 3 1 or more.

Option B: The BAT/PSES capital costs Option B. With the combined costs of and peroxide bleaching, respectively. for Option B for the Bleached Option B and MACT I, the number of EPA evaluated mill closures for the TCF Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory projected mill closures increases to four, option with the lower capital costs. are estimated at $2.1 billion; O&M costs and the estimated number of firm O&M costs for this option are $783 are $87 million; and annualized costs failures remains unchanged at one or million, and annualized costs are $688 are $216 million. These costs result in more. The four closures cause losses of million. (TCF annualized costs appear two projected mill closures, with direct approximately 4,800 jobs, $1.3 billion in lower than annual O&M costs because of impacts of at least 900 jobs lost, $273 shipments, and $24 million of exports. tax shields.) EPA estimates that these million in decreased shipments, $19 Direct and indirect losses would total costs would result in seven mill million in decreased exports, and one or nearly $4 billion. The mill closures are closures, which are associated with more potential firm failures. The firm also projected to increase county approximately 7,100 job losses. EPA did failures may also result in thousands of unemployment rates; the range of not conduct a firm failure analysis or additional jobs lost (see Section increased unemployment for the calculate combined direct and indirect VI.B.5.a(5) and Chapter 6 of the affected counties is from less than 0.5 impacts for this option because the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649). percentage points to nearly 10 closures and job losses alone are more Indirect and direct economic loss (i.e., percentage points (as a hypothetical than sufficient indication that the losses throughout the economy as a example, from a baseline county option is not economically achievable. result of the closed mills) would be unemployment rate of 10 percent to 10.5 EPA estimates, however, that a greater approximately $795 million. The mill percent after a closure in County X and number of firms would be placed in closures are projected to increase county from a baseline of 10 percent to 20 financial jeopardy with the costs of this unemployment rates for the affected percent after a closure in County Y). option, compared to Option B, which counties by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent, Option B, MACT I, and MACT II: The EPA has already determined is not respectively. combined capital costs for Option B, economically achievable (See Section EPA also calculated cost-effectiveness MACT I, and proposed MACT II for VI.B.5.a(5)). ratios for Option B for this subcategory mills in this subcategory are estimated TCF and MACT I: The combined (for Option A results, see Section at $2.7 billion; O&M costs are $153 capital costs for TCF and MACT I for VIII.D.4, above). For direct dischargers, million; and annualized costs are $300 mills in this subcategory are estimated the average and incremental (compared million. With the combined costs of at $3.6 billion; O&M costs are $851 to Option A) cost-effectiveness ratios are Option B, MACT I, and MACT II, the million, and annualized costs are $764 $15 per toxic pound-equivalent and $36 number of projected mill closures million. EPA estimates that these costs per toxic pound-equivalent, respectively increases (number not disclosed), and would result in nine mill closures and (1981 dollars). For indirect dischargers, the estimated number of firm failures an associated loss of 10,200 jobs, $3.2 the incremental cost-effectiveness remains unchanged at one or more. The billion in shipments, and $310 million (compared to Option A), is $115 per analysis projects additional losses to in exports. EPA conducted no toxic pound-equivalent. jobs, shipments, and exports from the additional economic analysis for this Option B and MACT I: The combined additional mill closures (amounts not combination of costs. capital costs for Option B and MACT I disclosed). Direct and indirect losses TCF, MACT I, and MACT II: The for mills in this subcategory are would also increase, as would the combined capital costs for TCF, MACT estimated at $2.6 billion; O&M costs are unemployment rates in the counties in I, and MACT II for mills in this $154 million; and annualized costs are which the mill closures are located. subcategory are estimated at $3.7 $292 million. MACT I annualized costs TCF: The capital costs for retrofitting billion; O&M costs are $849 million; and are greater under Option B than under mills in this subcategory for TCF annualized costs are $772 million. With Option A due to the additions of MACT technology are estimated at $3.1 billion the combined costs of TCF, MACT I, controls for oxygen delignification for TCF based on peroxide bleaching and MACT II, EPA estimates that the equipment installed to comply with and $5.6 billion for TCF based on ozone number of mill closures, job losses, and Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18585 other impacts remain unchanged. EPA total benefits of these rules, and should marked respiratory and cardiovascular conducted no additional economic be evaluated along with descriptive responses, however, the association is analysis for this combination of costs. assessments of benefits and the not direct because the perception of the acknowledgment that even these may odor does not necessarily cause toxic 2. Implications of Results fall short of the real-world benefits that effects. The threshold for odor The costs of either Option B or TCF will result from the rule. detections may occur before the onset of are projected to cause one or more firm toxic effects. However, the absence of 1. Air Quality Benefits failures (bankruptcies). This is true even odor does not guarantee safety since when the BAT/PSES costs are Section VII.B.1 of this preamble some components of TRS emissions can considered without the compliance describes the emissions reductions cause fatigue of the olfactory senses, so costs associated with MACT I and/or expected as a result of implementing individuals may not perceive an odor on MACT II. Although EPA cannot MACT I and MACT II standards. some occasions when toxic effects can determine the actual outcome of the Implementation of the final MACT I occur. There are numerous anecdotal projected failures in terms of lost standard is expected to reduce reports of adverse reactions related to production, closed facilities, and lost emissions of HAPs, VOCs, and TRS, but odors associated with TRS, including jobs, the level of displacement would increase emissions of PM, SO2, CO, and headaches, shortness of breath, nasal almost certainly cause detrimental NOX. The proposed alternative for irritation, and, in some cases, nausea impacts to the U.S. pulp and paper MACT II is expected to reduce and sinus congestion. industry. Section VI.B.5.a(5) discusses emissions for HAPs, VOCs, PM, TRS, VOC and NOX emissions interact in EPA’s reaction to these projected CO, and SO2, while it is expected to the presence of sunlight to create impacts in terms of regulatory decisions. create a slight increase in NOx ground-level ozone. Recent scientific See also Chapter 6 of the Economic emissions. The technology bases for evidence shows an association between Analysis, DCN 14649. That discussion BAT/PSES have secondary impacts on elevated ozone concentrations and also includes the Agency’s findings that the level of air emissions. The combined increases in hospital admissions for a the rejected BAT/PSES options are not effect of MACT I and MACT II for all variety of respiratory illnesses and economically achievable. subcategories regulated under the CAA indicates that ground-level ozone not is to decrease emissions for all of the G. Benefits only affects people with impaired above mentioned pollutants except NOX respiratory systems (such as asthmatics), In addition to costs and impacts, EPA and SO2. See Table VIII–5 below. EPA but healthy adults and children as well. also estimated the environmental and performed an evaluation of the benefits Adverse welfare effects of ozone human health benefits of implementing associated with the air regulations based exposure include damage to crops, tree the CAA and CWA requirements. on the emission reductions estimated in seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass, Section VII of this preamble describes Section VII.B.1. The net change in air etc.), and forested ecosystems. The the estimated reductions in air benefits expected to result from the reactions between VOCs and NOX to emissions and effluent discharges. The changes in emissions will be a change form ozone depend on the balance in incremental environmental in adverse health effects associated with concentrations of each pollutant found improvements noted in Section VII.B. inhalation of the above pollutants as in the ambient air. For example, when are derived compared to a baseline of well as changes in welfare effects such the concentration of NOX is high current emissions and discharges. as improved visibility and crop yields, relative to the concentration of VOCs, Because current emissions and and reduced materials soiling and VOC reductions are effective in limiting discharges are a function of current corrosion. Chapter 4 of the EA presents ozone formation, while NOX reductions technology, this is the same baseline a detailed description of the in that situation are ineffective. The that was used to establish the costs of methodology used to monetize the integrated rule is expected to increase complying with the rules. To the extent benefits. NOX emissions, but decrease VOC the total benefits of the rule can be a. Qualitative Description of Pollutant emissions. The increase in NOX is not measured, costs can be directly Effects. The air rules are designed to expected to cause significant adverse compared to benefits. reduce the emission of HAPs as defined health or environmental impacts EPA is confident that its estimation of in Section 112 of the CAA. Several of because the magnitude of this increase compliance costs is a full and accurate these HAPs are classified as probable or is much less than the magnitude of the account of such costs; EPA is less possible human carcinogens. Reducing VOC emission reduction. The VOC confident that the estimation of benefits the emissions of these pollutants is reductions are expected to contribute to is similarly complete. EPA is not expected to reduce the cancer risk of the the decrease in ozone concentrations. currently able to quantitatively evaluate exposed population. Other HAPs are not The adverse human health effects all human and ecosystem benefits classified as carcinogens; however, they associated with PM include: premature associated with air and water quality have been shown to cause other adverse mortality; aggravation of respiratory and improvements. EPA is even more health effects such as damage to the eye, cardiovascular disease (as indicated by limited in its ability to assign monetary central nervous system, liver, kidney, increased hospital admissions and values to these benefits and therefore to and respiratory system when the emergency room visits, school absences, be able to compare them to costs in a concentration of these emissions is work loss days, and restricted activity standard cost-benefit framework. A above the health reference benchmark days); changes in lung function and comparison of costs to only the limited for human exposure. increased respiratory symptoms; monetized subset of benefits severely Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions alterations in lung tissue and structure; underestimates the true benefits of cause the malodorous smell often and altered respiratory tract defense environmental quality improvement and associated with areas near pulp and mechanisms. Populations at greater risk compromises the validity of a cost- paper mills. The MACT standards will from exposure are: individuals with benefit analysis. The economic benefit reduce these effects significantly. respiratory disease and cardiovascular values described below and in the Odorant stimulants of the nasal disease, individuals with infectious Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) should receptors that are associated with TRS disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic be considered a limited subset of the emissions have been associated with individuals, and children. Reduced 18586 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

welfare is associated with elevated SO2 oxidizes in water to form both health and welfare benefits described in concentrations of fine particles which sulfurous and sulfuric acids. When SO2 this section as well as the emission reduce visibility, damage materials, and dissolves in the water of the respiratory reductions identified in Section VII.B.1 cause soiling. The integrated rule will tract of humans, the resulting acidity is that are not monetized but are decrease the adverse effects of PM. irritating to the pulmonary tissues, considered in the evaluation of benefits. causing nasal irritation and breathing CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is The benefit transfer method is utilized difficulties (especially to individuals toxic to mammals. When inhaled, it with respiratory diseases such as to value a subset of the pollutants combines with hemoglobin, which discussed above (VOC, SO2, and PM). asthma). When SO2 dissolves in the reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of atmosphere in rain, fog, or snow, the This method relies on previous benefit blood and results in less oxygen being acidity of the deposition can corrode studies that have been conducted for the transported to vital organs of the body. various materials and cause damage to same pollutants that are impacted by the This can have detrimental effects on the both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. pulp and paper rulemaking. These cardiovascular, central nervous, and SO2 can also transform into PM2.5, the studies provide useful data that can be pulmonary systems. The reduction of effects of which are discussed above. transferred across contexts in order to CO emissions will diminish these b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits. approximate the benefits of the pulp potential effects. Table VIII–5 below presents both the and paper emission reductions.

TABLE VIII±5.ÐEMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND ANNUAL AIR QUALITY BENEFITS

Standard MACT I MACT II Combined Pollutant Decrease Value Decrease Value Decrease Value (Mg) ($MM) (Mg) ($MM) (Mg) ($MM)

HAPs ...... 139,000 NE 2,600 NE 142,000 NE TRS ...... 79,000 NE Ð NE 79,000 NE NOX ...... (5,200) NE (500) NE (5,700) NE VOC ...... 409,000 24±1,055 32,600 2±84 441,000 26±1,139 PM ...... (83) (1) 24,000 300 24,000 299 CO ...... (8,700) NE 58,000 NE 49,000 NE SO2 ...... (94,500) (1,064)±0 30 0.1±0.3 (94,400) (1,064)±0.3 Total ...... (1,040)±1,054 ...... 302±384 ...... (739)±1,438 NE = not estimated. Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate emissions increases or negative benefits values. Numbers in table rounded.

For VOCs, benefits are valued using $1,055 million. The lower-end of this PM benefits associated with MACT I is estimates of a range of the average range reflects an assumption of zero approximately $1 million. The proposed benefit per Megagram (Mg) derived from mortality effects associated with ozone MACT II alternative achieves a positive a recent benefit analysis conducted by exposure and assumes morbidity benefit approximately equal to $300 EPA in the process of revising the ozone benefits occur only in areas predicted to million. Thus the combined value of PM national ambient air quality standard violate the ozone standard, while the benefits for the final and proposed pulp (NAAQS) (see docket no. A–95–58: upper-end includes mortality estimates and paper air standards is $299 million. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the as are calculated for the upper-end of For SO2, the EPA transfers a benefit Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS the range of ozone benefits is included estimate from a national SO2 strategy and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July in the NAAQS RIA and assumes analysis conducted for the evaluation of 1997). EPA values a range of VOC morbidity benefits occur in all areas. For the revised PM NAAQS (see docket no. benefits reflecting (1) an assumption the proposed MACT II alternative, total A–95–54: Regulatory Impact Analysis that the transfer of benefits must annual VOC benefits range in value for the Particulate Matter and Ozone correlate with the areas that violate the from approximately $2 million to $84 NAAQS and proposed Regional Haze ozone standard, and (2) an assumption million. Therefore, total monetized VOC Rule; July 1997). This analysis shows that recognizes that reductions outside benefits of the integrated rule are that benefit values are higher in the areas of violation of the ozone standard approximately $26 million to $1,139 eastern regions of the country when can have a positive benefit. Therefore, million. compared to the western regions. the range of values reflects the For PM, a benefit transfer estimate is Therefore, EPA derives a range of application of a range of values for the obtained from a benefit analysis of PM10 benefit per Mg values for each segment average benefit per Mg as they are that was prepared to support the of the country. In addition, EPA takes applied to (1) the subset of VOC evaluation of the revised PM NAAQS into consideration the uncertainty emission reductions in areas of (see Appendix C of the Regulatory inherent in the estimate of MACT I SO2 violation, and (2) to all VOC emission Impact Analysis for the Particulate emission increases that may result from reductions expected to be achieved by Matter and Ozone NAAQS and the rulemaking. Therefore for MACT I, the integrated rule. The true value is proposed Regional Haze Rule; July EPA values all SO2 emission increases likely to fall within this range. Using the 1997). The average benefit per Mg to obtain a lower bound estimate of range of values of the average benefit derived from this study is applied to all (negative) benefits and assumes zero per Mg for ozone, monetized annual changes in emissions of PM that result emission increases due to the likely VOC benefits of MACT I emission from the integrated rule. Using this effects of mitigating behavior to obtain reductions range from $24 million to value, the loss in total monetized annual an upper bound estimate of zero Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18587 disbenefits. For MACT II, all emission conventional pollutants into freshwater, a result, the largest quantifiable and reductions are valued. Using the range estuarine, and marine ecosystems may monetizable water benefit is a reduction of values for the average benefit per Mg alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, in number of potential excess cancer for SO2 and the assumptions for the and adversely impact human health. See cases from the consumption of changes in emissions, monetized annual Section VII.B.2. Chlorinated organic contaminated fish by recreational and SO2 disbenefits of MACT I range from compounds from chlorine bleaching, subsistence anglers. The next largest $1,064 million down to $0. For the particularly 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- category of monetized benefits includes proposed MACT II alternative, total p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8- recreational fishing benefits derived annual SO2 benefits are from tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) are from lifting of all 19 existing dioxin/ approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million. human carcinogens and human furan-related fish consumption Therefore, total monetized SO2 benefits systemic toxicants and are toxic to advisories in waters downstream from (disbenefits) of the integrated rule are aquatic life. These pollutants are mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft approximately ($1,064) million to $0.3 persistent, resistant to biodegradation, and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite million. and bioaccumulative in aquatic subcategories. Removing fish Summing the monetized benefits and organisms. As of December 1995, states consumption advisories would be disbenefits for VOC, PM, and SO2 have issued 19 dioxin/furan-related fish expected to increase the number of emission changes provides a range of consumption advisories near 18 recreational anglers at sites where total annual benefits (disbenefits) for papergrade sulfite and bleached advisories are lifted and to increase MACT I of approximately ($1,040) papergrade kraft and soda mills (EPA, fishing enjoyment by existing anglers. million to $1,054 million. Aggregate National Listing of Fish Consumption Three of the 19 receiving streams with annual benefits attributed to MACT II Advisories, June 1996). dioxin/furan-related fish consumption range in value from $302 million to EPA’s analysis of these environmental advisories also have advisories in place $384 million. Combining the benefits of and human health risk concerns and the for other contaminants (from other the final and proposed air standards water-related benefits resulting from the sources) that will not be affected by this yields a range of total annual benefits final effluent limitations guidelines and rule. No monetized benefits are from approximately ($739) million to standards for these two subcategories is expected to accrue for these streams at $1,438 million. contained in the ‘‘Water Quality this time. Quantified, non-monetized These benefits are incomplete due to Assessment of Final Effluent benefits include reduction in EPA’s inability to quantify many benefit Limitations Guidelines for the exceedances of aquatic life and health- and disbenefit categories including Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached based ambient water quality individual health and welfare endpoints Papergrade Kraft and Soda concentrations. as well as the benefits and disbenefits of Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and controlling entire pollutant categories. Paperboard Industry’’ (WQA) (DCN (1) Fish Consumption Cancer Risks Pollutant categories that are not 14650). and Non-cancer Hazards. Upper-bound monetized are HAPs, TRS, CO, and a. Qualitative Description of Water- individual cancer risk, aggregate risk, and non-cancer hazards from NOX. Related Benefits. The final BAT c. Uncertainties Associated With Air limitations and PSES promulgated today consuming contaminated fish are Quality Benefits. Benefit per Mg for Subparts B and E will benefit aquatic estimated for recreational, subsistence, estimates used to monetize PM and VOC life by reducing the pulp and paper and Native American subsistence emission reductions are uncertain industry’s discharge of toxic and anglers. At proposal, concentrations of because average benefit per Mg values nonconventional pollutants, including a carcinogenic and systemic toxicants in do not take into account location- 91 percent reduction in TCDD and fish were estimated using two site- specific information such as the TCDF, a 69 percent reduction in AOX, specific models—a simple dilution population exposed. The location- an 83 percent reduction in chloroform, model and EPA’s draft Dioxin specific information is expected to have and an 82 percent reduction in Reassessment Evaluation model a significant effect on the estimated chlorinated phenolic pollutants (DRE)(DCN 14650). For the final rule, benefits associated with these emission compared to mid-1995 discharge levels. EPA used only the DRE model to reductions. Also, lack of information for Toxic and nonconventional pollutants estimate TCDD and TCDF levels in fish several benefit categories precludes a will be reduced to levels below those below 92 mills discharging into 73 complete quantification of all benefit considered to impact biota in many receiving streams, as well as individual categories (or disbenefits for pollutant receiving waters. Pollution reduction cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Of increases). numbers are provided in Section these mills, two in the Bleached VII.B.2. Such impacts include acute and Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory 2. Water Quality Benefits chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on discharge through the same pipe and This section describes environmental metabolic and reproductive functions, therefore were treated as a single and human health benefits expected as and loss of prey organisms. Chemical discharger. As a result, a total of 91 a result of implementing new BAT/ contamination of aquatic biota may also discharges from 92 mills were evaluated PSES limits at 92 of the 96 mills in the directly and indirectly impact local for the water quality assessment. EPA Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda pescivorous wildlife and birds. continues to use the simple dilution and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. b. Quantitative Estimates of Water- model to evaluate other chlorinated (EPA estimated benefits for 92 mills Related Benefits. EPA has quantified organics (i.e., three carcinogens and four because it did not have effluent human health and aquatic life benefits systemic toxicants). EPA believes the discharge information from 3 mills and using a site-specific analysis for baseline DRE approach provides more reliable did not have receiving stream flow data conditions and for the conditions that estimates of dioxin and furan fate and for 1 mill). Because EPA was not able would result from pollutant removals transport in the environment for use in to project the number of new sources, under the rule. The final BAT human health assessments. The reasons EPA attributes no benefits to the final limitations and PSES for Subparts B and for relying exclusively on the DRE for NSPS or PSNS regulations. Discharge of E would result in a significant reduction assessing impacts due to dioxin and toxic, nonconventional, and of dioxins and furans in fish tissues. As furan are explained in greater detail in 18588 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Chapters 4 and 8 of the Economic EPA estimated the reduced annual and RfDs. If a hazard quotient exceeds Analysis (DCN 14649). cancer cases for combined recreational 1.0, adverse effects might occur. None of EPA is also updating fish and subsistence angler populations as a the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS is consumption rates used to estimate result of the final BAT/PSES for the estimated to exceed a non-cancer hazard cancer and non-cancer hazards. At Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached quotient of 1.0 under baseline or BAT/ proposal, EPA used 25 g/day for Papergrade Kraft and Soda PSES conditions for recreational, recreational anglers, and 145 g/day for subcategories. The projected number of subsistence, or Native American subsistence anglers. The revised increased cancer cases for this subsistence anglers. estimates are 21 g/day for recreational population under baseline conditions EPA did not use the reference dose anglers and 48 g/day for subsistence due to pulp and paper discharges is 0.83 (RfD) approach to evaluate potential anglers, based on data provided by the to 2.76 annual cancer cases. EPA noncancer effects associated with nationally based ‘‘Continuing Survey of estimates this number would decline to dioxin/furan. The use of an RfD for Food Intake by Individuals’’ (CSFII), 0.1 to 0.35 excess cancer cases per year dioxin/furan presents special problems. conducted by the U.S. Department of after implementation of the final BAT/ If EPA were to establish an RfD for Agriculture. EPA is also using an PSES, thus eliminating approximately dioxin/furan using the standard updated fish consumption rate for 0.73 to 2.41 annual cancer cases. conventions of uncertainty, the RfD Native American subsistence For Native American subsistence value would likely be one to two orders populations of 70 g/day, based on two fishermen, EPA evaluated an upper of magnitude below average background studies (CRIFTC, 1994; Wolfe and bound total risk at baseline and post- population exposure. As stated above, Walker, 1989, in rulemaking record). compliance with the selected BAT/ the RfD is a level that is likely to be This consumption rate represents an PSES. EPA assumed that the total without an appreciable risk; it is not an average fish consumption rate for Native population of the tribes with treaty- ‘‘action level’’ or exposure level where Americans. (See Environmental Justice ceded fishing rights near pulp and paper non-cancer effects are predicted. Where Analysis in Chapter 8 of the Economic mills consumed an average of 70 g/ the RfD is below background levels, and Analysis, DCN 14649). person/day of TCDD/TCDF where effects are not readily apparent at Projected individual cancer risks contaminated fish. The projected background levels, it is not appropriate differ among the evaluated mills and number of increased cancer cases for to use the RfD for quantifying benefits. among recreational, subsistence, and this population under baseline As an alternative to using the RfD, Native American subsistence fishermen conditions due to pulp and paper EPA evaluated potential noncancer due to the differences in consumption discharges is 0.14 annual cancer cases. effects of dioxin/furan by comparing the rates. TCDD and TCDF contribute most EPA estimates this number would modeled incremental exposure of of the estimated cancer risks. The final decline to 0.008 excess cancer cases per dioxin/furan from fish consumption BAT/PSES for the papergrade sulfite year after implementation of the final (based on results from the DRE model) and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and BAT/PSES. to estimated ambient background levels Soda subcategories are projected to With respect to non-cancer benefits, (i.e., 120 picograms of toxic equivalents/ reduce average baseline individual EPA examined the current discharge of day (pgTEQ/day)). EPA estimates that cancer risks up to about one order of four pollutants that have reference doses adverse impacts associated with dioxin/ magnitude for each affected group— (RfDs) contained in EPA’s Integrated furan exposures may occur at or within recreational, subsistence, and Native Risk Information System (IRIS). The one order of magnitude of average American subsistence populations. At four pollutants are chloroform, background exposures. As exposures both baseline and post-compliance, pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- increase within and above this range, Native American subsistence tetrachlorophenol, and 2,4,5- the probability and severity of human populations are at about one order of trichlorophenol. The RfD represents an noncancer effects most likely increases. magnitude higher risk than recreational estimate, with uncertainty spanning EPA’s analysis shows that the estimated anglers and less than one order of perhaps an order of magnitude, of daily dioxin/furan exposure from pulp and magnitude higher risk than subsistence exposure—expressed in milligrams per paper effluent at baseline exceeded fishermen in this assessment because of kilogram of body weight per day (mg/ estimated ambient background exposure their comparatively higher fish kg/day)—that is likely to be without an by an order of magnitude for two mills, consumption rates. appreciable risk of deleterious effects to with the size of the exposed population At proposal, EPA estimated exposed a given population during a lifetime. ranging from 4,910 to 16,205 recreational and subsistence fishermen (EPA notes that this analysis considers recreational and subsistence anglers. based on a comparison of creel survey only the contribution of Subpart B and The selected BAT/PSES are projected to results to licensed anglers in counties E pulp and paper current discharge reduce the incremental exposure from adjoining pulp mill streams. Based on effluent to the RfD; the contribution fish consumption to a level that was not these surveys, EPA estimated that 29 from other sources (background level of significantly different from estimated percent of county fishermen would use exposure) is not evaluated.) ambient background exposure. The size affected stream reaches and therefore For the four pollutants with RfDs in of the recreational and subsistence could be exposed to contaminated fish. IRIS, EPA used the simple dilution angler population exposed to dioxin/ Since proposal, EPA has considered model to determine fish tissue furan doses exceeding one order of additional recreational angler survey concentrations. EPA then estimated magnitude greater than the background information and has determined that a whether human consumption of fish by level would be zero under the selected range of 10 percent to 33 percent of recreational, subsistence, and Native BAT/PSES. adjacent county-licensed anglers American subsistence populations For Native American subsistence provides effective upper and lower exposed to the pollutants below pulp populations with treaty-ceded fishing bounds to the fishing effort expected on and paper mills would exceed a rights, the maximum dioxin/furan most affected stream segments. EPA’s chemical-specific noncancer hazard exposure under baseline conditions is benefit estimation methodology is quotient of 1.0. Hazard quotients are projected to be 803 pgTEQ/day. Under described in Chapter 4 of the Economic based on the relationship between fish the selected BAT/PSES, the maximum Analysis (DCN 14649). tissue concentrations, fish consumption, exposure is reduced to 39 pgTEQ/day, Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18589 which is less than estimated background (4) Aquatic Life Benefits. EPA used lifting 16 of the 19 dioxin/furan-related levels for the United States. the simple dilution approach to estimate fish consumption advisories to be $2 (2) Impact of BAT/PSES Controls on exceedances of aquatic life AWQCs. million to $19 million. (Because these Dioxin/Furan-Related Fish This is a conservative approach that values are based on a benefits transfer Consumption Advisories. EPA estimates assumes all pollutants (including dioxin from a study of contamination of the that all 19 dioxin/furan-related fish and furan) discharged to receiving Great Lakes trout and salmon fishery, consumption advisories in place streams are available to the biota. which may differ greatly from some of downstream of papergrade sulfite and Although hydrophobic chemicals such the areas affected by this rule, these bleached papergrade kraft and soda as dioxins and furans will be associated values provide only a general sense of mills as of December 1995 would be primarily with suspended particulates the magnitude of the benefits of the lifted some time after the rule is and sediments, some concentrations rule.) Because non-dioxin/furan fish implemented. Recent evidence indicates will also be found in the water column consumption advisories (PCBs and that dioxin/furan fish tissue near the discharge point. This is mercury) will remain in place on three concentrations decline within several particularly true if discharges are streams, EPA did not monetize the years of removing dioxin/furan assumed to be continuous because even benefits of removing the dioxin/furan discharges, which is more rapidly than though the pollutants might eventually fish consumption advisories on these previously thought (see Chapter 9 of the become associated with suspended streams. EPA also estimates that Economic Analysis, DCN 14649). EPA solids and sediment, they would also be recreational fishing would increase on accounts for potential latent dioxin/ present in the water column in the the 16 streams by 115,000 angling days furan contributions from sediment to vicinity of the discharge on an ongoing to 379,000 angling days post- fish tissue by assuming a three-year lag basis prior to partitioning. Therefore, compliance. However, the monetary before cancers from fish tissue although it is conservative, EPA believes value of this increase is not estimated consumption are reduced or dioxin/ that the simple dilution approach because of the difficulty of determining furan-related fish tissue advisories are provides a reasonable estimate of the extent to which this increased lifted. impacts to aquatic life. participation reflects a net increase in (3) Exceedances of Human Health- EPA compared modeled in-stream fishing activity or merely a shift from Based Ambient Water Quality concentrations of toxic discharges to other locations (see the Economic Concentrations (AWQCs). EPA also has EPA’s aquatic life AWQCs. EPA’s Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 4). compared the modeled in-stream modeling results show that receiving Because of dioxin/furan removals due pollutant concentrations to human water concentrations for up to four to compliance with BAT limitations and health water quality criteria or other pollutants (of 15 pollutants with chronic PSES, sludge from pulp and paper mills toxic effect values, which are referred to aquatic life AWQCs) at 19 mills exceed may be disposed of through land as health-based AWQCs. Exceedances of aquatic life criteria at baseline discharge application, instead of more costly health-based AWQCs indicate existing levels (up to 25 total exceedances). The landfilling or incineration. (Pursuant to human health-based water quality final BAT/PSES for the papergrade a January 1994 Memorandum of problems. sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft Agreement between EPA and the EPA has analyzed the health-based and Soda subcategories are projected to American Forest and Paper Association AWQCs for the ingestion of organisms reduce these exceedances to one (AF&PA), a maximum dioxin/furan and the ingestion of water and pollutant (TCDD) at six mills (six total concentration of 50 ppt is allowed for organisms based on the simple dilution exceedances). On average, the selected land application of sludge or a sludge- model. EPA estimates that no mills BAT/PSES will reduce color of effluent derived product. See DCN 14399). Mill exceed the health-based AWQCs for by approximately 2.5 percent compared sludge disposal costs could be expected ingestion of organisms only under to current discharges. This color to decline by $8 million to $16 million. baseline conditions or under the final reduction may have some aquatic life or EPA estimated these values based on the rule. With respect to the ingestion of recreational benefits depending on the reduced tonnage of expected dioxin/ water and organisms, at baseline, three natural color of the receiving water, but furan-contaminated sludge, which in mills exceed AWQCs for two pollutants, they are not quantifiable or monetizable turn was based on the proportional chloroform and pentachlorophenol (a at this time. reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent total of four exceedances). Under the c. Monetization of Water Quality (see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, rule, only one mill exceeds AWQCs (for Benefits. Monetized benefits of the final Chapter 8). pentachlorophenol). BAT/PSES for mills in the Bleached Total monetized water-related EPA did not estimate exceedances of Papergrade Kraft and Soda and benefits for all the above categories AWQCs for dioxin and furan because Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are range from $12 million to $57 million. the simple dilution model is not well- presented in Table VIII–6. EPA has As noted previously, the above suited for use in estimating human monetized the human health benefits estimates do not include the benefits health effects associated with water resulting from elimination of 0.73 to that have been identified but not column concentrations of hydrophobic 2.41 cancer cases per year for the nation monetized, such as health effects for chemicals like dioxin and furan. EPA as a whole (see Section VIII.F.2.b.(1)). Native American subsistence fishermen, did not use the DRE model for this The projected benefits range from $2 reduction in AWQC exceedances, analysis for dioxin/furan because results million to $22 million. reduction of projected non-cancer of the DRE model would not be EPA estimates the value to anglers of effects and improvements in fish and comparable with AWQCs. contaminant-free fisheries as a result of wildlife habitat. 18590 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VIII±6.ÐMONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF FINAL BAT/PSES FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Final BAT/PSES Benefit category (millions 1995$)

Water-related Benefits Human health (recreational fish consumption) ...... $2±$22 Recreational angling ``Contaminant-free'' fishery ...... $2±$19 Increased participation ...... ∂ Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs ...... $8±$16 Total Water-related Benefits ...... $12±$57 ∂ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and the proposed regulatory alternative for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda MACT II are $270 million to $352 This section provides the individual subcategories. million. Thus, the range of net benefits and combined costs, economic impacts, Using the pre-tax annualized cost (disbenefits) of the final and proposed and benefits of the proposed and final estimates reported in Section VIII.C, net air quality standards is ($896) million to CAA and CWA pulp and paper monetized air-related benefits are $1,281 million. regulations described in earlier sections. estimated to range between net costs of See Table VIII–7. The costs and benefits $1,165 million to net benefits of $929 EPA did not estimate annual net of the CAA (MACT) rules apply to all million per year for the final MACT I benefits for the final BAT/PSES for the 155 kraft, soda, sulfite and semi- rule considered in combination with the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached chemical mills subject to final or pre-tax annualized cost estimates for the Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories proposed MACT requirements, while final BAT/PSES. Pre-tax annualized cost because so many categories of benefits the costs and benefits for the final CWA estimates are used as a proxy for the are unmonetized that the comparison (BAT/PSES) regulations apply to the 96 social costs of the rules. Net benefits of would be misleading.

TABLE VIII±7.ÐSUMMARY OF COSTS, ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS

MACT I, MACT I, MACT I and MACT II, MACT II, MACT I MACT II Combined Final BAT/ final BAT/ and final and final air rules PSES PSES (96 BAT/PSES BAT/PSES mills) (96 mills) (155 mills)

Capital Costs ...... $501 $258 $759 $1,039 $1,394 $1,524 $1,799 Pre-Tax Annualized Costs * ...... $125 $32 $157 $263 $351 $366 $420 Monetized Annual Benefits ...... ($1,040)± $302±$384 ($739)± $12±$57 ($1,028)± NE ($727)± $1,054 $1,438 $1,111 $1,495 Net Annual Benefits (Benefits-Costs) ...... ($1,165)± $270±$352 ($896)± NE NE NE NE $929 $1,281 Projected Mill Closures ...... 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 Potential Job Losses (due to mill closures) ...... 0 0 ND ND 900 ND ND Projected Firm Failures ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Pre-tax costs are greater than the post-tax annualized costs shown in Tables VIII±1 and VIII±3. Net costs (where costs exceed benefits) are shown in parentheses. NE = not estimated. ND = not disclosed to protect confidentiality. Figures in table reflect rounding.

I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options above, only VOC, PM, and SO2 benefits benefits range from $2 million to $84 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and are monetized here.) However, because million. Therefore, total monetized VOC Soda Subcategory—Option B and TCF the MACT I technologies control all of benefits of the air quality standards the increased emissions associated with under either Option B or TCF are $31 1. Air Benefits oxygen delignification, there is no million to $1,134 million. PM related As noted in Section VIII.F.1, the increased net benefit of the CWA and disbenefits for MACT I are $1 million, oxygen delignification technology used CAA technologies to ambient air while MACT II PM benefits are $300 as a component of Option B and TCF quality. Rather, the net monetized million for a total PM benefit of increases emissions of certain pollutants benefits of MACT I in combination with approximately $299 million, for either and, hence compliance costs to meet Option B or TCF are equivalent to the Option B or TCF. SO2 related disbenefits MACT I standards; the implementation monetized benefits of MACT I in for MACT I are from $1,043 million of additional MACT controls, however, combination with the final BAT/PSES. down to $0, while MACT II SO2 benefits also increases MACT-related removals. Thus, MACT I benefits associated with are from $0.1 to $0.3 million. As a result, both MACT I costs and reducing VOCs under either Option B or Total monetized benefits (disbenefits) benefits increase where oxygen TCF range from $29 million to $1,050 for MACT I are ($1,015) million to delignification is utilized. (As noted million. MACT II VOC reduction $1,049 million under BAT/PSES Option Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18591

B or TCF (see the Economic Analysis, this level of consumption, the projected aquatic life criteria at 19 mills (up to 25 DCN 14649, Chapter 8). Aggregate increased number of cancer cases for total exceedances), rejected Option B annual benefits attributed to MACT II this population at baseline would be would reduce these exceedences to one range in value from $302 million to 0.14 cancer cases/year. EPA estimates pollutant (TCDD) at three mills (three $384 million. Combining the benefits of that this number would decline to 0.007 total exceedences). TCF would reduce the final and proposed air quality cancer cases/year if BAT/PSES based on these exceedances to zero. standards yields a range of total annual Option B were promulgated and to 0.0 In addition to the benefits of reducing air quality benefits (damages) from cases/year if BAT/PSES based on TCF dioxin in fish, EPA investigated other ($713) million to $1,433 million. were promulgated. potential benefits associated with Both Option B and TCF would result Option B and TCF, including color, 2. Water Benefits in the removal of 19 dioxin/furan- COD, AOX, and chronic sub-lethal The water quality benefits described related fish consumption advisories on toxicity. in this section include benefits for streams downstream from bleached Increased color in a receiving water rejected BAT/PSES options for the papergrade kraft and soda mills. EPA can decrease light penetration there, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda estimates that non-dioxin advisories thus resulting in shifts of phytoplankton subcategory in combination with will remain on three of those streams. community structure to undesirable benefits for the selected BAT/PSES for Therefore, here as in Section VIII.G.2.c, species, reduced primary productivity the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. EPA did not monetize the benefits of (which can alter the trophic structure of (Benefits for the two CWA subcategories removing the dioxin/furan fish fish communities), and elevated were also combined in Section VIII.G.2 consumption advisories on these receiving stream temperatures. for the selected BAT/PSES.) EPA streams. EPA estimates the value to However, the actual impact on the estimated the human health benefits anglers of the 16 ‘‘contaminant-free’’ receiving water of reducing color in mill that could be expected if either of the fisheries as a result of removing these effluent is highly site-specific and rejected BAT/PSES options for the advisories to be $2 million to $19 depends in particular on the natural Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda million. EPA also estimates that color of the receiving water and other subcategory—Option B or TCF—were recreational fishing would increase on factors. Therefore, the monetized implemented. For combined these 16 streams by an estimated benefits will also be site-specific, to the recreational and (non-Native American) 115,000 angling days to 379,000 angling extent that they can be determined at subsistence angler populations using the days post-compliance. However, the all. EPA is not promulgating national same fish consumption rates EPA used monetary value of this increase is not technology-based limitations or for the selected BAT/PSES, Option B is estimated because of the difficulty of standards for color, but rather has projected to eliminate approximately determining the extent to which this determined that the potential aesthetic 0.75 to 2.50 annual cancer cases from increased participation reflects a net or aquatic impacts are best addressed on the baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 annual increase in fishing activity or merely a a site-specific basis by the permitting or cancer cases projected to result from the shift from other locations. These results pretreatment authority where necessary. mills’ discharges at [mid-1995] levels, are the same as those presented for the See Section VI.B.3.e. Indeed, EPA notes leaving a residual of 0.08 to 0.26 excess selected BAT/PSES. Because of dioxin that about eight mills currently have cancer cases per year. Here, as in removals, sludge disposal costs for both limitations for color in their NPDES Section VIII.G.2.b(1), excess cancer Option B and TCF could be expected to permits, and an additional two mills cases refers to cancer cases attributable decline by $8 million to $16 million (see have current color monitoring solely to pulp and paper dioxin/furan the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, requirements where stream water discharges. This represents a reduction Chapter 8). quality requires such measures. of 90 percent from baseline. The With respect to non-cancer human Lowering COD can protect the monetized value of this reduction is $2 health benefits, none of the four receiving water against oxygen to $23 million. TCF is projected to result pollutants with RfDs is estimated to depletion and is likely to reduce non- in a reduction from the mid-1995 exceed a non-cancer hazard quotient of chlorinated organic compounds that discharge baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 cases 1.0 under baseline or under conditions cause chronic sub-lethal effects on to 0.0 cases, which increases the associated with rejected Option B for aquatic life. Evidence indicates that this benefits from TCF by $0.1 million to recreational, subsistence, or Native toxicity is associated at least in part $2.7 million, compared to Option B. American subsistence anglers. The same with families of non-chlorinated organic Because chlorine or chlorinated is true for the selected BAT/PSES. materials. Several studies indicate that, compounds are not used for bleaching, Similarly, Option B would reduce as wastewater COD is reduced, indices no dioxin formation was attributed to projected health-based AWQC of these chronic toxicity effects also are the mills under this option. Although exceedances to one facility for one reduced. EPA is deferring regulation of some background dioxin cancer risk pollutant (pentachlorophenol). Under COD to the individual permitting would remain that is attributable to TCF, EPA estimates that there would be process for the time being, although sources other than current pulp and no exceedances of health-based AWQCs. EPA intends to promulgate effluent paper discharges, no residual cancer For dioxin, EPA estimates that Option B limitations guidelines and standards for risk would remain from bleached would reduce incremental exposure COD for Subpart B mills in the future. papergrade kraft and soda mills. from fish consumption to a level that is See Section VI.B.3.d. For Native American subsistence not significantly different from ambient Although a statistically significant fishermen, EPA evaluated cancer risks background exposure. Under TCF, relationship between AOX and adverse at baseline and under Option B. To chlorine and chlorinated compounds environmental effects has not been estimate the maximum potential risk, are not used for bleaching, and therefore established, EPA believes that reduction EPA assumed that the entire population no dioxin was attributed to mills under of AOX (a valid measure of the total of the tribes with treaty-ceded fishing this option. chlorinated organic matter) will result rights near pulp and paper mills would With respect to aquatic life benefits, in water quality benefits. See Section consume an average of 70g/person/day EPA’s modeling results show that, for VI.B.3.c. However, these cannot be of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. With the four pollutants exceeding chronic quantified at this time. 18592 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Compared to current discharges, the AOX (by 84 percent); and chronic sub- percent) and chronic sub-lethal aquatic incremental benefits associated with OD lethal aquatic toxicity. TCF would also toxicity. The water quality benefits of (Option B) include: reduction of color reduce color discharges (by 40 percent), the rejected options are shown in Table (by 40 percent); COD (by 40 percent); COD (by 40 percent), AOX (by 96 VIII–8.

TABLE VIII±8.ÐMONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA & PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS

Option B TCF Benefit category (millions (millions 1995$) 1995$)

Water-related Benefits Human health (Recreational fish consumption) $2±$23 $2±$25 Recreational angling ``Contaminant-free'' fishery ...... $2±$19 $2±$19 Increased participation ...... ∂ ∂ Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs ...... $8±$16 $8±$16 Total Monetized Water-related Benefits ...... $12±$58 $12±$60 ∂ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

Combined annual air and water The four new case studies of improved agriculture and health from benefits related to Option B for all 155 monetized benefits analyze: (4) the reduced ozone emissions. However, the mills regulated by today’s rule, Lower Tombigbee and Mobile River case studies also address a wider range including final MACT I, proposed watersheds in Alabama, (5) the Pigeon of water-related benefits, including MACT II and BAT/PSES based on River in North Carolina, (6) the Samoa some site-specific recreational benefits Option B, would total ($701) million to Peninsula in California, and (7) the such as surfing, boating, white water $1,491 million. Combined annual air upper Columbia River in Washington rafting, non-consumptive uses and non- and water benefits related to TCF, State and British Columbia, Canada. use benefits that result from improved including final MACT I, proposed These new case studies provide EPA color in the receiving water, improved MACT II and BAT/PSES based on TCF with the first real empirical evidence of odor and removal of health advisories. would total ($701) million to $1,493 already-realized benefits that can be The case studies provide a more million. expected from adoption of the final complete picture of the range of water- BAT/PSES limits. Although a portion of related benefits that may be expected J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case the water-related benefits estimates in from the rule, although a number of Studies these newer case studies are based on identifiable benefits, including Many benefits are highly site-specific. actual outcomes from installing improvements in ecological conditions At proposal, EPA estimated the costs pollution control equipment (i.e., a and reductions of non-cancer health and benefits of the pulp and paper rule retrospective analysis), estimates of the effects remain unquantified and at three sites using a case study benefits of MACT standards in these unmonetized. approach. EPA has expanded the case case studies are prospective, based on Benefits and costs for the case studies study analysis to incorporate additional expected future benefits. are summarized and compared in Table sites. The case studies focus on water The case studies compare costs and VIII–9. The monetized benefits range quality benefits, resulting from benefits at specific bleached papergrade from two percent to 387 percent of BAT/ installation of BAT/PSES technologies, kraft and soda mills in these seven areas PSES compliance costs. The case study with air quality benefits modeled for across the country, some of which have results indicate that monetized benefits case study mills as they are at the not installed technologies comparable to may be of the same order of magnitude national level (see Section VIII.G.1, the bases for BAT/PSES and some of as costs at individual sites. above). The three case studies at which have installed such technologies, From a water quality perspective, the proposal were (1) the Penobscot River in thereby allowing the retrospective case studies provide a cross-section of Maine, (2) the Wisconsin River in assessment of BAT/PSES costs and mills and receiving waters nationwide, central Wisconsin, and (3) the lower benefits. Where mills have installed including fast- and slow-moving Columbia River in Washington and BAT-like technologies, capital streams, lakes and ocean waters. Oregon. In addition, a qualitative investments may include: 70 percent to Using receiving water and population retrospective case study was conducted 100 percent substitution; oxygen characteristics, EPA attributed benefits of the Leaf River in Mississippi. These delignification plus 100 percent from the case study sites to all bleached case studies were selected to provide substitution; and/or totally chlorine-free papergrade kraft and soda and geographic representation of the impacts technologies. papergrade sulfite mills. As a sensitivity of the proposed rule, taking data EPA evaluated control cost estimates analysis, EPA used the water quality availability into consideration. and air benefits for emission controls benefits from the case studies to For the final rule, the three necessary to meet the MACT I and II estimate the national level water quality quantitative case studies were updated standards on a prospective basis, benefits of the integrated final and to reflect EPA’s revised analysis of costs, assuming the level of controls currently proposed rule for the Bleached loadings, and human health risks to existing at mills in the case study areas Papergrade Kraft and Soda and sport anglers. In consideration of as a baseline. Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. Based environmental justice, EPA also As with the national-level analysis, on the case studies, monetized benefits evaluated health risks to Native significant water-related benefits are from the water rules (Option A) would American anglers in the Penobscot and derived from removal of dioxin/furan be expected to range from $91 million Columbia River case study areas. from fish, and air-related benefits from to $451 million per year, or from 35 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18593 percent to 170 percent of water-related The case studies were not selected to representative of national benefits with costs. be, and are not necessarily, respect to air quality.

TABLE VIII±9.ÐCOMPARISON OF POTENTIAL ANNUAL BENEFITS TO POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SEVEN CASE STUDY SITES [Millions of 1995 dollars]

b Water-related Air-related benefits Total monetized Total compli- Site a benefits MACT I MACT II benefits ance costs

ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES

Penobscot River ...... $0.7±$2.3 ($9.5)±7.7 $0.1 ($8.7)±10.1 (c) Wisconsin River ...... $0.1±$1.5 ($16.9)±15.6 $2.1 ($14.7)±19.2 $9.3 Lower Columbia River ...... $1.5±$8.6 ($26.9)±56.2 $0.7 ($24.7)±65.5 $16.6

NEWER CASE STUDIES

Lower Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers ...... $1.1±$12.0 ($136.8)±113.2 $81.7 ($54.0)±$206.9 $32.5 Pigeon River ...... $2.7±$8.7 ($5.8)±$5.7 $2.1 ($1.0)±$16.5 c $7.1 Samoa Peninsula ...... $0.1±$1.4 ($5.0)±10.1 $0.0 ($4.9)±$11.5 d $5.0 Upper Columbia River/Lake Roosevelt ...... $1.5±$11.6 NA NA $1.5±$11.6 $3.0 a The total compliance costs shown in this Table (for BAT/PSES, MACT I and proposed MACT II Option #1) differ from compliance costs used to determine economic achievability. The cost estimates for the case studies were based on custom analysis of technology in-place corresponding to the case study timeframes. In contrast, estimates used to determine economic achievability used a standard mid-1995 baseline for technology in-place b Based on implementation of technologies consistent with Option A. c Confidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this site. d This mill has indicated EPA's cost estimate is too high because EPA did not fully account for technology in-place. NA = Not applicable.

IX. Incentives for Further future energy demands, and its applauded as a critical tool in forcing Environmental Improvements development and implementation of the the development and installation of Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among environmentally beneficial A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology other voluntary environmental technologies. The statute demands Incentives Program undertakings, indicate that an progress toward the goal of eliminating 1. Introduction incentives program may be widely the discharge of all pollutants, CWA EPA is promulgating BAT limitations accepted and utilized by individual Section 301(b)(2)(A), but emphasizes today that will achieve significant mills. that that progress must be ‘‘reasonable.’’ pollutant reductions using technologies For this reason, EPA is establishing a Id. This Voluntary Advanced within the economic capability of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Technology Incentives Program marries subcategory as a whole. At the same Incentives Program to encourage mills the twin objectives embodied in Section time, EPA wants to encourage the in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and 301(b)(2)(A): compelling the industry to widespread use and perfection of Soda subcategory to move beyond go as far as it reasonably can go, through technologies such as extended today’s baseline BAT technologies the achievement of limits that are delignification and to promote the toward the ‘‘mill of the future,’’ which technically and economically development of even more advanced EPA believes will have a minimum achievable, while holding out through technologies, such as those aimed at impact on the environment. EPA also the Voluntary Advanced Technology reducing bleach plant flow. EPA also intends the program to serve as a pilot Incentives Program an array of wants to encourage the widespread use program for determining the alternative effluent limits that EPA and perfection of TCF processes. These effectiveness of regulatory incentives as believes will lead to zero discharge. The technologies and processes have the a means of stimulating development of baseline BAT limitations discharge ability to surpass the environmental environmentally beneficial EPA’s statutory mandate: to promulgate protection that would be provided by technologies. As a result of the limitations based on the best available compliance with the baseline BAT. Voluntary Advanced Technology technology economically achievable. Indeed, EPA’s vision of long-term Incentives Program, EPA hopes to The Voluntary Advanced Technology environmental goals for the pulp and achieve within sixteen years greater Incentives Program, in turn, promotes paper industry includes continuing pollutant reductions than it could EPA’s statutory goal: to establish research and progress toward such achieve solely by establishing a limitations that act as a beacon to show environmental improvement. The technological floor. Indeed, the what is possible. Agency believes that individual mills development of increasingly more EPA is codifying three tiers of can be encouraged to make substantial advanced bleach plant process Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT environmental progress beyond the base technologies is a critical step toward the effluent limitations and two tiers of level compelled by law. This industry’s Clean Water Act’s ultimate goal of Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS, participation in the 33/50 program, its eliminating the discharge of pollutants which together form the backbone of the progress toward reducing toxic into the Nation’s waters. See CWA Voluntary Advanced Technology discharges in advance of the proposed Section 101(a)(1). Incentives Program for mills in the BAT revisions, its joint initiative with The BAT program under the Clean Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda the U.S. Department of Energy to reduce Water Act is widely and justifiably subcategory. The three BAT tiers are 18594 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations labeled Tier I, Tier II and Tier III; the several types of incentives in this mill that chooses not to participate in two NSPS tiers are labeled Tier II and program. In addition, because mill- the program will receive the baseline Tier III. Tier III is the most stringent of specific factors, including product BAT limitations or NSPS; similarly, a the tiers. Each BAT tier is made up of specifications and existing equipment, mill that chooses to enroll some but not an array of increasingly more stringent will affect the technical approach taken all of its Subpart B fiber lines in the enforceable effluent limitations, and the environmental goal attainable Voluntary Advanced Technology culminating in the ultimate performance by an individual mill, EPA is Incentives Program will receive baseline requirements for that particular tier. The establishing several tiers of Advanced BAT limitations or NSPS for its non- NSPS tiers consist entirely of the Technology performance objectives, participating fiber lines. ultimate performance requirements for each with limitations and standards EPA expects that an interested mill each tier. In addition to the Voluntary specific to the model technology EPA is would formally enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent positing. In order to promote ambitious Advanced Technology Incentives limitations and NSPS codified today, use of Advanced Technologies, EPA is Program prior to issuance of its next EPA has also assembled a number of offering greater incentives for greater NPDES discharge permit. Enrollment incentives relating to permitting and reductions in pollutant discharge. can be made by indicating the mill’s enforcement matters and public EPA recognizes that some mills in the intent on its permit application or recognition. EPA hopes these incentives Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda through separate correspondence to the will encourage many mills to develop subcategory have already installed or permitting authority as long as the and install advanced and even have committed to install Advanced signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22 innovative technologies that will lead Technologies that are achieving or have are met. However, as discussed in more the industry as a whole toward the the potential to achieve effluent detail in Section IX.A.7 below, EPA elimination of pollutant discharges. limitations equivalent to the ultimate assumes that most mills, for practical EPA believes it is appropriate as a performance requirements of one or purposes, will decide whether to matter of policy to offer mills incentives more of the Voluntary Advanced participate in the Voluntary Advanced to reach beyond the baseline BAT and Technology Incentive Tiers. If these Technology Incentives Program in the NSPS process technologies. Capital mills accept enforceable NPDES permit next year in order to assure that they costs associated with the Tier I limitations at one of the Tier levels, they will have the maximum amount of time technology are substantially greater than will qualify for the incentives program to achieve the various Tier limitations the capital costs of Option A, which is at that level. In some instances, and to receive the additional the technology basis for the baseline therefore, the incentives will actually compliance time for MACT, established BAT limits. Although over ten years a serve as rewards for effluent reductions under these rules for mills enrolled in mill employing Tier I technologies will already achieved. the Voluntary Advanced Technology likely save money in operating costs, the Incentives Program. Any mill can 2. Mechanics of the Incentives Program capital outlay involved may discourage voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate mills from doing more than the The Voluntary Advanced Technology to its individual circumstances. Further, regulatory minimum. For Tiers II and Incentives Program for the Bleached mills that enter either at Tier I or Tier III, the costs and risks are even more Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory II may decide, after making such a acute, when one considers the cost of will supplement the otherwise commitment in permits but before research, development, and full scale compulsory baseline BAT and NSPS termination of the appropriate commercial trials of technologies in the program. EPA emphasizes that the compliance period (i.e., not later than early stages of development and Voluntary Advanced Technology six years after publication of these implementation, as well as the Incentives Program is entirely rules—Tier I, or not later than 11 years associated uncertainties concerning voluntary; no mill in Subpart B is after publication of these rules—Tier II), possible product impacts. EPA is required to participate. Rather, mills to commit to the requirements of a more interested in encouraging research, subject to the baseline BAT limits and stringent tier (i.e., Tier II or Tier III). development and installation of NSPS contained in Subpart B may Such mills will be subject to the emerging technologies in order to enroll in the incentives program and deadlines specified in the regulation for motivate the development of these thus subject themselves to more the newly chosen tier. technologies for broader commercial stringent technology-based limitations Existing dischargers volunteering to applications. As these technologies corresponding to the Incentives Tier participate in the incentives program become proven and their efficiencies they select. For example, a mill that would receive BAT limitations that publicized, EPA hopes that they will determines that it can achieve Tier II become progressively more stringent become—in effect if not as a matter of limits may designate itself as a BAT Tier over time. Although applied in stages, law—the industry floor. Thus, EPA II mill. A mill with more than one fiber the limitations represent a continuum of believes it is in the public interest to line subject to Subpart B may choose to progress that a participating mill encourage mills today to develop enroll all or some of its fiber lines in the commits, and is required, to achieve. At environmentally beneficial technology Voluntary Advanced Technology the first stage in the continuum are and to reward mills that are innovative Incentives Program. A mill wishing to limitations for the enrolled fiber line and forward-looking in their use of new experiment with advanced or even that reflect either a mill’s existing and more environmentally effective innovative bleaching technologies also effluent quality or its current technology despite its greater cost. may choose different Tiers for different technology-based permit limits for the EPA received suggestions for an fiber lines. After the mill enrolls in the BAT parameters, whichever are more incentives program from a number of Voluntary Advanced Technology stringent. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). For stakeholders. From these and other Incentives Program, the permit writer the bleach plant parameters, such as stakeholder suggestions, EPA has must place the corresponding BAT dioxin, existing effluent quality would developed a program, presented below, limitations in the mill’s permit. be determined at the bleach plant, while that is intended to provide incentives Achievement of the Advanced existing effluent quality for AOX would for further long term environmental Technology BAT limitations thereafter be determined at the end of the pipe improvements. EPA is incorporating would be compulsory for that mill. A based on loadings attributable to that Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18595 fiber line. Id. The next stage in the the NPDES permit of a mill enrolled in suggestions or supporting information continuum consists of enforceable the Voluntary Advanced Technology and data upon which EPA reasonably interim milestones. Under one set of Incentives Program will need to contain could develop a program for the milestones, existing dischargers all other permit limitations and Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. enrolled in Tiers II or III are required to conditions otherwise applicable to the However, EPA will consider developing meet interim BAT limitations equivalent mill, including any conventional incentive programs for other to the baseline BAT limitations by April pollutant limitations and standards, any subcategories as BAT limitations are 15, 2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (By that water quality-based effluent limitations promulgated for those subcategories. required under CWA Section date, dischargers enrolled are required 3. The Technology Bases for the 301(b)(1)(C), and best management to meet the baseline BAT limitations for Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT practices provisions, including those all pollutants, except for Tier I; the AOX Limitations and NSPS limitation for mills enrolled in Tier I is promulgated today. Schedules for the ultimate performance requirement complying with those requirements, if In order to determine the appropriate for Tier I. Id.) Under the second set of any, are determined by the applicable Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT milestones, existing dischargers law; nothing in this incentives program limitations and NSPS, EPA first selected enrolled in any tier are required to meet alters in any way those compliance a model technology for each Tier. For enforceable requirements determined by deadlines. Tier I, which applies only to BAT, EPA the permitting authority based on best Because mills enrolling in the determined that the most appropriate professional judgment; these milestones Voluntary Advanced Technology technology was extended delignification would be expressed as narrative or Incentives Program are subject to more with complete substitution of chlorine numeric conditions in the mill’s NPDES stringent BAT limitations and NSPS dioxide for elemental chlorine, closing permit. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). EPA than EPA could otherwise compel up wastewater discharges from the fiber intends the milestones to reflect each through national effluent limitations line prior to bleaching, and efficient step in a mill’s progress toward guidelines, EPA has assembled a biological wastewater treatment. EPA achievement of the Tier’s ultimate package of rewards and incentives for selected this technology basis because it performance requirements. Elsewhere in participating mills. The public is available today (see discussion of today’s Federal Register, EPA is recognition incentive is available as BAT Option B and NSPS technology in proposing to require each participating soon as a mill accepts Voluntary Section VI.B.5.(a) and (b)), because it is economically achievable for mills mill to submit to its permitting authority Advanced Technology BAT limitations voluntarily choosing to implement it a plan detailing the steps it plans to take in its NPDES permit. The reduced (see Section IX.A.6), and because it (with corresponding dates) in order to monitoring incentive applicable to represents an important step in the meet its applicable BAT Tier dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants is direction of a minimum impact mill. limitations. Under the proposed The model technology for Tier II regulation, permit writers would be available as soon as participating mills achieve those limitations. See 40 CFR Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT authorized to use the information in the limitations and NSPS consists of milestone plan as a basis for setting 430.02(c). The reduced monitoring incentive applicable to AOX is available extended delignification with complete milestone limitations. The final stage in substitution of chlorine dioxide for the BAT continuum represents the only after the ultimate Advanced Technology performance level for that elemental chlorine, supplemented with ultimate Advanced Technology pollutant is achieved. See 40 CFR increased use of water conservation performance levels for the Tier selected. 430.02(d) and (e). The remaining practices, water reuse practices, bleach 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). As noted above, incentives, including greater permit plant filtrate recycling practices, and the Voluntary Advanced Technology certainty, reduced inspections, and efficient biological wastewater Incentives Program is also available for reduced penalties, are available only treatment. EPA anticipates that Tier II new sources that elect to exceed after the mill achieves all of the ultimate mills will maximize the capability of baseline NSPS requirements. See 40 Advanced Technology performance extended delignification technology, CFR 430.25(c). For new sources (as levels. thereby reducing the amount of chlorine defined at 430.01(j)), the incentives EPA has decided not to make the dioxide used in bleaching. The model program begins at Tier II. The ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology Tier II mill also will have highly Tier II and Tier III performance Incentives Program available to indirect effective pulping liquor spill prevention requirements constitute NSPS for such discharges at this time because it would and control and will have evaporators mills, with the addition of standards for be much more difficult to administer that minimize the amount of black conventional pollutants at the baseline than the baseline PSES program and liquor carryover, to allow for extensive NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1) and therefore would impose substantial condensate reuse. EPA expects that Tier (2). The NSPS Tier II and Tier III burden on local governments. Further, II mills also will employ a closed fiber performance requirements are the same EPA does not believe that commitments line prior to bleaching improved water as the ultimate BAT Tier II and Tier III by indirect dischargers to reduce AOX reuse within the bleach plant, and will performance requirements for BAT. As or flow levels warrants any delay in recycle a portion of bleach plant filtrate required by CWA Section 306, new compliance with limitations on dioxin back through the fiber line to the sources must comply with the and furan due to POTW pass-through recovery cycle. The Tier II Advanced applicable NSPS upon commencing and biosolids contamination concerns. Technology BAT limitations and NSPS operation; therefore, the incremental Similarly, EPA has not identified represent the performance demonstrated approach of achieving progressively feasible technologies beyond BAT that by mills that minimize effluent flow and more stringent performance levels can significantly reduce pollutant reduce the formation of chlorinated discussed above for existing sources discharges from mills in the Papergrade organic compounds using these would not apply to new sources Sulfite subcategory at this time, and so technologies and practices. Three mills enrolled in the incentives program. is not able to develop an incentives in the United States are approaching the In addition to Voluntary Advanced program for this subcategory. Moreover, reduced wastewater flow levels Technology BAT limitations and NSPS, stakeholders have offered no specific equivalent to Tier II, which leads EPA 18596 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations to conclude that flow reduction bases for the Voluntary Advanced substantial reductions in precursors for technologies are emerging. Although the Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS, chlorinated organic pollutants found in flow volume projected or reported by see Voluntary Advanced Technology lignin beyond reductions achieved by these mills excludes pulping area or Incentives Program Technical Support mills with conventional pulping evaporator condensates, which EPA Document (DCN 14488). processes. See DCN 14488. Some includes within its Tier II flow 4. Pollutants Regulated by Voluntary industry commenters suggested that limitation, EPA expects that over the Advanced Technology BAT and NSPS EPA simply specify qualifying next ten or eleven years condensate Limitations Advanced Technologies and require reuse strategies and discharge flow participating mills to employ one or reduction technologies will mature to Except for TCF-based processes, each more of those technologies in order to allow mills to achieve the pulping area Advanced Technology tier consists of receive incentives. EPA rejected this condensate, evaporator condensate and limitations for dioxin, furan, approach because it would inhibit bleach plant wastewater flow level chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic development of equivalent technologies being codified today as part of Tier II. pollutants monitored at the bleach that EPA cannot foresee today and is For further discussion of EPA’s rationale plant. EPA is not codifying limits for inconsistent with the traditional for selecting this technology as the basis these pollutants for TCF processes. As performance-based structure of for Voluntary Advanced Technology discussed in more detail below, each technology-based effluent limitations BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier II Tier also includes AOX limitations under the Clean Water Act. level, see Section IX.A.6. monitored at the end of the pipe and, Nevertheless, EPA agrees with these depending on the Tier, limitations on The model technology for the Tier III commenters that Tier I mills will in all lignin content or wastewater flow. In likelihood employ extended Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT addition, each BAT Tier includes limitations and NSPS represents what delignification technologies or other limitations on pentachlorophenol and technologies that similarly reduce the EPA believes can be achieved in 15 or trichlorophenol (when used as 16 years by mills on the cutting edge of kappa number prior to bleaching; EPA, biocides), see 40 CFR 430.24(d), and therefore, is requiring Tier I mills to minimum effluent technology. In EPA’s each NSPS Tier includes limitations on view, such mills will fully reuse achieve specified kappa numbers that BOD5, TSS and pH, as well as biocides. pulping area and evaporator system reflect the performance capabilities of See 40 CFR 430.25(c) and (d). well-operated, extended delignification condensates, have a closed fiber line EPA has chosen to use AOX as a systems. In addition, EPA’s Tier I limits prior to bleaching, and recycle the performance standard for each of the reflect EPA’s expectation that Tier I majority of bleach plant filtrates back to three Voluntary Advanced Technology mills will be bleaching pulps with less the recovery cycle. EPA expects that BAT tiers because AOX is a measure of these mills will also operate efficient progress in reducing the total lignin and, hence, will realize biological treatment systems. To achieve chlorinated organic matter in significant reductions in the amount of this degree of mill closure, in addition wastewaters resulting from the unrecoverable bleaching chemicals to the level of technology described bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use required to achieve their target under Tier II, EPA expects the model of AOX rather than other measures of brightness. By using less bleaching chemical, Tier I mills will further Tier III mill will have ‘‘kidney’’ organic matter (e.g., BOD5) will further technology to remove metals from encourage a pollution prevention reduce the formation and discharge of bleach filtrate and chloride from the approach instead of end-of-pipe chlorinated organic pollutants generated mill liquor cycle, and may perform treatment technologies. The final rule by bleaching pulps with chlorine- extensive steam stripping or other establishes minimum monitoring containing compounds, including treatment of condensates to allow for frequencies for AOX for each of the chlorine dioxide. By recycling the full reuse. Mills that choose to use Tiers, except for TCF fiber lines. See 40 pulping area filtrates, Tier I mills also ozone delignification may avoid the CFR 430.02(d) and (e). For TCF fiber will be implementing an important need for a chloride removal system. EPA lines, permit writers should determine building block for long-term flow also expects that the Tier III mills will the appropriate monitoring frequency to reduction goals, and eliminating an have advanced process control systems assure continued compliance with the important source of weak black liquor and negligible losses of black liquor AOX limitation. discharge that would otherwise go to the through leaks and spills. Finally, the In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA mill’s wastewater treatment plant. See model Tier III mill will likely have is establishing BAT limitations DCN 14488. extended liquid storage capacity as part requirements for Tier I that include By defining Tier I with parameter of its water recycle and liquor kappa numbers measured prior to values (AOX, kappa numbers) and management systems to help maintain bleaching and a narrative limitation recycle requirements as presented the good hydraulic balance required for calling for recycling of all filtrates above, EPA intends to provide low discharge flow operation. While no generated prior to the point at which maximum encouragement to as many U.S. mill today is achieving these that kappa number is measured. See 40 mills as possible to achieve the limitations, EPA believes that the CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). The kappa number performance of at least the initial continuing progress being made by mills is a measure of lignin content in threshold of the Advanced Technology toward closed-loop processing will lead unbleached pulp, and is routinely program. Adopting threshold to greater innovation regarding determined by mills. EPA is not performance criteria that are too technologies and practices necessary to establishing minimum monitoring stringent could discourage mills from achieve the Tier III limitations. For requirements for kappa numbers in this making additional capital investments further discussion of EPA’s rationale for regulation. Permit writers maintain the beyond those necessary to achieve the selecting this technology as the basis for authority to establish monitoring baseline BAT. This could undermine Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT frequencies on a best professional one goal of the incentives program, limitations and NSPS at the Tier III judgment basis. which is to achieve the greatest level, see Section IX.A.6. For a more By meeting the kappa number environmental results possible detailed discussion of the technology limitations, Tier I mills will achieve consistent with mills’ capital Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18597 investment cycles. Conversely, setting loop mill operations, in turn, are very of filtrates, and for reduced process threshold criteria at levels that could be important long-term environmental wastewater flows because each of these met by some mills that comply only goals because pollutant releases to all parameters functions as a restriction on with the baseline BAT limitations and environmental media would be the quantities, rates or concentrations of that do not employ Advanced minimized. chlorinated organic pollutants and other Technologies could serve as a While mills currently measure end-of- pollutants in a mill’s wastestream. See disincentive to invest in Advanced pipe flow at the point of permitted CWA Section 502(11). Restrictions on Technologies that achieve dramatic discharges, Tier II and Tier III mills will lignin content of unbleached pulp, reductions in pollutant loadings and be required to establish and maintain measured as a kappa number, can be flow. The kappa numbers defined above flow measurement equipment to verify used to reduce the presence of for Tier I, while at the upper end of the compliance with the annual average precursors for chlorinated organic range of values achieved by extended reduced flow limits for those tiers for pollutants in a mill’s wastewater. In delignification technologies, bleach plant and pulping area and addition, lignin itself is a material that nonetheless appear to separate mills evaporator condensates. EPA is not includes polynuclear aromatic that employ them from mills that would establishing minimum monitoring hydrocarbons; a number of polynuclear use conventional pulping technologies frequencies for flow in this regulation. aromatic hydrocarbons are included in to achieve the BAT limitations. See DCN Permit writers maintain the authority to EPA’s list of priority pollutants. See 14488. establish monitoring frequencies on a Appendix A to Part 403 (reprinted after EPA is setting the Voluntary best professional judgment basis. See 40 40 CFR 423.17). Recycling pulping area Advanced Technology BAT limitations CFR 430.02. filtrates to the chemical recovery cycle and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based Review of currently available data and prevents the discharge of weak black on a different philosophy than for Tier literature indicates that the numerical liquor, which includes inorganic I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III values for flow set forth to define Tiers pulping chemicals and dissolved wood 3 3 should reflect a movement toward the II (10 m /kkg) and III (5 m /kkg) are substances. The dissolved wood long-term goal of minimizing impacts of appropriately stringent reduced flow substances include polynuclear mills in all environmental media targets by comparison to current aromatic materials, degraded through partially or fully closed loop wastewater flow for mills with extended carbohydrates, low-molecular weight processes. For Tier II, EPA is setting an delignification technologies. See DCN organic acids, and wood extractives AOX limit based on a long-term average 14488. EPA believes it is appropriate to (resins and fatty acids). The toxicity of (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being include condensates as part of the the materials contained in black liquor achieved by some of the best mills in specified wastewater flow volume is well documented; see the BMP the industry. See DCN 14488. See 40 because technologies are available today Technical Support Document (DCN that allow for their recycle and reuse; CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). For 14489). Limits for process wastewater use of these technologies therefore Tier III, EPA is setting an AOX limit flow, in this case pertaining to total ensures that the cumulative volume of based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/ pulping area and evaporator condensate wastewater flow is reduced to the kkg) that is being achieved by only a and bleach plant wastewater, move greatest extent possible. See DCN 14488. very few mills, including one ECF mill. mills toward closed loop operations. One technology in particular is the SeDCN 14488. Id. This ECF mill Reductions in flow will have the effect ‘‘clean condensate alternative,’’ which is achieved the AOX limit only with of dramatically reducing mass hardwood furnish; moreover, it did so a viable MACT compliance alternative. loadings—and discharges—of non- without the level of flow reduction See 40 CFR 63.447. This alternative chlorinated organics such as lignin and anticipated for Tier III. See DCN 14488. facilitates the segregation, treatment, a variety of chlorinated organics in It is the Agency’s judgment, based on and reuse of condensates and thus will addition to dioxin, furan and the trends in ECF technology development assist mills in achieving the wastewater chlorinated phenolic pollutants to date, that with recycle of pulping and flow objectives. Inclusion of pulping specifically regulated today. Because evaporator condensates and bleach and evaporator condensates in these those pollutants are far too numerous to plant filtrates necessary to achieve a reduced flow targets therefore is measure individually (and some have wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg, and consistent with the ‘‘clean condensate’’ not been specifically isolated and removal of chlorides from the liquor MACT compliance alternative and will cycle, commensurate reductions in the promote flow reduction through recycle identified), EPA determined that it was mass of chlorinated organic pollutants and reuse of the greatest possible impracticable to set mass-based limits contained in wastewaters discharged volume of process wastewater. for all of those pollutants. See DCN also are likely to occur. For this reason, EPA has the legal authority to 14488. EPA judged that establishing it is EPA’s judgment that the Tier III establish Advanced Technology effluent flow levels for Tiers II and III would be AOX limit will be achievable by limitations for non-chemical the best way to control the discharge of advanced ECF mills for both hardwood parameters, such as lignin content these pollutants. and softwood furnishes as well as measurements and flow, and to do so For the foregoing reasons, all of these advanced TCF mills. where appropriate in narrative form. For Advanced Technology performance The Tier II and Tier III BAT Tier I, these limitations take the form of objectives qualify as effluent limitations limitations and NSPS also include kappa numbers to measure lignin under CWA section 502(11). As noted restrictions on wastewater flow and a content in unbleached pulp and a above, the filtrates recycle limitation is requirement that all pulping-area narrative requirement to recycle pulping a narrative limitation. Nothing in the filtrates be recycled to chemical area filtrates; for Tiers II and III, they definition of effluent limitation in CWA recovery prior to bleaching. See 40 CFR take the form of numerical limitations section 502(11) or elsewhere in the 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). As on process wastewater flows, as well as CWA compels that restrictions on the discussed above for Tier I, the filtrates the narrative requirement to recycle discharge of pollutants be expressed in recycle requirement is an important step pulping area filtrates. EPA has the numeric form. See NRDC v. Costle, 568 toward long-term flow reduction. Flow authority to establish limits for lignin F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In this reduction and progress toward closed content in unbleached pulp, for recycle instance, EPA determined that the 18598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations restriction on filtrates (and hence the limitations thus will be numeric values Technology permit is issued prior to prevention of discharge of toxic on dioxin, furan, chloroform, AOX, and achievement of the ultimate Advanced materials) could not be expressed as a 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants that, Technology performance requirements. numeric limitation and therefore for each pollutant, are equivalent to the Because the ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations expressed that restriction in narrative more stringent of either the technology- reflect a level of technology that the mill form instead. based limit on that pollutant in the is already employing or that was For further discussion of the effluent mill’s last permit or the mill’s current previously determined to be BAT for reductions and environmental benefits effluent quality with respect to that that mill, EPA has determined that the associated with the Advanced pollutant. Id. Existing effluent quality technology bases for the ‘‘stage 1’’ limits Technology BAT limitations and for AOX would be determined at the are both technically available and standards promulgated for these end of the pipe based on loadings economically achievable. EPA has also parameters, see DCN 14488. attributable to that fiber line; for all determined that they would not impose any adverse non-water quality 5. Voluntary Advanced Technology other pollutants covered by the environmental impacts. EPA has BAT Limitations and NSPS Advanced Technology BAT limitations, such as dioxin, existing effluent quality determined that these ‘‘stage 1’’ The Voluntary Advanced Technology would be determined at the point where limitations are the ‘‘best’’ available BAT limitations consist of three the wastewater containing those technology economically achievable for separate components, which together pollutants leaves the bleach plant. Id. mills participating in the Voluntary comprise BAT for the particular Tier. These ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT limits represent Advanced Technology Incentives See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first and the first step in the Advanced Program because they allow those mills third components consist of numeric Technology BAT continuum and are to focus their resources on the research, effluent limitations for the pollutants enforceable against the participating development, testing, and installation of regulated by the Voluntary Advanced mill as soon as they are placed in the the technologies ultimately needed to Technology Incentives Program. The mill’s NPDES permit. achieve the Advanced Technology second component consists of The purpose of the ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT performance levels. Thus, ‘‘stage 1’’ enforceable interim milestones. Under limits is to ensure that, at a minimum, limitations reflect ‘‘reasonable further one set of milestones, existing existing effluent quality is maintained progress toward the national goal of dischargers enrolled in Tiers II or III are while the mill moves toward achieving eliminating the discharge of all required to meet interim BAT the ultimate Voluntary Advanced pollutants,’’ as called for by CWA limitations equivalent to the baseline Technology BAT performance section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA also BAT limitations by April 15, 2004. requirements for the Tier selected by the considered all of the other statutory Under the second set of milestones, mill. As Advanced Technology permits factors specified in CWA section existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are reissued for Tier II or Tier III mills, 304(b)(2)(B) and concluded that nothing are required to meet enforceable in particular, new ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations in EPA’s analysis of those factors requirements that are developed on a must be established to reflect the justifies selecting a different set of best professional judgment basis by the improving effluent quality of that mill. ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT limitations. For these permitting authority; these milestones Id. Allowing a mill to degrade its reasons, EPA determined that the ‘‘stage are expressed in either narrative or effluent quality during development and 1’’ BAT limitations promulgated today numeric form. Taken together, these installation of Advanced Technologies represent the appropriate first rung of three components constitute reasonable would be inconsistent with the statute’s the Advanced Technology BAT ladder further progress toward the national direction that BAT limitations achieve that participating mills will have goal of eliminating the discharge of all reasonable further progress toward the committed to ascend. pollutants and for this reason represent Clean Water Act’s national goals. EPA’s EPA did not set ‘‘stage 1’’ limits at the BAT. ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations, thus, are intended baseline BAT level because baseline The Voluntary Advanced Technology to capture continuously improving BAT limits are not a logical first step to NSPS consist of only one stage—the effluent quality. meeting the ultimate Advanced ultimate performance objectives for the EPA had considered, but rejected, Technology BAT limitations for the Tier in question, with the addition of attempting to codify the ‘‘stage 1’’ limits reasons set forth below. See DCN 14488. conventional limitations at the baseline in numeric form. First, EPA has no way First, as a technical matter, mills subject NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). This on this record to quantify and hence to such interim limits most likely would is because new sources, unlike existing codify the existing effluent quality of need to install more chlorine dioxide sources subject to BAT, must design and each mill that is potentially eligible to generator capacity than they ultimately construct their facilities to achieve participate in this program. Nor would would use to achieve the Advanced NSPS upon commencing operation; such an attempt be wise, because EPA Technology performance requirements. sequencing limitations to achieve expects that mills considering (EPA believes most Advanced continuing progress would be participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology mills ultimately will inconsistent with this statutory Technology Incentives Program will employ complete substitution of mandate. continue to improve their effluent chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, a. ‘‘Stage 1’’ BAT Limitations. In the quality up to and beyond the preceded by extended delignification regulation, EPA has codified the first set promulgation date of this regulation processes—a sequence that calls for of numeric BAT effluent limitations as and, most likely, up to and beyond the approximately 30 to 75 percent less ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations to be applied in dates that their existing effluent quality chlorine dioxide than a mill would use the absence of more stringent WQBELs. is translated into enforceable permit to achieve the baseline BAT See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). Although limits. Therefore, even if EPA could requirements depending on the degree expressed in this regulation in narrative codify such ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations today, of extended delignification used.) form, EPA intends that the permitting doing so would likely establish a less Second, as an economic matter, interim authority will express that limitation in stringent technological floor than the limitations driving a mill to over-design numeric form for each participating mill permitting authority would be able to its chlorine dioxide generator would on a case-by-case basis. The ‘‘stage 1’’ establish each time an Advanced cause the mill to divert capital away Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18599 from the processes needed to achieve I level are required to achieve those in addition to research schedules, the ultimate Voluntary Advanced limitations as well as the ultimate construction schedules, mill trial Technology BAT limitations. That Advanced Technology limitations by schedules, or other milestones diversion of resources undercuts one of that date. 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) and (4).) appropriate to the advanced technology EPA’s principal assumptions regarding EPA believes that this is a reasonable and the participating mill. Interim the economic achievability of the requirement not only because it ensures milestones should be tailored to ultimate Voluntary Advanced significant environmental progress circumstances and process technologies Technology BAT limitations: that mills consistent with CWA section 301(b)(2), at individual mills. would be able to focus their capital and but it also reflects the technology In order to facilitate the development other resources entirely on those performance Tier II and Tier III mills are of appropriate interim milestones on a superior performance levels. Thus, EPA likely to be achieving by that date. Mills case-by-case basis, EPA proposes was concerned that by compelling enrolled in Tier II and Tier III are elsewhere in today’s Federal Register to achievement of baseline BAT expected to substantially modify require all mills enrolling in the limitations as ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations, EPA pulping and bleaching processes (e.g., incentives program to submit plans would unnecessarily inflate the overall install extended delignification, ECF, or detailing the strategy the mill will cost of achieving the ultimate Advanced TCF bleaching) to comply with the follow to develop and implement the Technology limitations. This would Advanced Technology limitations. EPA technology required to achieve the likely cause some mills to conclude that expects that all Tier II or Tier III mills chosen incentive tier, as well as the they cannot sustain the overall costs of will install extended delignification and interim numeric limitations for Tiers II achieving the Voluntary Advanced complete substitution (ECF) or TCF and III. The plan should describe each Technology BAT limitations in an bleaching processes well in advance of envisioned new technology component economically achievable manner. Other achieving their wastewater flow or process modification the mill will mills, in turn, might decide to absorb objectives in order to allow sufficient need to achieve the Voluntary the additional costs by diverting time to design, install, test and adjust Advanced Technology BAT limits. A resources from other environmentally their other flow-related processes. In master schedule should be included in beneficial projects that they might have EPA’s judgment, process changes the plan showing the sequence of voluntarily undertaken. The Clean sufficient to achieve baseline BAT implementing the new technologies and Water Act authorizes EPA to consider limitations will occur by April 15, 2004. process modifications and identifying non-water quality environmental Once these processes are installed, the critical path relationships within the impacts and other factors EPA deems mill will be achieving or exceeding the sequence. For each individual appropriate in setting BAT limitations. baseline BAT limitations being required technology or process modification, a See CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B). For these by that date. See DCN 14488. schedule should be provided that lists reasons, EPA believes that compelling EPA notes that mills required to the anticipated date that associated achievement of the baseline BAT limits achieve water quality-based or other construction, installation, or process in the first instance would have had the effluent limitations equivalent to one or changes will be initiated, the contradictory and unintended effect of more of the Voluntary Advanced discouraging participation in the Technology BAT limitations are still anticipated date that those steps will be program, with the result that fewer mills eligible to enroll in the Voluntary completed, and the anticipated date that ultimately would be motivated to Advanced Technology Incentives the full Advanced Technology process achieve superior environmental Program and to receive incentives for or individual component will be fully performance. Finally, as discussed in achieving the remaining Voluntary operational. For those technologies or more detail below, EPA is requiring Advanced Technology limitations. process modifications that are not mills at the Tier II and Tier III levels to However, the time for complying with commercially available or demonstrated achieve interim limitations equivalent water quality-based or other equivalent on a full scale basis at the time the plan to baseline BAT by April 15, 2004. See effluent limitations would be is developed, the plan should include a 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). determined by applicable law, not by schedule for research (if necessary), b. Interim Milestones. As the second this Voluntary Advanced Technology process development, and mill trials. component of the Voluntary Advanced Incentives Program. Therefore, for The schedule for research, process Technology BAT for the three Incentives example, if a mill’s NPDES permit development, and mill trials should Tiers, EPA is requiring the compels immediate compliance with a show major milestone dates and the establishment of enforceable interim dioxin limitation equivalent to the anticipated date the technology or milestones. See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (2) Voluntary Advanced (BAT) Technology process change will be available for mill and (3). EPA believes that interim limitation on dioxin because of water implementation. The plan also would milestones would incrementally benefit quality concerns or other requirements need to include contingency plans in the environment during the period prior of state or federal law, this six-year the event that any of the technologies or to achievement of the ultimate milestone would not be available for processes specified in the Milestones Advanced Technology performance that dioxin limitation. See CWA section Plan need to be adjusted or alternative levels and will ensure that participating 301(b)(1)(C). approaches developed to ensure that the mills make reasonable progress toward The second set of enforceable interim ultimate tier limits are achieved by the achieving the superior performance milestones promulgated today applies to dates in the master schedule. EPA represented by the various Advanced all mills enrolled in the Advanced expects the permitting authority to use Technology BAT Tiers. Technology Incentives Program. the information contained in those EPA is promulgating two sets of Although today’s rule leaves the type plans, as well as its own best enforceable interim milestones. The first and frequency of these milestones to the professional judgment, to establish set requires mills enrolled at the Tier II permit writer’s best professional enforceable interim milestones applying or the Tier III level to achieve judgment, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2), all statutory factors. EPA also expects limitations equivalent to baseline BAT milestones should include intermediate permit writers to include reopener limitations by April 15, 2004. 40 CFR pollutant load and wastewater flow clauses in the permits to adjust these 430.24(b)(3). (Mills enrolled at the Tier reductions (for Tier II and Tier III mills) milestones including dates to reflect the 18600 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations results of research (if necessary), process because application of Advanced 430.25(c). These limitations are development, and mill trials. Technologies does not appear on this discussed above. However, recently Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act record to justify more stringent gathered data from TCF mills indicate authorizes permit writers to establish limitations. that all TCF mills will be able to achieve permit conditions and limitations on the (2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced the AOX performance requirements at basis of best professional judgment as Technology BAT Limitations (‘‘stage 2’’) any Tier level because end-of-pipe AOX necessary to achieve the objectives of and NSPS. For Tier II, the ultimate levels are being reported at below the Act. Although EPA is promulgating performance requirement for AOX is an minimum level. See DCN 14488. BAT limitations under CWA sections LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured Consequently, the AOX limitations for 301 and 304, EPA is not—nor could it at the end of the pipe. 40 CFR TCF fiber lines are expressed as ‘‘

Voluntary Advanced Technology discharge of pollutants. Finally, EPA cost of installing the Advanced Incentives Program, call for emphasizes that participation in the Technologies. Although on this record environmental performance far in Advanced Technology Incentives EPA cannot state with confidence what excess of the performance compelled by Program is purely voluntary. No mill in the cost of implementing these the baseline BAT. the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Advanced Technologies would be if EPA chose the parameters and subcategory is required to commit to spread over time (and hence cannot limitations unique to the Voluntary achieve the Voluntary Advanced make an economic achievability finding Advanced Technology Incentives Technology BAT limitations at any for the subcategory as a whole or any Program because they reflect the levels level. discernible segment relating to those of performance EPA believes can be The voluntary nature of the Advanced Advanced Technologies), EPA achieved over time by mills willing and Technology Incentives Program also nevertheless believes that each mill is able to invest the resources to develop supports EPA’s finding that the ‘‘stage capable of making that judgment and and apply the corresponding Advanced 2’’ BAT limitations for the various assuming the corresponding economic Technology processes and practices. Incentives Tiers will be economically risks. This Voluntary Advanced The Tier I technology is available today achievable by the dates specified in the Technology Incentives Program thus and does not impose significant non- rule for the mills choosing to achieve establishes a structure by which mills water quality environmental impacts; it them. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). The willing to predict their economic was not selected as the baseline BAT ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations apply only to mills fortunes over the next several years and technology because it is not that designate themselves as Tier I, Tier to commit to enforceable permit limits economically achievable for the II or Tier III Advanced Technology based on that prediction can do so. subcategory as a whole or any segment performers and that voluntarily accept EPA has considerable discretion as is discernible from the record the corresponding ‘‘stage 2’’ limits in under CWA section 304(b)(2) to available today. See Section VI.B.5.a(5). their NPDES permits. In other words, determine whether and when a However, for mills willing and able to the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations are BAT for an particular technology or process is BAT. employ that technology, EPA believes Advanced Technology mill only EPA also has broad authority to that limitations based on extended because that mill announces, by interpret CWA section 301. In E.I. du delignification, complete substitution, choosing to participate in the Program Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 and other processes would be and by its choice of Tier, that by the U.S. 112 (1977), the Supreme Court economically achievable by the year date specified in the rule for the accorded great deference to EPA in 2003. EPA believes that the technology applicable ‘‘stage 2’’ limits a technology promulgating effluent limitations bases for Tier II, in turn, could be will be both available and economically guidelines as regulations under section technically and economically achievable for the purpose of achieving 301, noting that ‘‘[CWA Section] 101(d) achievable for mills willing to those limitations. Based on the requires us to resolve any ambiguity on participate by the year 2008, and would experiences of mills that have this score in favor of the not impose significant non-water quality voluntarily pursued performance levels Administrator.’’ Id. at 128. The Supreme environmental impacts. EPA bases its comparable to the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations Court also found that section 501(a) view on the experience of at least three of Tiers I and II, EPA believes that a mill supports EPA’s broad use of its U.S. mills that are moving in the choosing to pursue those objectives can regulatory authority to implement direction of reduced bleach plant flow. do so within its economic capability. section 301. Id. at 132. EPA believes that See DCN 14488. None of these mills, Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable its decision to promulgate Voluntary however, is presently achieving the to presume that a mill would not subject Advanced Technology BAT limitations ‘‘stage 2’’ flow limits for Tier II because itself to enforceable technology-based is authorized by sections 301 and 304. those limits include pulping area and limits if achievement of those limits Section 301(b)(2) in particular directs evaporator condensate as well as bleach would exceed the mill’s economic EPA to promulgate BAT limitations that, plant wastewater flow. Finally, with capability. Because the economic within the constraints of economic respect to Tier III, EPA notes that one achievability of the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations achievability, ‘‘will result in reasonable mill in Finland today is achieving flow ultimately is evaluated according to the further progress toward the national levels close to 5 m3/kkg or less, mill’s own choices, EPA concludes that goal of eliminating the discharge of all although this mill’s flow rates also the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations are pollutants.’’ Section 301(b)(2)(A). In exclude condensates. This mill is able to economically achievable. In addition, addition, both case law and the achieve its current level of performance while implementation of these legislative history interpreting the BAT without imposing significant non-water Advanced Technologies today is beyond program make it clear that the statute is quality environmental impacts. In the economic capabilities of many mills to be used to force technology, within addition, mills choosing Tier III will because of the significant capital the constraints imposed by sections have up to 16 years and considerable investments that can be incurred at the 301(b)(2) and 304(b)(2). Promulgation of flexibility to develop and implement outset, EPA believes that a mill able to regulations to promote the use of appropriate flow control strategies. (For plan for these investments over time Advanced Technologies and, hence, a discussion of the timeframes could reduce those investment costs to progress toward the elimination of associated with achieving the Voluntary some extent, if only by minimizing the pollutant discharges thus is within the Advanced Technology BAT Limitations, amount of capital the mill would need scope of the Administrator’s 501(a) see Section IX.A.7.) While EPA to borrow. Moreover, with additional authorities. See Cleveland Electric recognizes that achievement of the time mills will inevitably find ways to Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 603 F.2d 1, 6 ‘‘stage 2’’ limits for Tier III may call for implement these technologies that (6th Cir. 1979) (‘‘The ultimate considerable creativity and innovation reduce costs. More importantly, it could justification for every regulation and by industry participants, EPA believes make these environmental guideline pertaining to discharges is its that such spurs to innovation are improvements in sequence with other effectiveness in promoting the consistent with the Clean Water Act’s business decisions related to capital achievement of the goals of Congress in ultimate goal of eliminating the investment, thus reducing the overall enacting the 1972 Amendments.’’) 18602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

As part of its BAT analysis, EPA Advanced Technology BAT limitations bleach sequence with chlorine on each performed a case-study analysis to at each incentive Tier. This case study line. Table IX–1 presents effluent load determine the potential effluent is discussed in more detail at DCN reductions from that case-study mill, reduction benefits derived from the 14488. The 1000 metric ton-per-day calculated for the baseline BAT (BAT incentives program. Effluent reductions case-study mill operates a softwood and Option A) as well as each incentive were calculated for a hypothetical case- a hardwood bleach line of equal size, Tier. study mill complying with Voluntary and uses a conventional three-stage

TABLE IX±1.ÐEFFLUENT LOAD REDUCTIONS FOR CASE STUDY MILL

Baseline Pollutant Units BAT Tier I Tier II Tier III Technology

AOX ...... kkg/yr ..... 670 770 830 840 BOD5 ...... kkg/yr ..... 290 440 720 870 COD ...... kkg/yr ..... 6,000 11,000 13,000 18,000 Color ...... kkg/yr ..... 2,000 15,000 30,000 34,000 Chloroform ...... kg/yr ...... 290 290 290 290 TCDD&TCDF ...... g/yr ...... 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 12 Chlorinated Phenolics ...... kkg/yr ..... 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,200 Note that for all levels, TCDD, TCDF, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolics will not be detected in the final effluent. The differences between the levels are the result of technologies employed to reduce discharge flow rates under the incentive Tiers.

In selecting the technology basis for much of the Tier II and Tier III of these standards will not result in any each of the Incentives Tiers, EPA also technology bases focus on closing mill significant non-water quality evaluated the associated non-water process cycles, which has not yet been environmental impacts or significant quality environmental impacts, changes fully demonstrated. As these additional energy requirements. See in energy requirements, the age of technologies are fully developed and DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA’s analysis facilities and equipment involved, the implemented, sufficient engineering of the other statutory factors applicable process used, and the engineering analyses and testing should be to NSPS justified selecting different aspects of various types of control performed to assess whether NSPS technologies. techniques and process changes. See unacceptable cross media transfer of EPA also believes it is appropriate to DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA’s analysis pollutants are occurring, and whether promulgate limitations for all three of these factors justified selecting modifications need to be made to avoid Tiers at the same time it promulgates different BAT technologies than those any unacceptable transfers identified. the baseline BAT limitations. (The same identified in section IX.a.3. EPA found For NSPS, EPA has determined that rationale applies for today’s Voluntary that the technologies that form the basis Tier II and Tier III technologies Advanced Technology NSPS.) By of the Incentives Tiers provide a constitute the best demonstrated control promulgating all three Voluntary significant degree of water conservation, technologies for mills enrolling in those Advanced Technology BAT Tiers today, particularly at Voluntary Advanced tiers. Although EPA cannot say today rather than in five-year increments, EPA Technology Tiers II and III. EPA also that either of these technology hopes to encourage as many mills as expects lower secondary sludge sequences is the best demonstrated possible to develop and install generation rates at Incentives Tier mills control technology for new sources in Advanced Technologies. On this record, with activated sludge treatment because the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda EPA has determined that its customary of reduction in BOD5 loads associated subcategory as a whole, EPA does practice of promulgating a single BAT with the Advanced Technologies. The believe that new sources emerging for similarly situated mills—represented technology basis of each of the within the next 16 years may here by the baseline BAT limitations— Incentives Tiers will lead to overall characterize them as such based on their would have the unintended effect of decreases in energy consumption, own sense of their economic and impeding some mills’ progress toward primarily because of replacement of technical capabilities. Therefore, as with even greater environmental objectives chlorine dioxide with oxygen-based existing sources, EPA is promulgating than EPA can compel at this time. Thus, delignification and bleaching chemicals. this additional array of NSPS in order to if EPA were to promulgate only baseline EPA expects a slight increase in air provide such mills the opportunity to BAT limitations today and not establish emissions (<2 percent) due to increased pursue voluntarily pollution prevention a parallel track for mills converting to recovery of black liquor that will occur technologies—and to accept Advanced Technologies, EPA is under the Incentives Tiers. However, correspondingly more stringent effluent concerned that mills might abandon these are offset by reductions in air limitations—if business circumstances their voluntary long-term strategies of pollution that derive from the warrant. EPA notes that a mill superior environmental performance in reductions in overall energy subjecting itself to the Advanced favor of compulsory short-term consumption. Technology NSPS will be shielded from compliance strategies focused on the EPA considered the potential for more stringent technology-based baseline BAT. Instead, by promulgating cross-media transfer of pollutants effluent limitations for ten years Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT through implementation of the beginning on the date that construction limitations at the same time as baseline Advanced Technologies that form the is completed. See CWA section 306(d). BAT limitations, EPA allows interested basis of the Incentives Tiers. EPA found Because these standards are entirely mills to consider all technology options no basis to conclude that cross-media voluntary, their promulgation today at the outset before they make their transfer of pollutants would occur. See presents no barrier to entry. In addition, investment decisions and to design and DCN 14488 and DCN 14492. However, EPA has determined that achievement install precisely the technologies and Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18603 processes they will need to meet their consider those opportunities when baseline BAT limitations unless it long-term Advanced Technology promulgating BAT limitations. EPA designates itself as an Advanced objectives. Therefore, EPA has decided therefore believes it is appropriate to Technology mill, in which case it must to promulgate all of the Voluntary consider these barriers to pollution meet the BAT limitations corresponding Advanced Technology BAT limitations prevention as factors relevant to the to the Tier—and segment—it chooses. today in order to provide mills with an definition of BAT limitations and the Although EPA has identified an array opportunity to push their environmental timing of their promulgation, see CWA of process changes that, if employed, performance beyond the minimum section 304(b)(2)(B); especially since could distinguish one Subpart B mill prescribed by the baseline BAT and on failure to promulgate a Voluntary from another and has based its toward the statutory goal of zero Advanced Technology Incentives Advanced Technology limitations on discharge. Promulgating the various Program at this time might impede those potential changes, EPA has made Voluntary Advanced Technology Tiers reasonable further progress toward the the Advanced Technology segments today rather than in five-year national goal of eliminating discharges voluntary. This is because the decision increments also provides some of all pollutants. See CWA section whether Advanced Technology process predictability regarding the progress 301(b)(2). changes are technically feasible and expected of Advanced Technology mills An important component of this economically achievable for a particular over time. EPA hopes that this incentives program is the element of mill depends on many factors unique to predictability will encourage greater choice. Direct discharging mills subject that mill that EPA, on the record participation in the program and thus to Subpart B may choose whether to available today, cannot readily discern lead to superior effluent quality. Finally, enroll in the program and, once or forecast. Among the more significant promulgating all three Tiers of enrolled, may choose the Tier, or factors appear to be the mill’s current Advanced Technology BAT Limitations performance level, that they will bleaching sequence, the physical today makes sense because it reflects achieve. In order to codify this configuration of equipment, the age of EPA’s regulatory approach for structure, EPA has promulgated three equipment (and, thus, end-of-life promoting successively greater sets of Voluntary Advanced Technology issues), the available capacity in environmental achievements for this BAT limitations for bleached chlorine dioxide generation and in the industry, and because companies papergrade kraft and soda mills and two recovery boiler, and whether the mill willing to commit to achieve the sets of NSPS in addition to the baseline uses hardwood or softwood. See DCN increased environmental controls will BAT and NSPS. In effect, EPA has 14488. See also Paper Task Force, be able to avoid the uncertainties divided Subpart B into segments based Technical Supplement White Papers, inherent in a succession of later on the types of bleach plant processes Record section 20.2.8, DCN 14794, DCN rulemakings. mills choose to employ. EPA has 14795, and DCN 14796. considerable authority to establish EPA also has important policy reasons EPA has the authority to promulgate segments within an industrial for making the Advanced Technology the three Tiers of Voluntary Advanced subcategory for the purpose of BAT limitations voluntary, both in Technology BAT limitations today even promulgating BAT limitations unique to terms of the decision to participate and though their ultimate performance those mills. Much like mill-specific in terms of the level of environmental requirements will not be attained until variances based on fundamentally performance to be achieved. As a future date. EPA has the authority different factors, segments reflect EPA’s discussed in greater detail above, EPA under CWA section 304(b)(2) and authority to take into account the believes that mills willing and able to 304(m) to revise the baseline BAT diversity within each industry. See employ technologies and processes limitations for the Bleached Papergrade Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. superior to the ‘‘baseline’’ promulgated Kraft and Soda subcategory whenever 116, 130, 105 S.Ct 1102, 1110 (1985). as BAT—and willing to guarantee that the Administrator deems it is Thus, segmentation, like variances, is effort in the form of enforceable appropriate. Thus, EPA would be free in not an exception to the standard-setting technology-based permit limitations— 5, 10 or 15 years to codify the Voluntary process, but rather a more fine-tuned should have the opportunity to do so. Advanced Technology limitations as application of it. Id. By giving mills a choice to exceed BAT. However, by then, mills For BAT, EPA has essentially baseline compliance levels, EPA potentially interested in pursuing established four segments for the implements CWA section 301(b)(2)’s Advanced Technologies would already Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda direction that BAT limitations ‘‘result in have been required to meet baseline subcategory (and, similarly, three reasonable further progress toward the BAT limitations, perhaps using segments for NSPS). One segment national goal of eliminating the technologies not fully compatible with codifies the baseline BAT limitations; discharge of all pollutants,’’ to the more advanced processes. The costs of the other three segments codify Tiers I, extent consistent with EPA’s findings of retrofitting, or in some cases replacing, II and III of the Voluntary Advanced economic achievability, among other newly installed process technologies to Technology BAT Incentives Program. factors. By allowing mills to choose achieve more stringent limits might EPA defined the Advanced Technology between baseline BAT limitations and prevent EPA from finding that these segments to reflect the various types of Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT technologies are economically process changes and control techniques limitations at the outset, EPA also wants achievable. In addition, participating that mills might employ to achieve to encourage mills to consider all mills would lose a long-term planning environmental performance beyond the possible process configurations before horizon, which is very important baseline BAT level. The Advanced investing in the baseline BAT because of the significant capital outlays Technology segments also reflect the technology. Thus, by codifying multiple involved. As a result, EPA was cost of achieving progressively greater expressions of BAT, EPA has concerned that failure to promulgate environmental effluent reductions. Any established a regulatory mechanism that these Voluntary Advanced Technology one of those factors is sufficient under allows mills to choose greater BAT limitations today might CWA section 304(b)(2) to justify a environmental performance than EPA compromise future pollution prevention segment for affected mills. Each mill in could require on this record and also opportunities. EPA is authorized to Subpart B must comply with the authorizes permit writers to 18604 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations memorialize that choice in the form of (§ 301(c) variances). However, EPA subcategorization or through the enforceable permit limits. rejected implementing the Voluntary variance process. Like variances, the Although applied here for the first Advanced Technology Incentives Voluntary Advanced Technology time to codify a Voluntary Advanced Program through variances for several segments apply only to mills that on Technology Incentives Program, the reasons. First, the Clean Water Act and their own initiative seek different BAT notion of using segmentation to its legislative history indicate a clear limitations. Unlike variances, however, determine applicable technology-based Congressional preference for the use of the subcategorization scheme limitations is not new. Indeed, effluent subcategories, rather than variances, to promulgated by EPA assures consistent limitations guidelines and standards address discernible differences among and timely implementation of the routinely base applicability of regulated entities. By requiring Voluntary Advanced Technology technology-based limitations on a applications for FDF variances to be Incentives Program, which EPA believes discharger’s particular process or based on information submitted during is critical to its success. Therefore, for treatment technologies. For example, the rulemaking process (unless the the reasons explained, EPA’s decision to elsewhere in today’s rule EPA is applicant lacked a reasonable subcategorize Subpart B was rational segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite opportunity to make such submission), and within its discretion. subcategory to reflect, among other see section 301(n)(1)(B), Congress things, the type of product the mill stressed the need for companies to 7. Time Frames for Achieving Voluntary produces. Thus, a papergrade sulfite participate fully in the guideline Advanced Technology BAT Limitations mill choosing to produce specialty development process to assure that In order to promote the pollution products subjects itself to a different set adequate information is available to prevention objectives of the Voluntary of limitations than other mills in its EPA to develop appropriate Advanced Technology Incentives subcategory simply by making that subcategories. See 131 Cong. Rec. S Program, EPA has determined that business decision. EPA also used 8013 (June 12, 1985) (Sen. Bentsen); see existing mills choosing to participate in segmentation to account for different also 133 Cong. Rec. H 131, 136–37 (Jan. that program should receive a treatment configurations when it 7, 1987) (Rep. Howard) (provision reasonable amount of time to achieve promulgated BAT for the organic assures that effluent guidelines ‘‘are as the Advanced Tier performance levels chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers comprehensive as possible’’); 133 Cong. they select. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). category. See 40 CFR 414.91, 414.101; Rec. S 733, 739 (Jan. 14, 1987) (Sen. (These performance levels are codified 58 FR 36872, 36881–85 (July 9, 1993). Mitchell) (EPA should accommodate in this rule as ‘‘stage 2’’ BAT In that rule, EPA established two sets of fundamental differences among limitations.) The extended timeframes BAT limitations for a subcategory of facilities through the establishment of discussed below are not available for plants, one set applicable to plants subcategories). In this rulemaking, many new sources enrolled in the Advanced using end-of-pipe biological treatment commenters supplied vast amounts of Technology Incentives Program because and the other set applicable to plants information concerning the special the Clean Water Act requires new using some other treatment technology, circumstances of facilities aspiring to sources to comply with applicable NSPS including in-plant waste management become minimum impact mills. As upon commencing operation. CWA practices. In this rule, the Advanced Congress intended, EPA established the Section 306(e). However, new sources Technology segments are intended to three Voluntary Advanced Technology interested in participating in the anticipate a mill’s business decision to segments in response to that Voluntary Advanced Technology change its cooking, washing, bleaching, information rather than deferring Incentives Program after commencing wastewater recycle, and recovery consideration of the issue to the post- operation may nevertheless do so, for processes to achieve greater pollutant rulemaking variance process. example, by achieving the baseline reductions than EPA can require as Second, as a matter of policy, EPA NSPS requirements at the time baseline BAT. Indeed, by establishing believes it is reasonable to employ its these segments, EPA hopes to encourage subcategorization, rather than its discharges commence and later many mills to choose Advanced variance, authority to implement the installing additional technologies Technologies, especially those mills that Voluntary Advanced Technology necessary to achieve the more stringent would need to change their bleaching Incentives Program. By establishing the AOX and flow requirements of Tiers II and washing processes in any event to Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT or III. Once limitations equivalent to the comply with the baseline BAT. limitations by rulemaking at the same selected advanced Tier performance EPA also notes that it could have time it codifies the baseline BAT levels are placed in the mill’s permit accomplished the same result for limitations, EPA intends to provide all and the mill achieves those limits, it is existing sources on a case-by-case basis direct discharging mills within Subpart eligible to receive the regulatory and through the Clean Water Act’s variance B the immediate opportunity to push enforcement relief described as processes. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v. beyond base level environmental incentives in Section IX.B. below. NRDC, 470 U.S. at 130, 105 S.Ct at 1110. performance and also to provide with EPA has determined that reasonable Advanced Technology mills could have certainty regarding the stringency and dates by which existing sources can sought fundamentally different factors timing of the limits they would be achieve Advanced Technology variances under CWA section 301(n); for expected to meet. In this way, EPA performance requirements are [April 15, non-conventional pollutants, these mills hopes to encourage many mills to 2004] for Tier I, April 15, 2009 for Tier could have pursued a variance under participate in the program. Use of case- II, and April 15, 2014 for Tier III. See section 301(c). Under either section, by-case variance procedures, in contrast, 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). As discussed in mills could have obtained BAT effluent would introduce delay and uncertainty more detail below, these dates assume limitations that are more or less into the process, which EPA believes an initial start-up year during which stringent than the baseline BAT. See would discourage industry mills subject to Subpart B would decide Chemical Mrfs. Ass’n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. participation. whether to enroll in the Voluntary at 116, 105 S.Ct at 1105–06 (FDF In summary, EPA has discretion in Advanced Technology Incentives variances); EPA v. National Crushed determining whether to account for Program and develop a plan for Stone Ass’n, 449 U.S. 64, 79 n.18 (1980) industry characteristics through complying with the ultimate incentives Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18605

BAT limitations. The remaining and develop solutions to those technical five additional years beyond the Tier II additional time, calculated as 5 years for problems. In addition to these technical timeframe. For example, mills would Tier I, 10 years for Tier II, and 15 years challenges, significant capital costs may probably need to install ‘‘kidney’’ for Tier III, corresponds to the time EPA be involved in achieving Tier II limits, technologies to remove metals and believes a mill would need in order to notably as a result of upgrading full chlorides in order to control system arrange its financing and to develop, pulping and bleaching lines and scaling and corrosion problems while install, test, and implement the chosen associated evaporator equipment. maintaining product quality and Advanced Technologies at full scale to Providing an extended timeframe that minimizing cross-media impacts. comply with the ultimate tier limits. allows a mill to make such capital Successful completion of these tasks at EPA regards five years as a reasonable expenditures on a schedule consistent individual mills may involve research, time frame to achieve the Voluntary with its planned investment cycle can extensive process development, and Advanced Technology BAT limitations make such large investments mill trials. The types of corrosion and corresponding to Tier I (including the economically achievable. For example, scaling problems EPA anticipates could bleach plant BAT effluent limitations). one U.S. mill currently approaching the take over a year of nearly closed-loop When spread over five years, the capital Tier II flow and AOX levels installed operation to identify and several more costs of those technologies become more many of the relevant technologies in years of experimental modifications to manageable (although they are still stages over what probably will be a ten- mill operations to solve. Extensive time significantly higher than the capital year period, with the last three years is required for such modifications costs associated with the baseline BAT). used for testing and fine-tuning its because of the time lag in nearly closed- In addition, the five year period gives reduced flow processes. Yet even this mill systems from changing process mills increased flexibility to schedule mill still needs to address the technical conditions and observing the steady the significant capital investment within challenges of further reducing state impact on hydraulic systems, the mill’s normal capital investment condensate discharge flow before it is liquor systems, and associated mill cycle, i.e., to purchase and install the fully able to achieve the Tier II BAT equipment. Mills may also need to necessary equipment when capital is limits. That mill needed ten years to embark on process development and available. Therefore, EPA believes the plan its multi-hundred million dollar mill trials to achieve treated condensate five year period will enable mills to renovation and pollution prevention quality that is sufficient to extensively participate in the Voluntary Advanced investment, to arrange appropriate reuse condensates, as well as to Technology Incentives Program that financing, to install supporting reestablish complex mill water and otherwise might not have the financial technologies at appropriate intervals energy balances. For these reasons, EPA resources to make the necessary capital and to research, develop, test, and refine believes that 15 years is a reasonable investment. its innovative flow-reducing processes. amount of time for a Tier III mill to EPA regards ten years as a reasonable EPA believes that this mill’s experience perfect existing technologies or invent timeframe to achieve the Voluntary is representative of what other Tier II or develop new ones as necessary to Advanced Technology BAT limitations mills may encounter as they work to achieve the Tier III performance levels. corresponding to Tier II because the achieve the Tier II limitations. See the However, EPA believes that all mills development and implementation of Voluntary Advanced Technology will be able to achieve the baseline BAT technologies to reduce bleach plant flow Incentives Program Technical Support limitations by [April 15, 2004], and to 10 m3/kkg pose technical and Document (DCN 14488) for additional enforceable interim milestones economic difficulties that EPA believes examples of why the ten-year timeframe reflecting intermediate levels of flow would take mills up to ten years to is appropriate. Based on these reduction (determined on a case-by-case resolve. (Once flow levels are reduced, EPA expects that mills also will be able experiences, EPA believes that the basis) in a period shorter than 15 years. to achieve the Tier II AOX limitations.) package of technologies underlying the In short, EPA believes that the Recycling a substantial portion of Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology additional 5, 10 and 15 year periods pulping and evaporator condensates and BAT limitations will not be technically provided by the rule are necessary to bleach plant filtrates, with the attendant and economically achievable for mills foster investment, research, complexities of total mill water, aspiring to those performance levels development, and mill trials of chemical, and energy balances, requires until April 15, 2009. However, EPA Advanced Technologies envisioned by considerable time before it can be believes that mills will be able to the specified performance levels. EPA implemented successfully at mill-scale. achieve the baseline BAT limitations by further believes that, by the dates For example, when bleach plant filtrates April 15, 2004, and enforceable interim specified in the rule, technologies are recycled, problems with scale and milestones reflecting intermediate levels necessary to achieve those performance corrosion can take many months to over of flow reduction (determined on a case- levels will indeed be available. See DCN a year to develop and be observed. Once by-case basis) in a period shorter than 14488. identified, fully correcting such eleven years. EPA has concluded that it is problems can take significant additional EPA regards 15 years as a reasonable reasonable to measure the extended time because of the time lag between timeframe to achieve the Voluntary time periods from the publication date action and observed effect in nearly Advanced Technology BAT Limitations of the Cluster Rules rather than from the closed systems. In addition to problems corresponding to Tier III. As for Tier II, date a participating mill’s NPDES with scale and corrosion, mills pursuing flow reduction again is the most permit is issued, with the addition of Tier II performance levels may have to difficult and time-consuming task. one year at the beginning to afford mills solve challenges associated with reusing However, because reducing flow for a meaningful opportunity to consider condensates, such as for bleached pulp pulping and evaporator condensates and participating in the Voluntary Advanced washing. There are a few mills currently bleach plant filtrates to 5 m3/kkg or Technology Incentives Program. EPA doing this, but not broad operating even lower approaches a closed mill recognizes that the decision whether to experience. Consequently, EPA expects configuration, even more technically commit to the Advanced Technology that Tier II mills will need to invest difficult and time-consuming tasks must goals cannot be undertaken lightly. This considerable time and effort to research be successfully completed, necessitating is especially so in view of the significant 18606 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations capital costs involved and in view of wants to promote implementation of achieve baseline BAT limits, even with possible uncertainties regarding the advanced technologies as soon as an enforcement compliance schedule. availability of appropriate cost-effective possible; if EPA were to measure the Second, when EPA is the permitting technologies and a mill’s ability to Advanced Technology time periods authority, EPA will exercise its maintain product quality. Accordingly, from the date of permit re-issuance, enforcement discretion to refrain from EPA expects the decision would need to achievement of the ultimate Tier I issuing enforcement compliance be made at the corporate rather than the performance requirements and the schedules after April 15, 1999 to mills facility level, which would probably interim baseline BAT limitations for not participating in the Voluntary require corporate-wide consideration of Tiers II and III, for example, could be Advanced Technology Incentives the firm’s financial health, its deferred at some mills by as much as ten Program. This means that a mill not environmental objectives and future years from the date of promulgation. participating in the Voluntary Advanced marketing strategies, and its overall Third, EPA was concerned that tying the Technology Incentives Program would long-term plans. Because EPA believes Advanced Technology time periods to be expected to comply with its baseline that many firms in Subpart B have been highly variable permit issuance dates BAT limits by the date its permit pondering these strategic questions would mean that mills with later containing those limits is issued, or by since publication of the proposed rule permits would realize a competitive [April 15, 1999], whichever is later. EPA in December 1993 and the notice advantage over similarly situated mills will also publish guidance urging State regarding a possible incentives program that, merely because of their particular enforcement authorities to do the same. in July 1996, EPA has concluded that permit cycle, would need to achieve the By limiting the discretionary one year is sufficient to allow firms to Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT enforcement-related compliance make a decision whether to participate limitations sooner. Such inequities— schedules available to baseline BAT in the Voluntary Advanced Technology whether perceived or real—could mills, EPA hopes that the additional Incentives Program. If a mill’s permit discourage some mills from time periods specified for Advanced expires and is reissued before April 15, participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology mills will become a more 1999, the permitting authority should Technology Incentives Program. Finally, meaningful incentive and perhaps may incorporate Voluntary Advanced mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft persuade some mills to participate in Technology BAT Limitations into that and Soda subcategory have been on the incentives program rather than permit at the mill’s request. If the mill notice since at least 1993 that EPA was comply immediately with the baseline has not yet decided whether to considering basing some portion of its BAT limitations. participate in the Voluntary Advanced Cluster Rules on extended 8. Legal Authority to Promulgate a Technology Incentives Program, the delignification technologies. (In its 1993 Package of Progressively More Stringent permit writer should incorporate BAT proposal, EPA proposed to base BAT Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations based on the BAT baseline limitations on a process that included Limitations and should include a reopener clause so oxygen delignification and 100 percent that the permit can be modified as substitution of chlorine dioxide for As described in more detail above, the necessary to reflect the mill’s decision elemental chlorine.) In some cases, that Advanced Technology BAT guidelines to participate in the incentives program. proposal has already influenced for each Tier consists of a range of In order to afford that mill a full year to investment decisions at some mills. successively more stringent limitations decide whether to enroll in the EPA acknowledges that a mill and permit conditions that represent a incentives program, EPA believes it choosing not to participate in the mill’s progress toward the Tier’s would be appropriate for the permitting Voluntary Advanced Technology ultimate Advanced Technology authority to issue a compliance order Incentives Program could seek a performance requirements. Based on its expiring April 15, 1999 so that the mill compliance schedule in an enforcement analysis of today’s advanced and, in would not be required to comply with order that, depending on the date its some cases, innovative technologies and the baseline BAT limitations until after permit was reissued, could allow that its judgment regarding the historically the election date has passed. mill to achieve BAT limits (including a rapid advance of pollution prevention Some commenters suggested that EPA less stringent AOX limit) at a later date processes in this industry, EPA has measure the Advanced Technology time than Tier I Advanced Technology mills determined that those performance periods from the date the first permit would be required to achieve a more requirements are achievable, as a reflecting Voluntary Advanced stringent AOX limit and reduced kappa technical matter, by the dates specified Technology BAT limitations is issued. numbers and pulping area filtrate in each Tier, and that none of the other EPA rejected that approach and instead recycling. While EPA agrees with statutory factors in CWA Section is measuring the time periods from the comments characterizing this as unfair 304(b)(2)(B) justify selecting different publication date of this rule (plus one to those facilities making the significant technology bases for Advanced year) for the following reasons. First, commitment to install Advanced Technology BAT. EPA has also these timeframes reflect EPA’s Technologies, EPA believes that the determined that those Advanced conclusions regarding the amount of likelihood of such inequities is small for Technology performance requirements time that mills would need in order to the following reasons. First, EPA has are within the economic capability of achieve the various Voluntary determined that this is likely to happen mills choosing today to meet them and Advanced Technology Tier performance in comparatively few cases. More than hence are economically achievable for levels, once they have committed to 80 percent of the permits issued to mills those mills. EPA bases that those goals. As discussed in more detail in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and determination primarily on two factors. above, EPA based these conclusions on Soda subcategory will expire before First, no mill is compelled to enroll in record information concerning the 2000. See Record section 21.8.1, DCN the Voluntary Advanced Technology availability of technologies and capital, 14652. Consequently, EPA believes that Incentives Program; accordingly, EPA among other factors. These factors have most Advanced Technology mills will assumes that mills that choose to nothing to do with the permitting cycle. receive more time to achieve Tier I enroll—and voluntarily subject Second, as a matter of policy, EPA limits than other mills would receive to themselves to a progression of Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18607 successively more stringent, enforceable aspire to ‘‘increasingly higher levels of Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT permit limits—do so with the control.’’ See, e.g., Statement of Sen. limitations today as a package of knowledge that they have the economic Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in A incremental environmental as well as technical ability to meet those Legislative History of the Water improvements, EPA hopes to achieve limits. Second, the experience of other Pollution Control Act Amendments of the goals that Congress envisioned for mills that voluntarily undertook major 1972 (‘‘1972 Leg. Hist.’’), at 170. It is the BAT program at considerably less pollution prevention projects informs also consistent with the overall goals of cost: one rulemaking that looks both at EPA that the ambitious performance the Act. See CWA Section 101(a). the present and well into the future. requirements are indeed achievable for Agencies have considerable discretion Mills willing to surpass today’s participating mills if the incremental to interpret their statutes to promote compulsory BAT requirements have a improvements are staggered over time. Congressional objectives. ‘‘ ‘[T]he framework to anticipate what could be This incremental approach is breadth of agency discretion is, if tomorrow’s subcategory-wide BAT and authorized by CWA section anything, at zenith when the action to make today’s environmental, 301(b)(2)(A), which expressly requires ** * relates primarily to * * * the financial and engineering judgments BAT to result in reasonable further fashioning of policies, remedies and accordingly. Thus, the three-tiered progress toward the national goal of sanctions, including enforcement and incentives program itself represents eliminating pollutant discharges. EPA voluntary compliance programs[,] in reasonable further progress toward the believes that each of the steps order to arrive at maximum effectuation goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. comprising the three tiers of Voluntary of Congressional objectives.’ ’’ U.S. At the same time, within each Tier, Advanced Technology BAT Limitations Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, mills must make incremental moves participating mills toward that 647 F.2d 1189, 1230–31 n.64 (D.C. Cir. improvements that also represent national goal. Once a mill enrolls in the 1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering reasonable further progress toward that Voluntary Advanced Technology lead requirements over 10 years) national goal. In short, each BAT Incentives Program, it accepts and must (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. increment, whether in the form of the begin immediately to implement a BAT v. FPC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. Tiers themselves or the progressively package consisting of successively more 1967)), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 9113 more stringent limitations comprising stringent permit limits and conditions. (1981). In this case, the codification of them, gives contemporary meaning to Although environmental improvements progressively more stringent BAT the staging process originally are realized only incrementally, the mill limitations advances not only the envisioned by Congress as the means to is subject to the total set of limits— general goal of the Clean Water Act, but achieve the goal of eliminating including the ultimate performance also the explicit goal of the BAT discharge of pollutants to the Nation’s requirements—as soon as its Advanced program. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. waters. Technology permit is written based on NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). Finally, like other agencies, EPA has the first increment of that BAT package. inherent authority to phase in regulatory Thus, the mill is continuously subject to Moving toward the elimination of requirements in appropriate cases. EPA and must comply immediately with the pollutant discharges in stages is also has employed this authority in other Advanced Technology BAT package as consistent with overarching structure of contexts. For example, EPA recently it progressively unfolds, including each the effluent limitations guidelines phased in, over two years, TSCA rules interim BAT limitation or permit program. Congress originally envisioned pertaining to lead-based paint activities. condition representing that progress. that the sequence of attaining BPT limits See 40 CFR 746.239 and 61 FR 45788, EPA’s promulgation of BAT as a in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would 45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the package of progressively more stringent result in ‘‘levels of control which Occupational Safety and Health limitations and conditions is also approach and achieve the elimination of Administration phased in, over 10 consistent with the use of BAT as a the discharge of pollutants.’’ Statement years, a series of progressively more ‘‘beacon to show what is possible.’’ of Sen. Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted stringent lead-related controls. See 29 Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 in 1972 Legislative History, at 170. This CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in (4th Cir. 1985). Thus, while the two-step approach produced dramatic upholding that rule, the U.S. Court of compulsory BAT in this rule functions improvements in water quality, but did Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that as the ‘‘base level’’ for the subcategory not achieve the elimination of pollutant ‘‘the extremely remote deadline at as a whole, see E.I. du Pont de Nemours discharges. Therefore, EPA periodically which the [sources] are to meet the final & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977), revisits and revises its effluent [permissible exposure limits] is perhaps EPA expects the Voluntary Advanced limitations guidelines with the intention the single most important factor Technology BAT limitations to drive each time of making further progress supporting the feasibility of the technologies and mills beyond that base toward the national goal. (This is the standard.’’ United Steelworkers of level toward achievement of the goals of sixth effluent limitations guideline America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278. the Clean Water Act. By holding out the promulgated for the pulp and paper EPA is aware that CWA sections Advanced Technologies as beacons of industry, and the fourth applicable to 301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT limits to progress, EPA believes that today’s rule bleached papergrade kraft and soda be achieved ‘‘in no case later than three will encourage more mills to strive mills.) Achieving these incremental years after the date such limits are toward EPA’s pollution prevention and improvements through successive promulgated under section 304(b), and reduced flow objectives than might rulemakings carries a substantial cost, in no case later than March 31, 1989.’’ otherwise do so if EPA promulgated however. The effluent guideline (Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to nothing more than a ‘‘base level’’ BAT. rulemaking process is highly complex, BAT limitations for nonconventional Moreover, by codifying progressively in large part because of the massive pollutants, also contains the March 31, more stringent limitations in today’s record compiled to inform the Agency’s 1989 date, but uses as its starting point Advanced Technology BAT package, decisions and because of the substantial the date the limitations are EPA promotes a form of technological costs associated with achieving each ‘‘established.’’) This language does not progress that is consistent with additional increment of environmental speak to the precise question EPA Congressional intent that BAT should improvement. By promulgating these confronts here: whether EPA can 18608 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations promulgate Voluntary Advanced decisions of the affected mills; because guidelines. In contrast to section Technology BAT limitations that are of the voluntary nature of the Advanced 306(b)(1)(B), where Congress explicitly phased in over time, so that a direct Technology Incentives Program, it is the stated that new source performance discharger at all times is subject to and mills, not EPA, that determine that standards, ‘‘or revisions thereof, shall must comply immediately with the particular Advanced Technologies are become effective upon promulgation,’’ particular BAT limitations applicable to available and economically achievable the CWA is silent regarding the effective them at any given point in time. Section for them within the time frames date of BAT effluent limitations 301(b)(2) provides no clear direction. provided in this program. In order for guidelines. Having failed to prescribe EPA therefore is charged with making a EPA to impose Advanced Technology when BAT guidelines become effective, reasonable interpretation of the statute limits on the entire subcategory as the Congress therefore has delegated to the to fill the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. commenter suggests, EPA would need to Agency the authority to choose the v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843–44. EPA find adequate support in the rulemaking appropriate effective date of the BAT believes that subjecting mills who record today that compulsory BAT effluent guideline limitations it voluntarily enroll in the Voluntary limits will be economically achievable promulgates, so long as the Agency’s Advance Technology Incentives for their entire subcategory five years choice is consistent with the goals and Program to progressively more stringent from now. EPA cannot make that purposes of the Act. See Chevron, BAT limitations over time best serves determination based on the information U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843– Congress’ intent of pushing mills to available today. At best, EPA could only 44, 861. Under this approach, the ‘‘stage achieve reasonable further progress speculate whether some or all of the 1’’ limitations would be effective toward eliminating all pollutant mills projected to sustain the most immediately, and the ‘‘stage 2’’ discharges. It also ensures that mills severe economic impacts if BAT Option limitations would become effective by achieve these superior performance B is selected would be able to avoid the dates specified in the regulation. requirements at a pace that makes those impacts if compliance with that B. Incentives Available After technical and economic sense. Finally, BAT is deferred. EPA does not believe Achievement of Advanced Technology by phasing in these highly stringent— that this type of speculation is a BAT Limitations and NSPS but elected—controls, EPA hopes to sufficient basis for compelling encourage more mills to surpass the compliance with BAT limits that are not 1. Greater Certainty Regarding Permit BAT baseline, with the result that the economically achievable today for the Limits and Requirements environment realizes a far greater subcategory as a whole. Moreover, when Industry stakeholders have suggested improvement than EPA could expect to EPA estimated the effects of deferring to EPA that mills could be encouraged see without this phased approach. For compliance, subcategory-wide, for five to implement advanced technologies if these reasons, EPA believes it is entitled years in response to these comments, they had a reasonable assurance that all to deference in its decision to EPA concluded that the projected limitations and conditions in their promulgate Voluntary Advanced impacts were such that, even then, BAT permits would remain constant over a Technology BAT limits in this manner. Option B would not be economically specified period of time, once Several commenters supported the achievable for the subcategory as a compliance with the Advanced idea of phasing in compliance with BAT whole. See Section VI.B.5.a(5). For these Technology limits and standards is limitations for the purpose of reasons, EPA concludes that it does not achieved. minimizing short-term economic have a sufficient record basis today to Under this incentive, EPA will issue impacts on mills, but urged EPA to make Tier I (or BAT Option B) guidance to states regarding the adopt this approach to set baseline BAT limitations the compulsory baseline reissuance of NPDES permits held by limits based on the model Tier I BAT even if such limits would not be mills that achieve all of their Advanced Advanced Technology (i.e., BAT Option effective until 2002. See DCN 14392, Technology BAT limitations or NSPS. B). In other words, these commenters and CBI documents DCN 14390 and (EPA notes that new sources that accept argued that more stringent baseline BAT DCN 14391. permit limitations based on, and limits based on the Tier I technology EPA could have accomplished the commence operation in compliance would be economically achievable for same results in this rulemaking simply with, Tier II or Tier III NSPS the entire subcategory because affected by deferring the effective dates of the automatically possess a shield against mills would have five years to achieve ultimate Advanced Technology more stringent standards of performance full compliance. As noted above, EPA performance objectives until the dates for ten years from the completion of agrees that The Advanced Technologies specified in the rule for achievement of construction.) that are not economically achievable at the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations. EPA has the In its forthcoming guidance, EPA will present can become economically legal authority to defer the effective address the timing of reissuing achievable for individual mills that dates of the ‘‘stage 2’’ portion of the Advanced Technology NPDES permits voluntarily participate as time passes. Advanced Technology BAT limitations and the limitations those reissued Indeed, Congress recognized as much in in this manner. Subject to the minimum permits should contain. Regarding the requiring EPA to review its effluent delays imposed by the APA, 5 U.S.C. reissuance of Advanced Technology guidelines and to revise them as § 553(d), and the Small Business NPDES permits, EPA believes that appropriate. See CWA section 304(b). Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act permitting authorities could reasonably However, EPA disagrees that it currently (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. § 801, EPA has conclude that an Advanced Technology has sufficient basis on the record inherent authority to determine the NPDES permit held by a mill meeting available today to compel all mills in effective date of a rule and to defer the all of its Tier limits is a low priority for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda effective date in appropriate cases. See permit reissuance, if there is no new subcategory to meet the more stringent ASG Industries, Inc. v. Consumer water quality- or facility-related data or limits five years from now. In this Products Safety Comm’n, 593 F.2d 1323, information that would justify new or rulemaking, the economic achievability 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Nothing in the different limits. Under these of those more stringent (Tier I) limits is Clean Water Act limits this authority circumstances, EPA believes it would be determined by the voluntary investment with respect to BAT effluent limitations reasonable for a permitting authority to Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18609 conclude that that permit is a lower standards for that pollutant. Under these will be determined at the end of the priority for reissuance because the mill circumstances, EPA would urge states to pipe, the monitoring requirement would is voluntarily achieving reductions develop priorities for allocating the be governed by the fiber line for which greater than otherwise required by the necessary load reductions in a way that most frequent monitoring is required. baseline BAT and hence presents a gives preference to Advanced EPA retains the authority to request or lower risk to water quality than other Technology mills over all other Subpart obtain specific information that may be mills. B mills, particularly where Advanced needed to determine compliance with In its guidance, however, EPA will Technology mills contribute a small the requirements of this rule. Because emphasize that an Advanced portion of the total pollutant loads to monitoring relief is specified to be Technology NPDES permit should be the stream. Moreover, where more than available by the date compliance is administratively extended only if the one Advanced Technology mill required, even if the limits have not permitting authority had provided the discharges in a watershed, these been achieved, EPA anticipates that public with notice (the last time the priorities would further give preference permitting authorities will exercise their permit was reissued) that it might first to Tier III mills, then to Tier II, and Section 308 authority to extend more choose to extend the permit finally to Tier I mills. frequent monitoring for mills that do not administratively when it expires. Thus, achieve compliance with their EPA expects the permitting authority to 2. Reduced Effluent Monitoring limitations. notify the public as part of the EPA believes that reduced monitoring EPA relies on section 308(a) of the preceding permitting process of the provisions are appropriate for ECF and Clean Water Act for authority to circumstances under which it would TCF mills participating in the Voluntary promulgate this incentive. The reduced regard the Advanced Technology Advanced Technology Incentives monitoring for this effluent limitations NPDES permit as a low priority for Program and is including them in the guideline incentive program is being reissuance in the next permitting cycle. today’s regulation for mills that achieve incorporated in the Code of Federal For example, EPA expects the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Regulations, and is summarized as permitting authority to inform the Limitations or NSPS, as appropriate. See follows: public that the permit probably would 40 CFR 430.02(c), (d) and (e). In EPA’s a. For TCF fiber lines under Tiers I, be administratively extended if the view, consistent and successful II, and III, no monitoring incentive is permittee has achieved all of its implementation of the Advanced available because no existing TCF fiber Advanced Technology limitations, if it Technologies through ECF or TCF line is subject to minimum monitoring has filed a timely permit application, processes will make it increasingly less frequencies established by this rule. See and if the permitting authority possesses likely that the pollutants controlled by 40 CFR 430.02(a). EPA anticipates that no new water quality or facility-related the baseline BAT will be present in the permitting authorities will consider the data that would justify new or different wastewater from Advanced Technology monitoring for AOX being imposed on permit conditions and limits. In fiber lines in levels of concern. Because mills in comparable Tiers, and the addition, EPA expects that the permit of these reductions and because additional assurance of compliance that eligible for an administrative extension monitoring for these pollutants tends to TCF process technologies afford relative would contain BMPs and any water be costly, EPA believes it is reasonable to AOX, in establishing monitoring quality-based effluent limits necessary to allow mills achieving the Voluntary frequencies on a best professional to achieve applicable water quality Advanced Technology BAT limitations judgment basis. For mills that use TCF standards. Thus, EPA would not expect or NSPS through ECF or TCF processes processes part of the time and ECF any adverse effect on the environment to monitor less frequently for those processes for the remainder, EPA would during the period the permit is pollutant parameters over time after apply the reduced monitoring incentive administratively extended, in the establishing a reliable baseline of applicable to an ECF process. See 40 absence of specific information consistent achievement of those CFR 430.02(c), (d) and (e). indicating that more stringent water Advanced Technology BAT limitations b. For any fiber line enrolled under quality effluent limits need to be or NSPS. See 40 CFR 430.02(c)–(e). To Tier I, II, or III for which the mill imposed. qualify for a monitoring incentive, the certifies in its NPDES permit The forthcoming guidance will also mill must certify that the fiber line is application or other communication to address the types of limitations an TCF or Advanced ECF either as part of the permitting authority that it employs Advanced Technology NPDES permit their permit application or as part of a exclusively Advanced ECF technologies should contain when it is reissued after report of progress on compliance with (i.e., extended delignification or other achievement of the Tier limitations. As milestones established to achieve their technologies that achieve at least the a threshold matter, the permitting ultimate Tier limits. 40 CFR 430.02(c). Tier I performance levels specified in authority will need to determine if there No monitoring incentive is available Section 430.24(b)(4)(i)), the minimum is a need for new or revised water for kappa number or flow because no monitoring requirements for dioxin, quality-based effluent limitations. If minimum monitoring frequencies are furan, chloroform and the 12 there is none, EPA encourages being established by this regulation. chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be permitting authorities to promptly EPA encourages permitting authorities suspended after one year of monitoring reissue the NPDES permit with the to consider factors such as the reliability following achievement of those existing water quality-based effluent of the Advanced Technology to limitations and standards. See 40 CFR limitations, if any, and the appropriate consistently achieve or exceed the 430.02(c). (These limitations and limitations found in 40 CFR Part 430. In applicable limitations and performance standards must be achieved no later some cases, the permitting authority variability in establishing monitoring than April 15, 2004. See 40 CFR may receive new facility- or watershed- frequencies for kappa number and flow 430.24(b)(3).) For AOX, a certifying specific information indicating that load on a best professional judgment basis. Advanced ECF mill also would be reductions and, consequently, more The monitoring incentive for AOX permitted to perform weekly instead of stringent effluent limits on a pollutant applies only when the entire mill is ECF daily monitoring for one year after in the mill’s wastewater are necessary to or TCF. See 40 CFR 430.02(c) and (d). achievement of the ultimate Tier BAT achieve applicable water quality Since compliance with AOX most likely limit or NSPS for that pollutant. See 40 18610 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

CFR 430.02(d). Monitoring for AOX which it can recognize facilities for appropriate with senior management of once per month would be permitted for voluntary activities that achieve further state permitting agencies that initiate Tier I ECF mills for four years beyond environmental improvements beyond separate public recognition activities. the completion of that one year period. those required by the baseline BAT Public recognition for achieving See 40 CFR 430.02(e). Tier II ECF mills limitations and NSPS promulgated milestones will continue until the date would be permitted to monitor for AOX today. EPA’s intention is to provide for participating mills are required to once per quarter for four years beyond easily administered and meaningful achieve the ultimate Tier performance the completion of that one year period, public recognition for mills that requirements. and Tier III ECF mills would be participate in the Voluntary Advanced c. Achievement of Voluntary permitted to monitor for AOX once per Technology Incentives Program. EPA Advanced Technologies BAT year for four years beyond the will accord public recognition to mills Limitations or NSPS. Mills that achieve completion of that one year period. Id. when they formally enroll in the their Advanced Technology BAT Program, when they achieve major Limitations or NSPS will notify the 3. Reduced Inspections interim milestones, and when they permitting authority and submit EPA will issue guidance to EPA achieve the ultimate Tier performance supporting monitoring data and other Regional Offices indicating that fiber requirements. The applicable state relevant documentation. The permitting lines enrolled in the Voluntary permitting authority also may choose to authority will verify that the Advanced Advanced Technology Incentives separately recognize a pulp and paper Technology BAT Limitations or NSPS Program and achieving Voluntary mill for its commitments and have been achieved. The annual Federal Advanced Technology BAT limitations achievements toward further Register notice will identify these or NSPS should be a lower priority than environmental improvements. The facilities as reaching their goal. EPA also other NPDES facilities for routine following paragraphs describe the steps will participate in an award ceremony at inspections under the CWA. Under this for public recognition. EPA will issue an appropriate venue (e.g., TAPPI incentive, the guidance would additional guidance to facilitate Environmental Conference). recommend that fiber lines achieving implementation of this incentive. 5. Reduced Penalties Tier I limits receive routine EPA a. Enrolling in the Voluntary inspections not more than once every Advanced Technology Incentives In recognition of the considerable two years; fiber lines achieving Tier II Program. Once a mill has enrolled in the capital expenditures that mills limits receive routine EPA inspections Voluntary Advanced Technology participating in the Voluntary Advanced not more than twice every five years; Incentives Program, EPA will issue a Technology Incentives Program will and fiber lines achieving Tier III limits letter to each facility acknowledging its make to implement Advanced receive routine EPA inspections not participation and identifying the tier Technologies and to achieve pollutant more than once every five years. This limits (and fiber line(s) as appropriate) reductions superior to those achievable incentive reflects EPA’s view that mills to which the mill has committed. Each through the baseline BAT or NSPS, EPA installing and operating Advanced year EPA will publish a Federal will encourage enforcement authorities Technologies at levels to meet the Register notice identifying mills that to take into account those investments appropriate tier effluent limitations and have committed to the program within as appropriate when assessing penalties standards are likely to be complying the previous year. The self-selected Tier against these mills for violations relating with the other permit requirements will be clearly identified, as will any to those Advanced Technologies. applicable to that fiber line. other pertinent information. The Existing EPA settlement policies Furthermore, the substantial reductions Federal Register notice will be made provide consideration of Advanced in pollutants and wastewater volumes available on the EPA Internet web site. Technology investments in this manner. discharged, particularly by mills b. Achievement of Milestones. Each In EPA’s view, if a facility has installed achieving Tier II and Tier III limitations time a mill achieves a major milestone and is operating the Advanced and standards, will have (particularly those which achieve Technology in good faith, reports commensurately reduced environmental reduction in effluent pollutant violations in a prompt manner to EPA impacts. EPA already has redirected loadings), EPA will recognize that mill or the State, and either corrects the Federal NPDES inspections away from in its annual Federal Register notice. In violations in a timely manner or agrees annual inspections of all major order to qualify for this recognition, to and complies with reasonable dischargers to focus on high risk each mill must notify its permitting remedial measures concurred on by the facilities in priority watersheds. authority and provide supporting primary enforcement authority, then the Targeted efforts in these priority monitoring data or other relevant enforcement authority would be watersheds focus on such factors as documentation. The permitting justified in taking the Advanced facility compliance status and rates, authority may choose to visit the site for Technology investment into account in location and affected population, citizen verification. EPA, in concert with the determining economic benefit and in complaints, etc. Nonetheless, under this relevant state NPDES programs, also reducing the gravity portion of the incentive, EPA reserves the authority to will then ascertain the status of Clean penalty by up to 100 percent. Where the conduct multi-media inspections Water Act compliance and any other installation and operation of any without prior notice, and to inspect enforcement actions prior to public Advanced Technology was more Advanced Technology fiber lines for recognition activities. Any criminal expensive than the installation and cause, whether or not there is an enforcement activities, particularly operation of the technology underlying ongoing violation. EPA also reserves its convictions, also will be ascertained. the baseline BAT, the Advanced right to inspect an Advanced This information on compliance and Technology facilities would derive no Technology mill in connection with enforcement status will be available for economic benefit (i.e., zero BEN) from specific watershed or airshed concerns. consideration by EPA senior the violation associated with the management prior to initiation of public Advanced Technology. This would be 4. Public Recognition Programs recognition activities. Relevant the case even when the Advanced EPA is pleased to have the information on enforcement and Technology fails, as long as the design, opportunity to implement a program in compliance status also may be shared as operation and installation are within Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18611 applicable engineering standards and the rulemaking, is available for review C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the operational procedures are within at EPA’s Water Docket, Room M2616, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement industry norms. The decision whether 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to take such Advanced Technology 20460. For access to Docket materials, investments into account in determining call (202) 260–3027. The Docket staff Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act economic benefit would be left to the requests that interested parties call (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended State’s discretion when the State is the between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for an by SBREFA, EPA generally is required enforcing authority. EPA will issue appointment before visiting the docket. to conduct a regulatory flexibility guidance to clarify application of this The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 analysis describing the impact of the incentive. provide that a reasonable fee may be rule on small entities. However, under Mills also can take advantage of the charged for copying materials from the section 605(b) of the RFA, EPA is not recently issued audit policy providing Air and Water Dockets. required to prepare the regulatory flexibility analysis if EPA certifies that they meet the criteria specified in that EPA notes that many documents in the rule will not have a significant policy. See 60 FR 66706 (Dec. 22, 1995). the record supporting these final rules economic impact on a substantial have been claimed as confidential X. Administrative Requirements and number of small entities. Related Government Acts or Initiatives business information (CBI) and, therefore, are not included in the record Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, A. Dockets that is available to the public in the Air the Agency certifies that today’s final CWA rule will not have a significant The docket is an organized and and Water Dockets. To support the economic impact on a substantial complete file of all the information rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain number of small entities. In addition, submitted to or otherwise considered by information in aggregated form or is EPA also finds that the final CAA rule EPA in the development of the final masking facility identities to preserve will not have a significant economic regulations. The principal purposes of confidentiality claims. Further, the impact on a substantial number of small the docket are: (1) To allow interested Agency has withheld from disclosure entities. Small entities, as defined, parties to readily identify and locate some data not claimed as confidential include small businesses, small documents so that they can intelligently business information because release of governments, and small organizations. and effectively participate in the this information could indirectly reveal This rulemaking does not affect small rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as information claimed to be confidential. organizations. For small governments, the record in case of judicial review, B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB these rules could directly affect except for intra-agency review materials Review administration or operating costs, but as provided for in section 307(d)(7)(A). Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR are not expected to result in significant 1. Air Dockets 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency impacts (see Section X.E.). Small Air Docket No. A–92–40 contains must determine whether the regulatory businesses are the remaining class of information considered by EPA in action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore small entity affected by this rulemaking. development of the NESHAP for the subject to OMB review and the For small businesses, EPA examined the chemical wood pulping mills. Air requirements of the Executive Order. economic impacts of these rules in Docket No. A–95–31 contains The Order defines ‘‘significant detail and the results of its analysis are information considered in developing regulatory action’’ as one that ‘‘is likely found in the ‘‘Economic Analysis’’ (see the NESHAP for mechanical pulping to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an DCN 14649). The following is a brief processes, secondary fiber pulping annual effect on the economy of $100 summary of the analysis. processes, and nonwood fiber pulping million or more or adversely affect in a Today’s CWA final rule will not have processes. The Air Dockets are available material way the economy, a sector of a significant economic impact on a for public inspection between 8 a.m. the economy, productivity, competition, substantial number of small entities, and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday jobs, the environment, public health or because of those companies affected by except for Federal holidays, at the safety, or State, local, or tribal the CWA rule, only four are ‘‘a small following address: U.S. Environmental governments or communities; (2) create business concern’’ as defined by SBA Protection Agency, Air and Radiation a serious inconsistency or otherwise regulations. (The RFA, in general, Docket and Information Center (MC– interfere with an action taken or requires use of SBA definitions of small 6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, planned by another agency; (3) businesses; for this regulation, small DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260–7548. materially alter the budgetary impact of businesses are defined as firms The dockets are located at the above entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan employing no more than 750 workers.) address in Room M–1500, Waterside programs or the rights and obligations of EPA does not believe this is a Mall (ground floor). All comments recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel substantial number of small entities as received during the public comment legal or policy issues arising out of legal that term is used in the RFA. Moreover, period on the 1993 proposed NESHAP mandates, the President’s priorities, or while all four small business concerns are contained in the Pulp and Paper the principles set forth in the Executive would experience increased costs of Water Docket (see following paragraph Order.’’ operation as a result of today’s rule, the for location). Comments received on the Pursuant to the terms of Executive costs of complying with the rule are also March 8, 1996, supplemental NESHAP Order 12866, it has been determined not significant. As a measure of the notice at 61 FR 9383 are contained in that the Cluster Rules are a ‘‘significant economic impact of today’s Air Dockets A–92–40 and A–95–31. regulatory action’’ because they will requirements on a small entity, EPA have an annual effect on the economy evaluated the costs of the rule relative 2. Water Docket of $100 million or more. As such, this to the company’s annual revenues. The The complete public record for the action was submitted to OMB for cost of the rule only exceeded one effluent limitations guidelines and review. Changes made in response to percent of revenues for one of the standards rulemaking, including EPA’s OMB suggestions or recommendations facilities and in no case did it exceed responses to comments received during are documented in the public record. three percent. 18612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

When the costs of the CWA rule are number of small entities. In evaluating (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC considered in combination with the the costs of the rules relative to the 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740. The costs of the final CAA MACT I and company’s annual revenues, EPA’s information requirements are not MACT III rules, EPA’s conclusion does analysis shows that no company is effective until OMB approves them. not change. EPA’s analysis showed that estimated to incur costs in excess of one The information required to be the combined costs of achieving percent of its revenues as a result of collected by the air emission rules is compliance with the final air and water implementing the final MACT I and needed as part of the overall compliance rules will not have a significant MACT III rules. As a consequence, EPA and enforcement program. It is economic impact on a substantial finds that the CAA rule does not have necessary to identify the regulated number of small entities. As noted a significant economic impact on a entities who are subject to the rule and above, the CWA rule affects only four substantial number of small entities. ensure their compliance with the rule. small entities. Further, the combined When the costs of the final MACT I The recordkeeping and reporting costs of the rules only exceeded one and MACT III rules are considered in requirements are mandatory and are percent of revenues for one of the four combination with the costs of the final being established under section 114 of small entities covered by both the final CWA rule, EPA’s analysis shows that the Clean Air Act. air and water rules, and for no small the combined costs of achieving There are approximately 490 entity did it exceed three percent. Even compliance with the final air and water respondents that are potentially affected though this is a small cost, because of rules is still not a significant impact on by the air emission rules. All 490 the poor pre-existing economic a substantial number of small entities. respondents must submit an initial conditions at one facility, EPA projects As discussed, only 11 small business applicability notification. Of the 490 that one facility owned by one of the concerns must comply with the CAA affected respondents, there would be an small firms may close as a result of the rule. Of these, only four will experience estimated 155 respondents required to combined final CWA and CAA rules. additional costs due to the CWA rule. perform additional information EPA has determined that one closure is The combined costs of the rules only collection. For the 155 respondents, this not a significant economic impact on a exceeded one percent of revenues for collection of information has an substantial number of small business one small entity covered by both the air estimated total annual recordkeeping concerns. and water rules, and for no small entity and reporting burden averaging 320 Though not required by the RFA, EPA did it exceed three percent. Even though hours per respondent during the first also examined the costs of the final this is a small cost, because of the poor three years after promulgation. For the CWA rule in combination with the costs pre-existing economic conditions at one 155 respondents, the average annualized of the final MACT I and MACT III and facility, EPA projects that one facility cost of the reporting and recordkeeping proposed MACT II rules. EPA’s analysis owned by one of the small firms may burden per respondent is $29,600 for showed that the combined costs of close as a result of the combined final the first three years following achieving compliance with the final air CWA and CAA rules. promulgation. and water rules and the proposed Though not required by the RFA, EPA The recordkeeping and reporting MACT II rule would not have a also assessed the cumulative economic burden means the total time, effort, or significant economic impact on a effect on small entities if the proposed financial resources expended by persons substantial number of small entities. As MACT rule is adopted. EPA’s to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose stated before, only four small entities conclusion that costs to small entities or provide information to or for a would be affected. The combined cost of are not great does not change when the Federal agency. This includes the time the rules would only exceed one percent costs of the final and proposed MACT needed to review instructions; develop, of revenues for two small entities and rules are combined with the costs of the acquire, install, and utilize technology for no small entity covered by both the final CWA rule. The combined cost of and systems for the purposes of final air and water rules and the the rules would only exceed one percent collecting, validating, and verifying proposed air rule would it exceed three of revenues for two small entities information, processing and percent. Even though this is a small covered by both the final air and water maintaining information, and disclosing cost, because of the poor pre-existing rules and the proposed air rule, and for and providing information; adjust the economic conditions at one facility, no small entity would it exceed three existing ways to comply with any EPA projects that one facility owned by percent. Even though this is a small previously applicable instructions and one of the small firms may close as a cost, because of the poor pre-existing requirements; train personnel to be able result of the final CWA and final and economic conditions at one facility, to respond to a collection of proposed CAA rules. EPA projects that one facility owned by information; search data sources; EPA’s assessment of the impacts on one of the small firms may close as a complete and review the collection of small businesses subject to the final result of the combined final CWA and information; and transmit or otherwise CAA rules yields similar results. EPA CAA rules. disclose the information. evaluated the impacts of the costs of the Specifically, the estimated 155 final MACT I and MACT III rules on D. Paperwork Reduction Act respondents must submit performance small businesses. Of the companies The information collection test notifications, statements of affected by the two CAA rules, only 11 requirements in the air emissions rules compliance, and semi-annual reports of meet the SBA definition of ‘‘a small have been submitted for approval to the monitored parameters. The 155 business concern.’’ EPA does not Office of Management and Budget respondents must also conduct believe this is a substantial number of (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction performance tests. If compliance small entities as that term is used in the Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An exceedances occur, respondents must RFA. EPA has also examined the extent Information Collection Request (ICR) submit quarterly excess emissions of the impact on those 11 companies document has been prepared by EPA reports. This information will be used to and finds that the costs of complying (ICR No. 1657.02), and a copy may be demonstrate compliance with the with the final MACT I rule and the final obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE NESHAP. MACT III rule will not have a significant Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Send comments on the Agency’s need economic impact on a substantial Environmental Protection Agency for this information, the accuracy of the Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18613 provided burden estimates, and any mills that describe their process as TCF identify and consider a reasonable suggested methods for minimizing or ECF under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) or 40 number of regulatory alternatives and respondent burden, including through CFR 403.12(b), (d), or (e) as applicable, adopt the least costly, most cost- the use of automated collection supply corroborating data if requested effective or least burdensome alternative techniques to the Director, OPPE by the permitting authority under 40 that achieves the objectives of the rule. Regulatory Information Division; U.S. CFR 122.21(g)(13), and comply with the The provisions of section 205 do not Environmental Protection Agency signatory and certification requirements apply when they are inconsistent with (2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 403.12(l) as applicable law. Moreover, section 205 20460; and to the Office of Information applicable will be deemed to have allows EPA to adopt an alternative other and Regulatory Affairs, Office of certified their process as TCF or ECF. In than the least costly, most cost-effective Management and Budget, 725 17th St., addition, direct discharging mills that or least burdensome alternative if the NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked indicate under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and Administrator publishes with the final ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’ (g)(13) their desire to participate in the rule an explanation why that alternative Include the ICR number in any Advanced Technology Incentives was not adopted. Before EPA establishes correspondence. Program and comply with the signatory any regulatory requirements that may The effluent limitation guidelines and and certification requirements in 40 significantly or uniquely affect small standards promulgated today contain CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 122.23, governments, including tribal two distinct information collection whichever is applicable, will be deemed governments, it must have developed activities, i.e., specified monitoring to have enrolled in the Advanced under section 203 of the UMRA a small requirements, see 40 CFR 430.02, and Technology Incentives Program. In both government agency plan. The plan must development of BMP plans and related cases, this information will determine provide for notifying potentially monitoring, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(4), the types of technology-based effluent affected small governments, enabling (c)(5), (c)(10), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and limitations and standards and the types officials of affected small governments (i)(4). EPA will seek approval of these of monitoring requirements, if any, they to have meaningful and timely input in information collection requirements will receive. OMB has approved the the development of EPA regulatory from the Office of Management and existing information collection proposals with significant Federal Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork requirements associated with NPDES intergovernmental mandates, and Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., discharge permit applications and informing, educating, and advising as follows. EPA will seek to amend the industrial user reports under the small governments on compliance with NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. the regulatory requirements. ICR No. 229, OMB approval number 3501, et seq. OMB has assigned OMB EPA has determined that today’s final 2040–0004, expiration May 31, 1998, to control number 2040–0086 to the rules contain a Federal mandate that add specified monitoring requirements NPDES permit application activity and may result in expenditures of $100 for direct dischargers. EPA will seek to OMB control numbers 2040–0009 and million or more for the private sector in add the specified monitoring 2040–0150 to the reporting and any one year. Accordingly, EPA has requirements for indirect dischargers by certification requirements for industrial prepared the written statement required amending the National Pretreatment users. Nothing in today’s rule changes by section 202 of the UMRA. This Program ICR No. 2, OMB approval the burden estimates for these ICRs. statement is contained in the Economic number 2040–0009, prior to its All information submitted to the EPA Analysis for the rule (DCN 14649) and expiration on October 31, 1999. EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is other support documents and is will seek approval of the Best made will be safeguarded according to summarized below. In addition, EPA Management Practices ICR No. 1829.01 the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, has determined that the rules contain no for the requirements pertaining to BMP Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B— regulatory requirements that might plans and associated monitoring. EPA’s Confidentiality of Information (see 40 significantly or uniquely affect small burden estimates for the BMP ICR are CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, governments and therefore are not presented for comment in a document 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, subject to the requirement of section 203 published elsewhere in today’s Federal September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42241, of the UMRA. The reasons for this Register. September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, finding are set forth below. An Agency may not conduct or March 23, 1979). EPA prepared several supporting sponsor, and a person is not required to analyses for the final rules. Throughout respond to, a collection of information E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act this preamble and in those supporting unless it displays a currently valid OMB Title II of the Unfunded Mandates analyses, EPA has responded to the control number. The OMB control Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104– UMRA section 202 requirements. numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 4, establishes requirements for Federal Considerations with respect to costs, in 40 CFR parts 9 and 48 CFR chapter agencies to assess the effects of their benefits, and regulatory alternatives are 15. regulatory actions on State, local, and addressed in the Economic Analysis In addition, direct discharging mills tribal governments and the private (DCN 14649), which is summarized in continue to be required, under 40 CFR sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Section VIII of this preamble. A very 122.21, to submit certain information as EPA generally must prepare a written brief summary follows. part of their application for an NPDES statement, including a cost-benefit The statutory authorities for these permit. Indirect discharging mills, in analysis, for proposed and final rules rules are found in section 112 of the turn, must submit industrial user with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may CAA and multiple sections of the CWA reports and periodic reports regarding result in expenditures to State, local, (see Section I for a list). In part, these compliance with categorical and tribal governments, in the aggregate, sections of the statutes authorize and pretreatment standards under 40 CFR or to the private sector, of $100 million direct EPA to issue regulations and 403.12(b), (d), and (e). The effluent or more in any one year. Before standards to address air emissions and limitations guidelines and standards promulgating an EPA rule for which a effluent discharges. being promulgated today do not change written statement is needed, section 205 EPA prepared a qualitative and those requirements. EPA notes that of the UMRA generally requires EPA to quantitative cost-benefit assessment of 18614 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations the federal requirements imposed by affect any State, local, or tribal or release into the environment should today’s final rules. In large part, the governments (see chapter 7), EPA be chosen only as a last resort. private sector, not other governments, consulted with State and local air and Today’s rules are consistent with this will incur the costs. Specifically, the water pollution control officials. These policy. As described in section VI, costs of this federal mandate are consultations primarily pertained to development of today’s rules focused on compliance costs to be borne by the implementation issues for States and the pollution-preventing technologies regulated pulp and paper mills. In local governments. EPA’s evaluation of that some segments of the industry have addition, although some States and local their comments is reflected in the final already adopted. Thus, a critical governments will incur costs to rules. component of the technology bases for implement the standards, these costs to For each regulatory decision in today’s effluent limitations guidelines governments will not exceed the today’s rules, EPA has selected the and standards are process changes that thresholds established by UMRA. The ‘‘least costly, most cost effective, or least eliminate or substantially reduce the final rules are not expected to result in burdensome alternative’’ that was formation of certain toxic chemicals. significant or unique impacts to small consistent with the requirements of the EPA also employs process changes as governments; the requirements are CAA and CWA. This satisfies section the technology basis for the emission consistent with established and already- 205 of the UMRA. As part of this standards. operating implementation programs. rulemaking, EPA had identified and G. Common Sense Initiative EPA estimates that the total considered a reasonable number of annualized costs for the private sector to regulatory alternatives. Primarily, the On August 19, 1994, the comply with the federal mandate are regulatory alternatives are Administrator established the Common $351 million (pre-tax)/$229 million manufacturing processes, air emission Sense Initiative (CSI) Council in (post-tax). The mandate’s benefits are controls, wastewater discharge controls, accordance with the Federal Advisory primarily in the areas of reduced health and other technologies. Many of the Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, risks and improved air and water alternatives are described above in Section 9 (c)) requirements. A principal quality. The Economic Analysis (DCN Section VI; others are described in goal of the CSI includes developing 14649) describes, qualitatively, many supporting documents. The Agency’s recommendations for optimal such benefits. The analysis then consideration of alternatives also approaches to multimedia controls for quantifies a subset of the benefits and, included an incentives program to industrial sectors including Petroleum for a subset of the quantified benefits, encourage bleached papergrade kraft Refining, Metal Plating and Finishing, EPA monetizes (i.e., places a dollar and soda mills to commit to pollution Printing, Electronics and Computers, value on) selected benefits. EPA’s prevention advances beyond the Auto Manufacturing, and Iron and Steel estimates of the monetized benefits for requirements of the federal mandate. Manufacturing. the final rules are in the range of $39 to The Pulp and Paper regulations were See Section IX. The Agency’s selection $403 million. not among the rulemaking efforts from among these alternatives is EPA does not believe that there will included in the Common Sense consistent with the requirements of be any disproportionate budgetary Initiative. However, many of the CSI UMRA, in terms of cost, cost- effects of the rules on any particular objectives have been incorporated into effectiveness, and burden. Several areas of the country, particular types of these final rules, and the Agency sections of the preamble are devoted to communities, or particular industry intends to continue to pursue these describing the Agency’s rationale for segments. EPA’s basis for this finding is objectives. its analysis of economic impacts, which each regulatory decision (e.g., Sections is summarized in Section VIII of the VI.B.5.a(5) and VI.B.6.b(2)). H. Executive Order 12875 preamble and in the Economic Analysis Finally, EPA has considered the To reduce the burden of federal (DCN 14649). A key feature of that purpose and intent of the Unfunded regulations on States and small analysis is the estimation of financial Mandates Reform Act and has governments, the President issued impacts for each facility incurring determined that these rules are needed, Executive Order 12875 on October 28, compliance costs. EPA considered the not only because of the significant 1993, entitled Enhancing the costs, impacts, and other effects for pollutant reductions these rules will Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR specific regions and individual achieve, see Section VII, but also to 58093). In particular, this executive communities, and found no satisfy EPA’s obligations under the order requires EPA to consult with disproportionate budgetary effects. consent decree in Environmental representatives of affected State, local, Although these final rules apply only to Defense Fund and Natural Wildlife or tribal governments. While these rules one industry segment, EPA found no Federation v. Thomas, see Section do not create mandates upon State, disproportionate budgetary effect. (The II.C.1.a, and EPA’s CAA obligations. local, or tribal governments, EPA term segment as used in this context F. Pollution Prevention Act involved State and local governments in refers to the industrial category of pulp, their development. Because this paper, and paperboard, and not to In the Pollution Prevention Act of regulation imposes costs to the private individual subcategories within that 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Public sector in excess of $100 million, the category; it is used differently in other Law 101–508, November 5, 1990), EPA pursued the preparation of an sections of this preamble.) The Congress declared pollution prevention unfunded mandates statement and the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) also the national policy of the United States. other requirements of the Unfunded describes the rules’ effect on the The Pollution Prevention Act declares Mandates Reform Act. The requirements national economy in terms of effects on that pollution should be prevented or are met as presented in the unfunded productivity, economic growth, and reduced whenever feasible; pollution mandate s section above. international competitiveness; EPA that cannot be prevented or reduced found such effects to be minimal. should be recycled or reused in an I. Executive Order 12898 Although EPA has determined that environmentally safe manner wherever Executive Order 12898 directs federal these rules do not contain requirements feasible; pollution that cannot be agencies to ‘‘determine whether their that might significantly or uniquely recycled should be treated; and disposal programs, policies, and activities have Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18615 disproportionally high adverse human containing this rule and other required and other standards developing health or environmental effects on information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. organizations such as German DIN minority populations and low-income House of Representatives and the standard 38 409, International Standard populations.’’ (Sec.3–301 and Sec. 3– Comptroller General of the General Organization (ISO) Method 9562, 302). In developing the Cluster Rules, Accounting Office prior to publication Scandinavian Method SCAN–W 9:89, EPA analyzed the environmental justice of the rule in today’s Federal Register. Standard Method 5320 (published questions raised by these rules. EPA This rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by jointly by the American Public Health conducted two analyses in 1996 to 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Association, the American Water Works comply with Executive Order 12898 and Association and the Water Environment K. National Technology Transfer and to determine human health effects on Federation), a method published by Advancement Act minority and low-income populations. Environment Canada, EPA’s Method First, in a comparison of demographic Under Section 12(d) of the National 9020 and EPA’s interim Method 450.1. characteristics, EPA found that there is Technology Transfer and Advancement The foreign and international methods no significant difference in ethnic Act, the Agency is required to use all employed the batch adsorption makeup or income level of counties voluntary consensus standards in its technique for determination of AOX; the where bleached papergrade kraft and regulatory and procurement activities U.S. methods all employed the column soda mills are located when compared unless to do so would be inconsistent technique. Nearly all data collected by to the States in which they are located. with applicable law or otherwise the paper industry and others prior to In fact, of the twenty-six States with impractical. Voluntary consensus development of Method 1650 were bleached papergrade kraft and soda standards are technical standards (e.g., gathered using the column technique. mills, fifteen States actually have lower materials specifications, test methods, Method 1650 allows use of both the minority populations (as a percentage of sampling procedures, business batch and column techniques but overall population) in mill counties practices, etc.) which are developed or contains restrictions on the batch than in the State as a whole, and sixteen adopted by voluntary consensus technique specific to paper industry States have a lower percent African- standards bodies. Where available and wastewaters, as detailed in the Method American population in mill counties potentially applicable voluntary and as described above in Section VI.B.4 than in their respective states. Fifteen consensus standards are not used by and in EPA’s responses to public States have a slightly larger portion of EPA, the Act requires the Agency to comments (DCN 14497, Vol. VII). In the population living below the poverty provide Congress, through the Office of addition to the differences between line in mill counties (15 percent Management and Budget, an adsorption techniques, none of the average) when compared to the State as explanation of the reasons for not using existing methods, including those in a whole (14.1 percent average); such standards. This section voluntary consensus standards, however, when EPA examined the summarizes EPA’s response to the contained the standardized quality results statistically, differences requirements of the NTTAA for the control (QC) and QC acceptance criteria examined between mill counties and analytical test methods promulgated as that EPA requires for data verification total State populations were not part of today’s effluent limitations and validation in its water programs. significant. Therefore, EPA has guidelines and standards. EPA is therefore promulgating the new concluded that the regulatory decisions EPA’s analytical test method EPA Method 1650. reflected in today’s rules will not have development is consistent with the EPA is also promulgating EPA a disproportionately high adverse requirements of the NTTAA. Although Method 1653 for determination of human health or environmental effect the Agency initiated data collection for chlorinated phenolics. Development of on minority populations or low-income these effluent guidelines many years Method 1653 also began in 1989 to populations. prior to enactment of the NTTAA, support data gathering for regulation of Second, EPA investigated the fish traditionally, analytical test method pulp and paper industry discharges. consumption characteristics of Native development has been analogous to the This method was developed using American populations downstream from Act’s requirements for consideration National Council of the Paper Industry pulp and paper mills. Of the 48 Native and use of voluntary consensus for Air and Stream Improvement American tribes downstream from pulp standards. EPA performed extensive (NCASI) Methods CP85.01 and CP86.01 mills, eight have special subsistence literature searches to identify any as a starting point and adding the fishing rights. One finding from EPA’s analytical methods from industry, necessary standardized QC and QC analysis is that members of five of these academia, voluntary consensus acceptance criteria. EPA Method 1653 tribes have elevated risks of contracting standards bodies and other parties that and the NCASI methods employ in-situ cancer from consuming fish could be used to measure the analytes derivatization to assure that only contaminated by dioxin, when in today’s rulemaking. The results of chlorophenolics are derivatized and compared to the general population and this search formed the basis for EPA’s measured. The in-situ derivatization recreational anglers, because they analytical method development and technique allows only chlorophenolics consume fish at higher levels. EPA validation in support of this rulemaking. to be derivatized in the effluent and expects the final rule to reduce Two new analytical test methods are leaves behind interfering analytes. This substantially the cancer risks to these being promulgated in today’s final rule condition is necessary for accurate tribal populations, as discussed in (see Section VI.B.4). measurement of the relevant analytes. Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis The first method is EPA Method 1650 Voluntary consensus standards methods (DCN 14649). for determination of adsorbable organic were not available for chlorophenolics halides (AOX). Development of Method by in-situ derivatization. EPA is J. Submission to Congress and the 1650 began in 1989 to support data therefore promulgating the new EPA General Accounting Office gathering for regulation of pulp and Method 1653. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as paper industry discharges. This method Dischargers are also required to amended by the Small Business was developed by combining various monitor for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of procedures contained in methods from p-dioxin (dioxin; TCDD; 2,3,7,8-TCDD), 1996 (SBREFA), EPA submitted a report voluntary consensus standards bodies 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF; 18616 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

2,3,7,8-TCDF), chloroform, biochemical and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final EIS’’ Program,’’ (EPA–821–R–97–014, DCN oxygen demand (BOD), and total (EPA–453/R–93–050b). An electronic 14488). suspended solids (TSS). Methods for copy of the final Background List of Subjects monitoring these pollutants are Information Document is available from specified in tables at 40 CFR part 136. the Technology Transfer Network 40 CFR Part 63 When available, methods published by described in the SUPPLEMENTARY voluntary consensus standards bodies INFORMATION section of this document. Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous are included in the list of approved Documents supporting the effluent methods in these tables. Specifically, substances, Reporting and limitations guidelines and standards voluntary consensus standards are recordkeeping requirements. may be obtained by contacting the approved for the determination of National Technical Information 40 CFR Part 261 chloroform, BOD, and TSS (from the Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 18th edition of Standard Methods). In Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone Hazardous waste, Recycling, addition, USGS methods are approved (703) 487–4650. Reporting and recordkeeping for BOD and TSS. requirements. For TCDD and TCDF, EPA is EPA’s technical conclusions specifying the use of EPA Method 1613, concerning the wastewater regulations 40 CFR Part 430 promulgated at 62 FR 48394 (September are detailed in the ‘‘Supplemental Paper and paper products industry, 15, 1997). This method was developed Technical Development Document for Reporting and recordkeeping to support data gathering for regulation Effluent Limitations Guidelines and requirements, Waste treatment and of pulp and paper industry discharges Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and disposal, Water pollution control. and incorporates procedures from EPA, Paperboard Point Source Category’’ academia, industry (NCASI and the Dow (EPA–821–R–97–011, DCN 14487). The Dated: November 14, 1997. Chemical Co.) and a commercial Agency’s economic analysis is found in Carol M. Browner, laboratory. There were no voluntary the ‘‘Economic Analysis for the National Administrator. consensus standards methods available Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air for these pollutants by high resolution Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and For the reasons set out in the gas chromatography (HRGC) coupled Paper Production; Effluent Limitations preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code with high resolution mass spectrometry Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and of Federal Regulations is amended as (HRMS) at the time EPA Method 1613 New Source Performance Standards for follows: was developed. Both HRGC and HRMS the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard PART 63ÐNATIONAL EMISSION are required to separately detect and Industry—Phase I,’’ referred to as the STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR measure dioxin and furan isomers at Economic Analysis (EPA–821–R–97– POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE low concentrations (i.e., low parts per 012, DCN 14649). This document also CATEGORIES quadrillion (ppq)). High resolution includes an analysis of the incremental techniques are necessary to conduct the costs and pollutant removals for the 1. The authority citation for part 63 assay in the presence of interfering effluent regulations. Analytical methods continues to read as follows: analytes. EPA is unaware of the used in the development of the effluent existence of an HRGC/HRMS method guidelines are found in ‘‘Analytical Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. from a voluntary consensus standards Methods for the Determination of body for determination of TCDD and Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry 2. Part 63 is amended by adding TCDF in the low ppq range in pulp and Wastewater,’’ a compendium of subpart S to read as follows: paper industry discharges. analytical methods (EPA 821–B–97–00). Subpart SÐNational Emission Standards The environmental assessment is for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp XI. Background Documents presented in the ‘‘Water Quality and Paper Industry The summary of public comments Assessment of Final Effluent Sec. and agency responses and the Limitations Guidelines for the 63.440 Applicability. environmental impacts statement for the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached 63.441 Definitions. NESHAP are contained in the final Papergrade Kraft and Soda 63.442 [Reserved] Background Information Document Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and 63.443 Standards for the pulping system at (BID). A paper copy of the final Paperboard Industry’’ (EPA–823–R–97– kraft, soda, and semi-chemical processes. Background Information Document for 009, DCN 14650). The statistical 63.444 Standards for the pulping system at the NESHAP may be obtained from the analyses used in this rulemaking are sulfite processes. U.S. EPA Library (MD–35), Research detailed in the ‘‘Statistical Support 63.445 Standards for the bleaching system. Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Document for the Pulp and Paper 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process telephone (919) 541–2777; or from the Industry: Subpart B’’ (DCN 14496). The condensates. 63.447 Clean condensate alternative. National Technical Information best management practices program is 63.448–63.449 [Reserved] Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, presented in ‘‘Technical Support 63.450 Standards for enclosures and closed- Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone Document for Best Management vent systems. (703) 487–4650. To obtain the final Practices for Spent Pulping Liquor 63.451–63.452 [Reserved] Background Information Document, Management, Spill Prevention, and 63.453 Monitoring requirements. please refer to ‘‘Pulp, Paper, and Control (DCN 14489), also referred to as 63.454 Recordkeeping requirements. Paperboard Industry—Background the BMP Technical Support Document. 63.455 Reporting requirements. Information for Promulgated Air The Advanced Technology Incentives 63.456 [Reserved] Emission Standards, Manufacturing Program is presented in the ‘‘Technical 63.457 Test methods and procedures. Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi- Support Document for the Voluntary 63.458 Delegation of authority. Chemical, Mechanical, and Secondary Advanced Technology Incentives 63.459 [Reserved] Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18617

Table 1 to Subpart S.ÐGeneral Provisions system provisions of § 63.443 for the (g) Each owner or operator of an Applicability to Subpart S equipment listed in § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) affected source specified in paragraphs through (a)(1)(v) as expeditiously as (a) through (c) of this section must Subpart SÐNational Emission practicable, but in no event later than comply with the requirements of Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants April 17, 2006 and the owners and subpart A—General Provisions of this from the Pulp and Paper Industry operators shall establish dates, update part, as indicated in table 1 to this § 63.440 Applicability. dates, and report the dates for the subpart. milestones specified in § 63.455(b). (a) The provisions of this subpart (2) Each dissolving-grade bleaching § 63.441 Definitions. apply to the owner or operator of system at either kraft or sulfite pulping All terms used in this subpart shall processes that produce pulp, paper, or mills shall achieve compliance with the have the meaning given them in the paperboard; that are located at a plant bleach plant provisions of § 63.445 of CAA, in subpart A of this part, and in site that is a major source as defined in this subpart as expeditiously as this section as follows: § 63.2 of subpart A of this part; and that practicable, but in no event later than 3 Acid condensate storage tank means use the following processes and years after the promulgation of the any storage tank containing cooking materials: revised effluent limitation guidelines acid following the sulfur dioxide gas (1) Kraft, soda, sulfite, or semi- and standards under 40 CFR 430.14 fortification process. chemical pulping processes using wood; through 430.17 and 40 CFR 430.44 or Black liquor means spent cooking through 430.47. (2) Mechanical pulping processes liquor that has been separated from the (3) Each bleaching system complying pulp produced by the kraft, soda, or using wood; or with the Voluntary Advanced (3) Any process using secondary or semi-chemical pulping process. Technology Incentives Program for Bleaching means brightening of pulp non-wood fibers. Effluent Limitation Guidelines in 40 (b) The affected source to which the by the addition of oxidizing chemicals CFR 430.24, shall comply with the existing source provisions of this or reducing chemicals. requirements specified in either subpart apply is as follows: Bleaching line means a group of paragraph (d)(3)(i) or (d)(3)(ii) of this (1) For the processes specified in bleaching stages arranged in series such section for the effluent limitation paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the that bleaching of the pulp progresses as guidelines and standards in 40 CFR affected source is the total of all HAP the pulp moves from one stage to the 430.24. emission points in the pulping and next. (i) Comply with the bleach plant Bleaching stage means all process bleaching systems; or provisions of § 63.445 of this subpart as (2) For the processes specified in equipment associated with a discrete expeditiously as practicable, but in no step of chemical application and paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, event later than April 16, 2001. the affected source is the total of all removal in the bleaching process (ii) Comply with all of the following: including chemical and steam mixers, HAP emission points in the bleaching (A) The owner or operator of a bleaching towers, washers, seal (filtrate) system. bleaching system shall comply with the tanks, vacuum pumps, and any other (c) The new source provisions of this bleach plant provisions of § 63.445 of equipment serving the same function as subpart apply to the total of all HAP this subpart as expeditiously as those previously listed. emission points at new or existing practicable, but in no event later than sources as follows: April 15, 2004. Bleaching system means all process (1) Each affected source defined in (B) The owner or operator of a equipment after high-density pulp paragraph (b)(1) of this section that bleaching system shall not increase the storage prior to the first application of commences construction or application rate of chlorine or oxidizing chemicals or reducing reconstruction after December 17, 1993; hypochlorite in kg of bleaching agent chemicals following the pulping system, (2) Each pulping system or bleaching per megagram of ODP, in the bleaching up to and including the final bleaching system for the processes specified in system above the average daily rates stage. paragraph (a)(1) of this section that used over the three months prior to June Boiler means any enclosed commences construction or 15, 1998 until the requirements of combustion device that extracts useful reconstruction after December 17, 1993; paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section are energy in the form of steam. A boiler is (3) Each additional pulping or met and record application rates as not considered a thermal oxidizer. bleaching line at the processes specified specified in § 63.454(c). Chip steamer means a vessel used for in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that (C) Owners and operators shall the purpose of preheating or pretreating commences construction after December establish dates, update dates, and report wood chips prior to the digester, using 17, 1993; the dates for the milestones specified in flash steam from the digester or live (4) Each affected source defined in § 63.455(b). steam. paragraph (b)(2) of this section that (e) Each new source, specified as the Closed-vent system means a system commences construction or total of all HAP emission points for the that is not open to the atmosphere and reconstruction after March 8, 1996; or sources specified in paragraph (c) of this is composed of piping, ductwork, (5) Each additional bleaching line at section, shall achieve compliance upon connections, and, if necessary, flow- the processes specified in paragraphs start-up or June 15, 1998, whichever is inducing devices that transport gas or (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, that later, as provided in § 63.6(b) of subpart vapor from an emission point to a commences construction after March 8, A of this part. control device. 1996. (f) Each owner or operator of an Combustion device means an (d) Each existing source shall achieve affected source with affected process individual unit of equipment, including compliance no later than April 16, 2001, equipment shared by more than one but not limited to, a thermal oxidizer, except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) type of pulping process, shall comply lime kiln, recovery furnace, process through (d)(3) of this section. with the applicable requirement in this heater, or boiler, used for the thermal (1) Each kraft pulping system shall subpart that achieves the maximum oxidation of organic hazardous air achieve compliance with the pulping degree of reduction in HAP emissions. pollutant vapors. 18618 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Decker system means all equipment Knotter system means equipment includes the blow tank, washers, filtrate used to thicken the pulp slurry or where knots, oversized material, or tanks, any interstage pulp storage tanks, reduce its liquid content after the pulp pieces of uncooked wood are removed and any other equipment serving the washing system and prior to high- from the pulp slurry after the digester same function as those previously density pulp storage. The decker system system and prior to the pulp washing listed. includes decker vents, filtrate tanks, system. The knotter system equipment Primary fuel means the fuel that associated vacuum pumps, and any includes the knotter, knot drainer tanks, provides the principal heat input to the other equipment serving the same ancillary tanks, and any other combustion device. To be considered function as those previously listed. equipment serving the same function as primary, the fuel must be able to sustain Digester system means each those previously listed. operation of the combustion device continuous digester or each batch Kraft pulping means a chemical without the addition of other fuels. digester used for the chemical treatment pulping process that uses a mixture of Process wastewater treatment system of wood or non-wood fibers. The sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide means a collection of equipment, a digester system equipment includes as the cooking liquor. process, or specific technique that associated flash tank(s), blow tank(s), Lime kiln means an enclosed removes or destroys the HAP’s in a chip steamer(s) not using fresh steam, combustion device used to calcine lime process wastewater stream. Examples blow heat recovery accumulator(s), mud, which consists primarily of include, but are not limited to, a steam relief gas condenser(s), prehydrolysis calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide. stripping unit, wastewater thermal unit(s) preceding the pulp washing Low volume, high concentration or oxidizer, or biological treatment unit. system, and any other equipment LVHC collection system means the gas Pulp washing system means all serving the same function as those collection and transport system used to equipment used to wash pulp and separate spent cooking chemicals previously listed. The digester system convey gases from the LVHC system to following the digester system and prior includes any of the liquid streams or a control device. Low volume, high concentration or to the bleaching system, oxygen condensates associated with batch or LVHC system means the collection of delignification system, or paper continuous digester relief, blow, or flash equipment including the digester, machine system (at unbleached mills). steam processes. turpentine recovery, evaporator, steam The pulp washing system equipment Emission point means any part of a stripper systems, and any other includes vacuum drum washers, stationary source that emits hazardous equipment serving the same function as diffusion washers, rotary pressure air pollutants regulated under this those previously listed. washers, horizontal belt filters, subpart, including emissions from Mechanical pulping means a pulping intermediate stock chests, and their individual process vents, stacks, open process that only uses mechanical and associated vacuum pumps, filtrate pieces of process equipment, equipment thermo-mechanical processes to reduce tanks, foam breakers or tanks, and any leaks, wastewater and condensate wood to a fibrous mass. The mechanical other equipment serving the same collection and treatment system units, pulping processes include, but are not function as those previously listed. The and those emissions that could limited to, stone groundwood, pulp washing system does not include reasonably be conveyed through a stack, pressurized groundwood, refiner deckers, screens, knotters, stock chests, chimney, or duct where such emissions mechanical, thermal refiner mechanical, or pulp storage tanks following the last first reach the environment. thermo-mechanical, and tandem stage of pulp washing. Evaporator system means all thermo-mechanical. Pulping line means a group of equipment associated with increasing Non-wood pulping means the equipment arranged in series such that the solids content and/or concentrating production of pulp from fiber sources the wood chips are digested and the spent cooking liquor from the pulp other than trees. The non-wood fiber resulting pulp progresses through a washing system including pre- sources include, but are not limited to, sequence of steps that may include evaporators, multi-effect evaporators, bagasse, cereal straw, cotton, flax straw, knotting, refining, washing, thickening, concentrators, and vacuum systems, as hemp, jute, kenaf, and leaf fibers. blending, storing, oxygen well as associated condensers, hotwells, Oven-dried pulp or ODP means a pulp delignification, and any other and condensate streams, and any other sample at zero percent moisture content equipment serving the same function as equipment serving the same function as by weight. Pulp samples for those previously listed. those previously listed. applicability or compliance Pulping process condensates means Flow indicator means any device that determinations for both the pulping and any HAP-containing liquid that results indicates gas or liquid flow in an bleaching systems shall be unbleached from contact of water with organic enclosed system. pulp. For purposes of complying with compounds in the pulping process. HAP means a hazardous air pollutant mass emission limits in this subpart, Examples of process condensates as defined in § 63.2 of subpart A of this megagram of ODP shall be measured to include digester system condensates, part. represent the amount of pulp entering turpentine recovery system condensates, High volume, low concentration or and processed by the equipment system evaporator system condensates, LVHC HVLC collection system means the gas under the specified mass limit. For system condensates, HVLC system collection and transport system used to equipment that does not process pulp, condensates, and any other condensates convey gases from the HVLC system to megagram of ODP shall be measured to from equipment serving the same a control device. represent the amount of pulp that was function as those previously listed. High volume, low concentration or processed to produce the gas and liquid Liquid streams that are intended for HVLC system means the collection of streams. byproduct recovery are not considered equipment including the pulp washing, Oxygen delignification system means process condensate streams. knotter, screen, decker, and oxygen the equipment that uses oxygen to Pulping system means all process delignification systems, weak liquor remove lignin from pulp after high- equipment, beginning with the digester storage tanks, and any other equipment density stock storage and prior to the system, and up to and including the last serving the same function as those bleaching system. The oxygen piece of pulp conditioning equipment previously listed. delignification system equipment prior to the bleaching system, including Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18619 treatment with ozone, oxygen, or temperature being monitored expressed (v) Each oxygen delignification peroxide before the first application of in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees system. a chemical bleaching agent intended to Celsius (°C), whichever is greater. (2) At new affected sources, the total brighten pulp. The pulping system Thermal oxidizer means an enclosed HAP emissions from the equipment includes pulping process condensates device that destroys organic compounds systems listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), and can include multiple pulping lines. by thermal oxidation. (a)(1)(iii), and (a)(1)(v) of this section Recovery furnace means an enclosed Turpentine recovery system means all and the following equipment systems combustion device where concentrated equipment associated with recovering shall be controlled: spent liquor is burned to recover turpentine from digester system gases (i) Each knotter system; sodium and sulfur, produce steam, and including condensers, decanters, storage (ii) Each screen system; dispose of unwanted dissolved wood tanks, and any other equipment serving (iii) Each decker system; and components in the liquor. the same function as those previously (iv) Each weak liquor storage tank. Screen system means equipment in listed. The turpentine recovery system (b) The owner or operator of each which oversized particles are removed includes any liquid streams associated pulping system using a semi-chemical from the pulp slurry prior to the with the turpentine recovery process or soda process subject to the bleaching or papermaking system such as turpentine decanter underflow. requirements of this subpart shall washed stock storage. Liquid streams that are intended for control the total HAP emissions from Secondary fiber pulping means a byproduct recovery are not considered the following equipment systems as pulping process that converts a fibrous turpentine recovery system condensate specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of material, that has previously undergone streams. this section. a manufacturing process, into pulp Weak liquor storage tank means any (1) At each existing affected sources, stock through the addition of water and storage tank except washer filtrate tanks the total HAP emissions from each mechanical energy. The mill then uses containing spent liquor recovered from LVHC system shall be controlled. that pulp as the raw material in another the pulping process and prior to the (2) At each new affected source, the manufactured product. These mills may evaporator system. total HAP emissions from each LVHC also utilize chemical, heat, and system and each pulp washing system mechanical processes to remove ink § 63.442 [Reserved] shall be controlled. particles from the fiber stock. (c) Equipment systems listed in § 63.443 Standards for the pulping system paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section Semi-chemical pulping means a at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical pulping process that combines both processes. shall be enclosed and vented into a chemical and mechanical pulping closed-vent system and routed to a (a) The owner or operator of each processes. The semi-chemical pulping control device that meets the pulping system using the kraft process process produces intermediate yields requirements specified in paragraph (d) subject to the requirements of this ranging from 55 to 90 percent. of this section. The enclosures and Soda pulping means a chemical subpart shall control the total HAP closed-vent system shall meet the pulping process that uses sodium emissions from the following equipment requirements specified in § 63.450. hydroxide as the active chemical in the systems, as specified in paragraphs (c) (d) The control device used to reduce cooking liquor. and (d) of this section. total HAP emissions from each Spent liquor means process liquid (1) At existing affected sources, the equipment system listed in paragraphs generated from the separation of total HAP emissions from the following (a) and (b) of this section shall: cooking liquor from pulp by the pulp equipment systems shall be controlled: (1) Reduce total HAP emissions by 98 washing system containing dissolved (i) Each LVHC system; percent or more by weight; or organic wood materials and residual (ii) Each knotter or screen system with (2) Reduce the total HAP cooking compounds. total HAP mass emission rates greater concentration at the outlet of the Steam stripper system means a than or equal to the rates specified in thermal oxidizer to 20 parts per million column (including associated stripper paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of or less by volume, corrected to 10 feed tanks, condensers, or heat this section or the combined rate percent oxygen on a dry basis; or exchangers) used to remove compounds specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of (3) Reduce total HAP emissions using from wastewater or condensates using this section. a thermal oxidizer designed and steam. The steam stripper system also (A) Each knotter system with operated at a minimum temperature of contains all equipment associated with emissions of 0.05 kilograms or more of 871 °C (1600 °F) and a minimum a methanol rectification process total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.1 residence time of 0.75 seconds; or including rectifiers, condensers, pounds per ton). (4) Reduce total HAP emissions using decanters, storage tanks, and any other (B) Each screen system with a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace equipment serving the same function as emissions of 0.10 kilograms or more of by introducing the HAP emission stream those previously listed. total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.2 with the primary fuel or into the flame Strong liquor storage tanks means all pounds per ton). zone. storage tanks containing liquor that has (C) Each knotter and screen system (e) Periods of excess emissions been concentrated in preparation for with emissions of 0.15 kilograms or reported under § 63.455 shall not be a combustion or oxidation in the recovery more of total HAP per megagram of ODP violation of § 63.443 (c) and (d) process. (0.3 pounds per ton). provided that the time of excess Sulfite pulping means a chemical (iii) Each pulp washing system; emissions (excluding periods of startup, pulping process that uses a mixture of (iv) Each decker system that: shutdown, or malfunction) divided by sulfurous acid and bisulfite ion as the (A) Uses any process water other than the total process operating time in a cooking liquor. fresh water or paper machine white semi-annual reporting period does not Temperature monitoring device water; or exceed the following levels: means a piece of equipment used to (B) Uses any process water with a (1) One percent for control devices monitor temperature and having an total HAP concentration greater than used to reduce the total HAP emissions accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the 400 parts per million by weight; and from the LVHC system; and 18620 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Four percent for control devices § 63.445 Standards for the bleaching (iii) Dissolving-grade sulfite bleaching used to reduce the total HAP emissions system. systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.44 from the HVLC system; and (a) Each bleaching system that does through 430.47; or (3) Four percent for control devices not use any chlorine or chlorinated (iv) Paper-grade sulfite bleaching used to reduce the total HAP emissions compounds for bleaching is exempt systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.54(a) and from both the LVHC and HVLC systems. from the requirements of this section. (c), and 430.56(a) and (c). Owners or operators of the following (2) Use no hypochlorite or chlorine § 63.444 Standards for the pulping system bleaching systems shall meet all the for bleaching in the bleaching system or at sulfite processes. provisions of this section: line. (a) The owner or operator of each (1) Bleaching systems that use sulfite process subject to the § 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping chlorine; process condensates. requirements of this subpart shall (2) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp control the total HAP emissions from from kraft, sulfite, or soda pulping (a) The requirements of this section the following equipment systems as processes that uses any chlorinated apply to owners or operators of kraft specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of compounds; or processes subject to the requirements of this section. (3) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp this subpart. (b) The pulping process condensates (1) At existing sulfite affected sources, from mechanical pulping processes from the following equipment systems the total HAP emissions from the using wood or from any process using shall be treated to meet the following equipment systems shall be secondary or non-wood fibers, that use requirements specified in paragraphs controlled: chlorine dioxide. (c), (d), and (e) of this section: (i) Each digester system vent; (b) The equipment at each bleaching (ii) Each evaporator system vent; and (1) Each digester system; stage, of the bleaching systems listed in (2) Each turpentine recovery system; (iii) Each pulp washing system. paragraph (a) of this section, where (3) Each evaporator stage where weak (2) At new affected sources, the total chlorinated compounds are introduced liquor is introduced (feed stages) in the HAP emissions from the equipment shall be enclosed and vented into a evaporator system; systems listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this closed-vent system and routed to a (4) Each HVLC collection system; and section and the following equipment control device that meets the (5) Each LVHC collection system. shall be controlled: requirements specified in paragraph (c) (c) One of the following combinations (i) Each weak liquor storage tank; of this section. The enclosures and of HAP-containing pulping process (ii) Each strong liquor storage tank; closed-vent system shall meet the condensates generated, produced, or and requirements specified in § 63.450. associated with the equipment systems (iii) Each acid condensate storage (c) The control device used to reduce listed in paragraph (b) of this section tank. chlorinated HAP emissions (not shall be subject to the requirements of (b) Equipment listed in paragraph (a) including chloroform) from the paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section: of this section shall be enclosed and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of (1) All pulping process condensates vented into a closed-vent system and this section shall: from the equipment systems specified in routed to a control device that meets the (1) Reduce the total chlorinated HAP paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this requirements specified in paragraph (c) mass in the vent stream entering the section. of this section. The enclosures and control device by 99 percent or more by (2) The combined pulping process closed-vent system shall meet the weight; condensates from the equipment requirements specified in § 63.450. (2) Achieve a treatment device outlet systems specified in paragraphs (b)(4) Emissions from equipment listed in concentration of 10 parts per million or and (b)(5) of this section, plus pulping paragraph (a) of this section that is not less by volume of total chlorinated HAP; process condensate stream(s) that in necessary to be reduced to meet or total contain at least 65 percent of the paragraph (c) of this section is not (3) Achieve a treatment device outlet total HAP mass from the pulping required to be routed to a control mass emission rate of 0.001 kg of total process condensates from equipment device. chlorinated HAP mass per megagram systems listed in paragraphs (b)(1) (c) The total HAP emissions from both (0.002 pounds per ton) of ODP. through (b)(3) of this section. the equipment systems listed in (d) The owner or operator of each (3) The pulping process condensates paragraph (a) of this section and the bleaching system subject to paragraph from equipment systems listed in vents, wastewater, and condensate (a)(2) of this section shall comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this streams from the control device used to paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section section that in total contain a total HAP reduce HAP emissions, shall be to reduce chloroform air emissions to mass of 3.6 kilograms or more of total controlled as follows. the atmosphere, except the owner or HAP per megagram (7.2 pounds per ton) (1) Each calcium-based or sodium- operator of each bleaching system of ODP for mills that do not perform based sulfite pulping process shall: complying with extended compliance bleaching or 5.5 kilograms or more of (i) Emit no more than 0.44 kilograms under § 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall comply total HAP per megagram (11.1 pounds of total HAP or methanol per megagram with paragraph (d)(1) of this section. per ton) of ODP for mills that perform (0.89 pounds per ton) of ODP; or (1) Comply with the following bleaching. (ii) Remove 92 percent or more by applicable effluent limitation guidelines (d) The pulping process condensates weight of the total HAP or methanol. and standards specified in 40 CFR part from the equipment systems listed in (2) Each magnesium-based or 430: paragraph (b) of this section shall be ammonium-based sulfite pulping (i) Dissolving-grade kraft bleaching conveyed in a closed collection system process shall: systems and lines, 40 CFR 430.14 that is designed and operated to meet (i) Emit no more than 1.1 kilograms of through 430.17; the requirements specified in total HAP or methanol per megagram (ii) Paper-grade kraft and soda paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this (2.2 pounds per ton) of ODP; or bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR section. (ii) Remove 87 percent or more by 430.24(a)(1) and (e), and 40 CFR 430.26 (1) Each closed collection system weight of the total HAP or methanol. (a) and (c); shall meet the individual drain system Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18621 requirements specified in § 63.960, (f) Each HAP removed from a pulping paper machines and HAP emission 63.961, and 63.962 of subpart RR of this process condensate stream during points in the LVHC system). part, except for closed vent systems and treatment and handling under (2) Causticizing system means all control devices shall be designed and paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section, equipment associated with converting operated in accordance with except for those treated according to sodium carbonate into active sodium §§ 63.443(d) and 63.450, instead of in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, shall be hydroxide. The equipment includes accordance with § 63.693 as specified in controlled as specified in § 63.443(c) smelt dissolving tanks, lime mud § 63.962 (a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and and (d). washers and storage tanks, white and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and (g) For each steam stripper system mud liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, (2) If a condensate tank is used in the used to comply with the requirements slakers, slaker grit washers, lime kilns, closed collection system, the tank shall specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this green liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, meet the following requirements: section, periods of excess emissions and dreg washers ending with the white (i) The fixed roof and all openings reported under § 63.455 shall not be a liquor storage tanks prior to the digester (e.g., access hatches, sampling ports, violation of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) system, and any other equipment gauge wells) shall be designed and of this section provided that the time of serving the same function as those operated with no detectable leaks as excess emissions (including periods of previously listed. indicated by an instrument reading of startup, shutdown, or malfunction) (3) Papermaking system means all less than 500 parts per million above divided by the total process operating equipment used to convert pulp into background, and vented into a closed- time in a semi-annual reporting period paper, paperboard, or market pulp, vent system that meets the requirements does not exceed 10 percent. including the stock storage and in § 63.450 and routed to a control (h) Each owner or operator of a new preparation systems, the paper or device that meets the requirements in or existing affected source subject to the paperboard machines, and the paper § 63.443(d); and requirements of this section shall machine white water system, broke (ii) Each opening shall be maintained evaluate all new or modified pulping recovery systems, and the systems in a closed, sealed position (e.g., process condensates or changes in the involved in calendering, drying, on- covered by a lid that is gasketed and annual bleached or non-bleached ODP machine coating, slitting, winding, and latched) at all times that the tank used to comply with paragraph (i) of cutting. contains pulping process condensates or this section, to determine if they meet (b) Each owner or operator shall any HAP removed from a pulping the applicable requirements of this install and operate a clean condensate process condensate stream except when section. alternative technology with a it is necessary to use the opening for (i) For the purposes of meeting the continuous monitoring system to reduce sampling, removal, or for equipment requirements in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4), total HAP emissions by treating and inspection, maintenance, or repair. or (e)(5) of this section at mills reducing HAP concentrations in the (e) Each pulping process condensate producing both bleached and pulping process water used within the from the equipment systems listed in unbleached pulp products, owners and clean condensate alternative affected paragraph (b) of this section shall be operators may meet a prorated mass source. treated according to one of the following standard that is calculated by prorating (c) Each owner or operator shall options: the applicable mass standards calculate HAP emissions on a kilogram (kilograms of total HAP per megagram of (1) Recycle the pulping process per megagram of ODP basis and measure ODP) for bleached and unbleached condensate to an equipment system HAP emissions according to the specified in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4), or specified in § 63.443(a) meeting the appropriate procedures contained in (e)(5) of this section by the ratio of requirements specified in § 63.443(c) § 63.457. annual megagrams of bleached and (d) Each owner or operator shall and (d); or unbleached ODP. determine the baseline HAP emissions (2) Discharge the pulping process for each equipment system and the total condensate below the liquid surface of § 63.447 Clean condensate alternative. of all equipment systems in the clean a biological treatment system meeting As an alternative to the requirements condensate alternative affected source the requirement specified in paragraph specified in § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through based on the following: (e)(3) of this section; or (a)(1)(v) for the control of HAP (1) Process and air pollution control (3) Treat the pulping process emissions from pulping systems using equipment installed and operating on or condensates to reduce or destroy the the kraft process, an owner or operator after December 17, 1993, and total HAP’s by at least 92 percent or must demonstrate to the satisfaction of (2) Compliance with the following more by weight; or the Administrator, by meeting all the requirements that affect the level of (4) At mills that do not perform requirements below, that the total HAP HAP emissions from the clean bleaching, treat the pulping process emissions reductions achieved by this condensate alternative affected source: condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or clean condensate alternative technology (i) The pulping process condensates more of total HAP per megagram (6.6 are equal to or greater than the total requirements in § 63.446; pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a HAP emission reductions that would (ii) The applicable effluent limitation total HAP concentration of 210 parts per have been achieved by compliance with guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part million or less by weight at the outlet of § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v). 430, subparts A, B, D, and E; and the control device; or (a) For the purposes of this section (iii) All other applicable requirements (5) At mills that perform bleaching, only the following additional of local, State, or Federal agencies or treat the pulping process condensates to definitions apply. statutes. remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total (1) Clean condensate alternative (e) Each owner or operator shall HAP per megagram (10.2 pounds per affected source means the total of all determine the following HAP emission ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP HAP emission points in the pulping, reductions from the baseline HAP concentration of 330 parts per million or bleaching, causticizing, and emissions determined in paragraph (d) less by weight at the outlet of the papermaking systems (exclusive of HAP of this section for each equipment control device. emissions attributable to additives to system and the total of all equipment 18622 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations systems in the clean condensate when necessary to use the opening for temperature and concentration limits alternative affected source: sampling, inspection, maintenance, or specified. (1) The HAP emission reduction repairs. (c) A CMS shall be operated to occurring by complying with the (c) Each component of the closed-vent measure the following parameters for requirements of § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) system used to comply with each gas scrubber used to comply with through (a)(1)(v); and §§ 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) the bleaching system requirements of (2) The HAP emissions reduction that that is operated at positive pressure and § 63.445(c) or the sulfite pulping system occurring by complying with the clean located prior to a control device shall be requirements of § 63.444(c). condensate alternative technology. designed for and operated with no (1) The pH or the oxidation/reduction (f) For the purposes of all detectable leaks as indicated by an potential of the gas scrubber effluent; requirements in this section, each owner instrument reading of less than 500 (2) The gas scrubber vent gas inlet or operator may use as an alternative, parts per million by volume above flow rate; and individual equipment systems (instead background, as measured by the (3) The gas scrubber liquid influent of total of all equipment systems) within procedures specified in § 63.457(d). flow rate. the clean condensate alternative affected (d) Each bypass line in the closed- (d) As an option to the requirements source to determine emissions and vent system that could divert vent specified in paragraph (c) of this reductions to demonstrate equal or streams containing HAP to the section, a CMS shall be operated to greater than the reductions that would atmosphere without meeting the measure the chlorine outlet have been achieved by compliance with emission limitations in §§ 63.443, concentration of each gas scrubber used § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v). 63.444, or 63.445 shall comply with to comply with the bleaching system (g) The initial and updates to the either of the following requirements: outlet concentration requirement control strategy report specified in (1) On each bypass line, the owner or specified in § 63.445(c)(2). § 63.455(b) shall include to the extent operator shall install, calibrate, (e) The owner or operator of a possible the following information: maintain, and operate according to (1) A detailed description of: bleaching system complying with 40 manufacturer’s specifications a flow (i) The equipment systems and CFR 430.24, shall monitor the chlorine indicator that provides a record of the emission points that comprise the clean and hypochlorite application rates, in kg presence of gas stream flow in the condensate alternative affected source; of bleaching agent per megagram of bypass line at least once every 15 (ii) The air pollution control ODP, of the bleaching system during the minutes. The flow indicator shall be technologies that would be used to meet extended compliance period specified installed in the bypass line in such a the requirements of § 63.443(a)(1)(ii) in § 63.440(d)(3). way as to indicate flow in the bypass through (a)(1)(v); (f) A CMS shall be operated to line; or (iii) The clean condensate alternative measure the gas scrubber parameters technology to be used. (2) For bypass line valves that are not specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (2) Estimates and basis for the computer controlled, the owner or (c)(3) of this section or those site estimates of total HAP emissions and operator shall maintain the bypass line specific parameters determined emissions reductions to fulfill the valve in the closed position with a car according to the procedures specified in requirements paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) seal or a seal placed on the valve or paragraph (n) of this section to comply of this section. closure mechanism in such a way that with the sulfite pulping system (h) Each owner or operator shall valve or closure mechanism cannot be requirements specified in § 63.444(c). report to the Administrator by the opened without breaking the seal. (g) A CMS shall be operated to applicable compliance date specified in §§ 63.451±63.452 [Reserved] measure the following parameters for § 63.440(d) or (e) the rationale, each steam stripper used to comply with calculations, test procedures, and data § 63.453 Monitoring requirements. the treatment requirements in documentation used to demonstrate (a) Each owner or operator subject to § 63.446(e) (3), (4), or (5): compliance with all the requirements of the standards specified in §§ 63.443(c) (1) The process wastewater feed rate; this section. and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and (2) The steam feed rate; and (3) The process wastewater column §§ 63.448±63.449 [Reserved] (c), 63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or § 63.450(d), shall install, calibrate, feed temperature. § 63.450 Standards for enclosures and certify, operate, and maintain according (h) As an option to the requirements closed-vent systems. to the manufacturer’s specifications, a specified in paragraph (g) of this (a) Each enclosure and closed-vent continuous monitoring system (CMS, as section, a CMS shall be operated to system specified in §§ 63.443(c), defined in § 63.2 of this part) as measure the methanol outlet 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) for capturing specified in paragraphs (b) through (m) concentration to comply with the steam and transporting vent streams that of this section, except as allowed in stripper outlet concentration contain HAP shall meet the paragraph (m) of this section. The CMS requirement specified in § 63.446 (e)(4) requirements specified in paragraphs (b) shall include a continuous recorder. or (e)(5). through (d) of this section. (b) A CMS shall be operated to (i) A CMS shall be operated to (b) Each enclosure shall maintain measure the temperature in the firebox measure the appropriate parameters negative pressure at each enclosure or or in the ductwork immediately determined according to the procedures hood opening as demonstrated by the downstream of the firebox and before specified in paragraph (n) of this section procedures specified § 63.457(e). Each any substantial heat exchange occurs for to comply with the condensate enclosure or hood opening closed each thermal oxidizer used to comply applicability requirements specified in during the initial performance test with the requirements of § 63.443(d)(1) § 63.446(c). specified in § 63.457(a) shall be through (d)(3). Owners and operators (j) Each owner or operator using a maintained in the same closed and complying with the requirements in biological treatment system to comply sealed position as during the § 63.443(d)(2) or (d)(3) shall monitor the with § 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the performance test at all times except parameter specified and for the following monitoring procedures. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18623

(1) On a daily basis, monitor the (2) Each closed-vent system required satisfaction, continuous compliance following parameters for each biological by § 63.450(a) shall be visually with the applicable control treatment unit: inspected every 30 days and at other requirements. (i) Composite daily sample of outlet times as requested by the Administrator. (n) To establish or reestablish, the soluble BOD5 concentration to monitor The visual inspection shall include value for each operating parameter for maximum daily and maximum inspection of ductwork, piping, required to be monitored under monthly average; enclosures, and connections to covers paragraphs (b) through (j), (l), and (m) of (ii) Mixed liquor volatile suspended for visible evidence of defects. this section or to establish appropriate solids; (3) For positive pressure closed-vent parameters for paragraphs (f), (i), and (iii) Horsepower of aerator unit(s); systems or portions of closed-vent (m) of this section, each owner or (iv) Inlet liquid flow; and systems, demonstrate no detectable operator shall use the following (v) Liquid temperature. leaks as specified in § 63.450(c) procedures: (2) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid measured initially and annually by the (1) During the initial performance test grab samples from each biological procedures in § 63.457(d). required in § 63.457(a) or any treatment unit to have HAP data (4) Demonstrate initially and annually subsequent performance test, available to perform quarterly percent that each enclosure opening is continuously record the operating reduction tests specified in paragraph maintained at negative pressure as parameter; (j)(2)(ii) of this section and the specified in § 63.457(e). (2) Determinations shall be based on compliance percent reduction tests (5) The valve or closure mechanism the control performance and parameter specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this specified in § 63.450(d)(2) shall be data monitored during the performance section. Perform the following inspected at least once every 30 days to test, supplemented if necessary by procedures with the liquid samples: ensure that the valve is maintained in engineering assessments and the (i) Store the samples for 5 days as the closed position and the emission manufacturer’s recommendations; specified in § 63.457(n). The 5 day point gas stream is not diverted through (3) The owner or operator shall storage requirement is required since the bypass line. provide for the Administrator’s approval the soluble BOD5 test requires 5 days to (6) If an inspection required by the rationale for selecting the obtain results. If the results of the paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of this monitoring parameters necessary to soluble BOD5 test are outside of the section identifies visible defects in comply with paragraphs (f), (i), and (m) range established during the initial ductwork, piping, enclosures or of this section; and performance test, then the archive connections to covers required by (4) Provide for the Administrator’s sample shall be used to perform the § 63.450, or if an instrument reading of approval the rationale for the selected percent reduction test specified in 500 parts per million by volume or operating parameter value, and § 63.457(1). greater above background is measured, monitoring frequency, and averaging (ii) Perform the percent reduction test or if enclosure openings are not time. Include all data and calculations procedures specified in § 63.457(l) maintained at negative pressure, then used to develop the value and a within 45 days after the beginning of the following corrective actions shall be description of why the value, each quarter as follows. taken as soon as practicable. monitoring frequency, and averaging (A) The percent reduction test (i) A first effort to repair or correct the time demonstrate continuous performed in the first quarter (annually) closed-vent system shall be made as compliance with the applicable shall be performed for total HAP and the soon as practicable but no later than 5 emission standard. percent reduction obtained from the test calendar days after the problem is (o) Each owner or operator of a shall be at least as great as the total HAP identified. control device subject to the monitoring reduction specified in § 63.446(e)(2). (ii) The repair or corrective action provisions of this section shall operate (B) The remaining quarterly percent shall be completed no later than 15 the control device in a manner reduction tests shall be performed for calendar days after the problem is consistent with the minimum or methanol and the percent reduction identified. maximum (as appropriate) operating obtained from the test shall be at least (l) Each pulping process condensate parameter value or procedure required as great as the methanol reduction closed collection system used to comply to be monitored under paragraphs (a) determined in the previous first-quarter with § 63.446(d) shall be visually through (n) of this section and test specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) of inspected every 30 days and shall established under this subpart. Except this section. comply with the inspection and as provided in paragraph (p) of this (C) The parameter values used to monitoring requirements specified in section, § 63.443(e), or § 63.446(g), calculate the percent reductions § 63.964 of subpart RR of this part, operation of the control device below required in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) and except for the closed-vent system and minimum operating parameter values or (j)(2)(ii)(B) of this section shall be control device inspection and above maximum operating parameter parameter values measured and samples monitoring requirements specified in values established under this subpart or taken in paragraph (j)(1) of this section. § 63.964(a)(2) of subpart RR of this part, failure to perform procedures required (k) Each enclosure and closed-vent the closed-vent system and the control by this subpart shall constitute a system used to comply with § 63.450(a) device shall meet the requirements violation of the applicable emission shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (k) of standard of this subpart and be reported specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through this section. as a period of excess emissions. (k)(6) of this section. (m) Each owner or operator using a (p) Each owner or operator of a (1) For each enclosure opening, a control device, technique or an biological treatment system complying visual inspection of the closure alternative parameter other than those with paragraph (j) of this section shall mechanism specified in § 63.450(b) specified in paragraphs (b) through (l) of perform all the following requirements shall be performed at least once every this section shall install a CMS and when the monitoring parameters 30 days to ensure the opening is establish appropriate operating specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through maintained in the closed position and parameters to be monitored that (j)(1)(iii) of this section are below sealed. demonstrate, to the Administrator’s minimum operating parameter values or 18624 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations above maximum operating parameter (10) The date of successful repair of accomplish emission controls or process values established in paragraph (n) of the defect or leak; changes; this section. (11) The position and duration of (iii) The date by which on-site (1) The following shall occur and be opening of bypass line valves and the construction, installation of emission recorded as soon as practical: condition of any valve seals; and control equipment, or a process change (i) Determine compliance with (12) The duration of the use of bypass is to be initiated; § 63.446(e)(2) using the percent valves on computer controlled valves. (iv) The date by which on-site reduction test procedures specified in (c) The owner or operator of a construction, installation of emissions § 63.457(l) and the monitoring data bleaching system complying with control equipment, or a process change specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall record the is to be completed; section that coincide with the time daily average chlorine and hypochlorite (v) The date by which final period of the parameter excursion; application rates, in kg of bleaching compliance is to be achieved; (vi) For compliance with paragraph (ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or agent per megagram of ODP, of the adjust the operation of the process to § 63.440(d)(3)(ii), the tentative dates by bleaching system until the requirements end the parameter excursion period; and which compliance with effluent specified in § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met. (iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize limitation guidelines and standards total HAP emissions to the atmosphere (d) The owner or operator shall record intermediate pollutant load effluent during the parameter excursion period. the CMS parameters specified in reductions and as available, all the dates (2) A parameter excursion is not a § 63.453 and meet the requirements for the best available technology’s violation of the applicable emission specified in paragraph (a) of this section milestones reported in the National standard if the percent reduction test for any new affected process equipment Pollutant Discharge Elimination System specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this or pulping process condensate stream authorized under section 402 of the section demonstrates compliance with that becomes subject to the standards in Clean Water Act and for the best § 63.446(e)(2), and no maintenance or this subpart due to a process change or professional milestones in the Voluntary changes have been made to the process modification. Advanced Technology Incentives or control device after the beginning of § 63.455 Reporting requirements. Program under 40 CFR 430.24 (b)(2); a parameter excursion that would and influence the results of the (a) Each owner or operator of a source (vii) The date by which the final determination. subject to this subpart shall comply compliance tests will be performed. with the reporting requirements of (3) Until compliance is achieved, § 63.454 Recordkeeping requirements. subpart A of this part as specified in revisions or updates shall be made to (a) The owner or operator of each table 1 and all the following the control strategy report required by affected source subject to the requirements in this section. The initial paragraph (b) of this section indicating requirements of this subpart shall notification report specified under the progress made towards completing comply with the recordkeeping § 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part the installation of the emission controls requirements of § 63.10 of subpart A of shall be submitted by April 15, 1999. or process modifications during the 2- this part, as shown in table 1, and the (b) Each owner or operator of a kraft year period. requirements specified in paragraphs (b) pulping system specified in (c) The owner or operator of each through (d) of this section for the § 63.440(d)(1) or a bleaching system bleaching system complying with monitoring parameters specified in specified in § 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall certify in the § 63.453. submit, with the initial notification report specified under § 63.10(e)(3) of (b) For each applicable enclosure report specified under § 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part that the daily opening, closed-vent system, and closed subpart A of this part and paragraph (a) application rates of chlorine and collection system, the owner or operator of this section and update every two hypochlorite for that bleaching system shall prepare and maintain a site- years thereafter, a non-binding control have not increased as specified in specific inspection plan including a strategy report containing, at a § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) until the drawing or schematic of the components minimum, the information specified in requirements of § 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are of applicable affected equipment and paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this met. shall record the following information section in addition to the information (d) The owner or operator shall meet for each inspection: required in § 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of the requirements specified in paragraph (1) Date of inspection; this part. (a) of this section upon startup of any (2) The equipment type and (1) A description of the emission new affected process equipment or identification; controls or process modifications pulping process condensate stream that (3) Results of negative pressure tests selected for compliance with the control becomes subject to the standards of this for enclosures; requirements in this standard. subpart due to a process change or (4) Results of leak detection tests; modification. (5) The nature of the defect or leak (2) A compliance schedule, including and the method of detection (i.e., visual the dates by which each step toward § 63.456 [Reserved] inspection or instrument detection); compliance will be reached for each (6) The date the defect or leak was emission point or sets of emission § 63.457 Test methods and procedures. detected and the date of each attempt to points. At a minimum, the list of dates (a) Initial performance test. An initial repair the defect or leak; shall include: performance test is required for all (7) Repair methods applied in each (i) The date by which the major emission sources subject to the attempt to repair the defect or leak; study(s) for determining the compliance limitations in §§ 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, (8) The reason for the delay if the strategy will be completed; 63.446, and 63.447, except those defect or leak is not repaired within 15 (ii) The date by which contracts for controlled by a combustion device that days after discovery; emission controls or process is designed and operated as specified in (9) The expected date of successful modifications will be awarded, or the § 63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4). repair of the defect or leak if the repair date by which orders will be issued for (b) Vent sampling port locations and is not completed within 15 days; the purchase of major components to gas stream properties. For purposes of Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18625 selecting vent sampling port locations shall be used to determine chlorine solution, dissolve 13.61 grams (g) of and determining vent gas stream concentration in the vent stream. potassium dihydrogen phosphate in properties, required in §§ 63.443, (A) Probe/Sampling Line. A separate water and dilute to 100 ml. 63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, each owner probe is not required. The sampling line (2) To prepare the 1 M sodium or operator shall comply with the shall be an appropriate length of 0.64  hydroxide solution (NaOH), dissolve 4.0 applicable procedures in paragraphs cm (0.25 in) OD Teflon tubing. The g of sodium hydroxide in water and (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. sample inlet end of the sampling line dilute to 100 ml. (1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, shall be inserted into the stack in such appendix A, as appropriate, shall be a way as to not entrain liquid (3) To prepare the buffered 2 percent used for selection of the sampling site condensation from the vent gases. The potassium iodide solution, dissolve 20 g as follows: other end shall be connected to the of potassium iodide in 900 ml water. (i) To sample for vent gas impingers. The length of the tubing may Add 50 ml of the 1 M potassium concentrations and volumetric flow vary from one sampling site to another, dihydrogen phosphate solution and 30 rates, the sampling site shall be located but shall be as short as possible in each ml of the 1 M sodium hydroxide prior to dilution of the vent gas stream situation. If sampling is conducted in solution. While stirring solution, and prior to release to the atmosphere; sunlight, opaque tubing shall be used. measure the pH of solution (ii) For determining compliance with Alternatively, if transparent tubing is electrometrically and add the 1 M percent reduction requirements, used, it shall be covered with opaque sodium hydroxide solution to bring pH sampling sites shall be located prior to tape. to between 6.95 and 7.05. the inlet of the control device and at the (B) Impinger Train. Three 30 milliliter (4) To prepare the 0.1 normality (N) outlet of the control device; (ml) capacity midget impingers shall be sodium thiosulfate solution, dissolve 25 measurements shall be performed connected in series to the sampling line. g of sodium thiosulfate, pentahydrate, in simultaneously at the two sampling The impingers shall have regular 800 ml of freshly boiled and cooled sites; and tapered stems. Silica gel shall be placed distilled water in a 1-liter volumetric (iii) For determining compliance with in the third impinger as a desiccant. All flask. Dilute to volume. To prepare the concentration limits or mass emission impinger train connectors shall be glass 0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution, add rate limits, the sampling site shall be and/or Teflon. 10.0 ml standardized 0.1 N sodium located at the outlet of the control (C) Critical Orifice. The critical orifice thiosulfate solution to a 100 ml device. shall have a flow rate of 200 to 250 ml/ volumetric flask, and dilute to volume (2) No traverse site selection method min and shall be followed by a vacuum with water. is needed for vents smaller than 0.10 pump capable of providing a vacuum of (5) To standardize the 0.1 N sodium meter (4.0 inches) in diameter. 640 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). A thiosulfate solution, dissolve 3.249 g of (3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate 45 millimeter diameter in-line Teflon anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, primary shall be determined using Method 2, 0.8 micrometer filter shall follow the standard quality, or 3.567 g potassium 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A, impingers to project the critical orifice iodate dried at 103 +/¥2 degrees as appropriate. and vacuum pump. (4) The moisture content of the vent (D) The following are necessary for Centigrade for 1 hour, in distilled water gas shall be measured using Method 4 the analysis apparatus: and dilute to 1000 ml to yield a 0.1000 of part 60, appendix A. (1) Wash bottle filled with deionized N solution. Store in a glass-stoppered (5) To determine vent gas water; bottle. To 80 ml distilled water, add, concentrations, the owner or operator (2) 25 or 50 ml graduated burette and with constant stirring, 1 ml shall collect a minimum of three stand; concentrated sulfuric acid, 10.00 ml samples that are representative of (3) Magnetic stirring apparatus and 0.1000 N anhydrous potassium bi- normal conditions and average the stir bar; iodate, and 1 g potassium iodide. Titrate resulting pollutant concentrations using (4) Calibrated pH Meter; immediately with 0.1 n sodium the following procedures. (5) 150–250 ml beaker or flask; and thiosulfate titrant until the yellow color (i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this (6) A 5 ml pipette. of the liberated iodine is almost part shall be used to determine the (E) The procedures listed in discharged. Add 1 ml starch indicator methanol concentration. paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(E)(1) through solution and continue titrating until the (ii) Except for the modifications (b)(5)(ii)(E)(7) of this section shall be blue color disappears. The normality of specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(A) used to prepare the reagents. the sodium thiosulfate solution is through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section, (1) To prepare the 1 molarity (M) inversely proportional to the ml of Method 26A of part 60, appendix A potassium dihydrogen phosphate sodium thiosulfate solution consumed:

Normality of = 1 SodiumThiosulfate ml Sodium Thiosulfate Consumed

(6) To prepare the starch indicator sulfuric acid to 80 ml water in an 100 impingers, filter, critical orifice, and solution, add a small amount of cold ml volumetric flask. Dilute to volume. pump. The sampling line and the water to 5 g starch and grind in a mortar (F) The procedures specified in impingers shall be shielded from to obtain a thin paste. Pour paste into paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(F)(1) through sunlight. 1 L of boiling distilled water, stir, and (b)(5)(ii)(F)(5) of this section shall be used to perform the sampling. (2) Leak and Flow Check Procedure. let settle overnight. Use clear supernate Plug sampling line inlet tip and turn on for starch indicator solution. (1) Preparation of Collection Train. Measure 20 ml buffered potassium pump. If a flow of bubbles is visible in (7) To prepare the 10 percent sulfuric iodide solution into each of the first two either of the liquid impingers, tighten acid solution, add 10 ml of concentrated impingers and connect probe, fittings and adjust connections and 18626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations impingers. A leakage rate not in excess form iodine and thus can cause a SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow of 2 percent of the sampling rate is positive interference in the chlorine rate, liters per minute; acceptable. Carefully remove the plug measurement. Due to the chemistry tS=Time sampled, minutes; from the end of the probe. Check the involved, the precision of the chlorine TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and flow rate at the probe inlet with a analysis will decrease as the ratio of NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant. bubble tube flow meter. The flow chlorine dioxide to chlorine increases. should be comparable or slightly less Slightly negative calculated (iii) Any other method that measures than the flow rate of the critical orifice concentrations of chlorine may occur the total HAP or methanol concentration with the impingers off-line. Record the when sampling a vent gas with high that has been demonstrated to the flow and turn off the pump. concentrations of chlorine dioxide and Administrator’s satisfaction. (3) Sample Collection. Insert the very low concentrations of chlorine. (6) The minimum sampling time for sampling line into the stack and secure (G) The following calculation shall be each of the three runs per method shall it with the tip slightly lower than the performed to determine the corrected be 1 hour in which either an integrated port height. Start the pump, recording sampling flow rate: sample or four grab samples shall be the time. End the sampling after 60 taken. If grab sampling is used, then the minutes, or after yellow color is  BP− PW 293  samples shall be taken at approximately observed in the second in-line impinger. SS= CU  760  273 + t equal intervals in time, such as 15 Record time and remove the tubing from minute intervals during the run. the vent. Recheck flow rate at sampling Where: (c) Liquid sampling locations and line inlet and turn off pump. If the flow SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow properties. For purposes of selecting rate has changed significantly, redo rate, liters per minute; liquid sampling locations and for sampling with fresh capture solution. A SU=Uncorrected sampling flow rate, L/min; determining properties of liquid streams slight variation (less than 5 percent) in BP=Barometric pressure at time of sampling; such as wastewaters, process waters, flow may be averaged. With the inlet PW=Saturated partial pressure of water and condensates required in §§ 63.444, end of the line elevated above the vapor, mm Hg at temperature; and t=Ambient temperature, °C. 63.446, and 63.447, the owner or impingers, add about 5 ml water into operator shall comply with the the inlet tip to rinse the line into the (H) The following calculation shall be following procedures: first impinger. performed to determine the moles of (4) Sample Analysis. Fill the burette chlorine in the sample: (1) Samples shall be collected using with 0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution the sampling procedures specified in = − × Method 305 of part 60, appendix A; to the zero mark. Combine the contents Cl2 Moles1 8000() 5 TN T A N Thio of the impingers in the beaker or flask. (i) Where feasible, samples shall be Stir the solution and titrate with Where: taken from an enclosed pipe prior to the thiosulfate until the solution is TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; liquid stream being exposed to the colorless. Record the volume of the first TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and atmosphere; and NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant. endpoint (TN, ml). Add 5 ml of the 10 (ii) When sampling from an enclosed percent sulfuric acid solution, and (I) The following calculation shall be pipe is not feasible, samples shall be continue the titration until the contents performed to determine the collected in a manner to minimize of the flask are again colorless. Record concentration of chlorine in the sample: exposure of the sample to the the total volume of titrant required to go atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds − × through the first and to the second 3005() 5 TTNN A Thio prior to sampling. endpoint (TA, ml). If the volume of Cl ppmv = 2 S× t (2) The volumetric flow rate of the neutral titer is less than 0.5 ml, repeat CS entering and exiting liquid streams shall the testing for a longer period of time. Where: be determined using the inlet and outlet It is important that sufficient lighting be SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow flow meters or other methods present to clearly see the endpoints, rate, liters per minute; demonstrated to the Administrator’s which are determined when the tS=Time sampled, minutes; satisfaction. The volumetric flow rate TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; solution turns from pale yellow to measurements to determine actual mass colorless. A lighted stirring plate and a TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant. removal shall be taken at the same time white background are useful for this as the concentration measurements; purpose. (J) The following calculation shall be (5) Interferences. Known interfering (3) To determine liquid stream total performed to determine the moles of HAP or methanol concentrations, the agents of this method are sulfur dioxide chlorine dioxide in the sample: and hydrogen peroxide. Sulfur dioxide, owner or operator shall collect a which is used to reduce oxidant = − × minimum of three samples that are C1 O2 Moles 1 4000() TA T N N Thio residuals in some bleaching systems, representative of normal conditions and reduces formed iodine to iodide in the Where: average the resulting pollutant capture solution. It is therefore a TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; concentrations using one of the negative interference for chlorine, and TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and following: in some cases could result in erroneous NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant. (i) Method 305 in Appendix A of this negative chlorine concentrations. Any (K) The following calculation shall be part, adjusted using the following agent capable of reducing iodine to performed to determine the equation: iodide could interfere in this manner. A concentration of chlorine dioxide in the chromium trioxide impregnated filter sample: n = will capture sulfur dioxide and pass C∑ Ci fm i − × i=1 chlorine and chlorine dioxide. 6010()TTNA N Thio Hydrogen peroxide, which is commonly C1 O ppmv = Where: 2 S× t used as a bleaching agent in modern CS C¯ =Pollutant concentration for the liquid bleaching systems, reacts with iodide to Where: stream, parts per million by weight. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18627

Ci=Measured concentration of pollutant i in process equipment enclosure openings Qs=Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard the liquid stream sample determined as specified in § 63.450(b), the owner or cubic meter per minute) at a temperature ° using Method 305, parts per million by operator shall use one of the following of 20 C as indicated in paragraph (b) of weight. procedures: this section. fmi=Pollutant-specific constant that adjusts (1) An anemometer to demonstrate n=Number of individual pollutants, i, concentration measured by Method 305 summed to calculate total HAP. to actual liquid concentration; the fm for flow into the enclosure opening; methanol is 0.85. Additional pollutant (2) Measure the static pressure across (2) The total HAP mass emission rate fm values can be found in table 34, the opening; per megagram of ODP shall be subpart G of this part. (3) Smoke tubes to demonstrate flow calculated using the following equation: n=Number of individual pollutants, i, into the enclosure opening; or summed to calculate total HAP. (4) Any other industrial ventilation E F = (ii) Any other method that measures test method demonstrated to the P total HAP concentration that has been Administrator’s satisfaction. (f) HAP concentration measurements. Where: demonstrated to the Administrator’s For purposes of complying with the F=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the satisfaction. requirements in §§ 63.443, 63.444, and sampled vent, in kilograms per (4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the 63.447, the owner or operator shall megagram of ODP. effluent stream from a biological E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the treatment unit used to comply with measure the total HAP concentration as sampled vent, in kilograms per hour §§ 63.446(e)(2) and 63.453(j), the owner one of the following: determined as specified in paragraph or operator shall use Method 405.1, of (1) As the sum of all individual (i)(1) of this section. part 136, with the following HAP’s; or P=The production rate of pulp during the (2) As methanol. sampling period, in megagrams of ODP modifications: (g) Condensate HAP concentration (i) Filter the sample through the filter per hour. measurement. For purposes of paper, into Erlenmeyer flask by complying with the kraft pulping (3) The total HAP percent reduction applying a vacuum to the flask sidearm. condensate requirements in § 63.446, shall be calculated using the following Minimize the time for which vacuum is the owner or operator shall measure the equation: applied to prevent stripping of volatile organics from the sample. Replace filter total HAP concentration as methanol EE− except for the purposes of complying R = i O ()100 paper as often as needed in order to E maintain filter times of less than with the initial performance test i approximately 30 seconds per filter specified in § 63.457(a) for § 63.446(e)(2) Where: paper. No rinsing of sample container or and as specified in § 63.453(j)(2)(ii). R=Efficiency of control device, percent. (h) Bleaching HAP concentration filter bowl into the Erlenmeyer flask is Ei=Inlet mass emission rate of total HAP from measurement. For purposes of allowed. the sampled vent, in kilograms of (ii) Perform Method 405.1 on the complying with the bleaching system pollutant per hour, determined as filtrate obtained in paragraph (c)(4) of requirements in § 63.445, the owner or specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. this section. Dilution water shall be operator shall measure the total HAP Eo=Outlet mass emission rate of total HAP seeded with 1 milliliter of final effluent concentration as the sum of all individual chlorinated HAP’s or as from the sampled vent, in kilograms of per liter of dilution water. Dilution pollutant per hour, determined as ratios may require adjustment to reflect chlorine. (i) Vent gas stream calculations. To specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this the lower oxygen demand of the filtered section. demonstrate compliance with the mass sample in comparison to the total BOD5. emission rate, mass emission rate per (j) Liquid stream calculations. To Three BOD bottles and different megagram of ODP, and percent demonstrate compliance with the mass dilutions shall be used for each sample. (d) Detectable leak procedures. To reduction requirements for vent gas flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP, measure detectable leaks for closed-vent streams specified in §§ 63.443, 63.444, and percent reduction requirements for systems as specified in § 63.450 or for 63.445, and 63.447, the owner or liquid streams specified in § 63.446, the pulping process wastewater collection operator shall use the following: owner or operator shall use the (1) The total HAP mass emission rate systems as specified in § 63.446(d)(2)(i), following: shall be calculated using the following the owner or operator shall comply with (1) The mass flow rates of total HAP equation: the following: or methanol entering and exiting the (1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A; treatment process shall be calculated  n  and using the following equations: EKCMQ= ∑  (2) The instrument specified in 2  j j  s Method 21 shall be calibrated before use  j=1  according to the procedures specified in Where: K  n  Method 21 on each day that leak checks E = ∑ VC  E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the b× 6  bi bi  are performed. The following calibration sampled vent, kilograms per hour. n 10 i=1 × ¥6 gases shall be used: K2=Constant, 2.494 10 (parts per million ¥1 (i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per by volume) (gram-mole per standard K  n  million by volume of hydrocarbon in cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/ E = ∑ VC  hour), where standard temperature for a× 6 ai ai air); and n 10  i=1  (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane ° Where: and air at a concentration of 20 C. Cj=Concentration on a dry basis of pollutant Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol approximately, but less than, 10,000 j in parts per million by volume as in the liquid stream entering the parts per million by volume methane or measured by the test methods specified treatment process, kilograms per hour. n-hexane. in paragraph (b) of this section. Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol (e) Negative pressure procedures. To Mj=Molecular weight of pollutant j, gram/ in the liquid exiting the treatment demonstrate negative pressure at gram-mole. process, kilograms per hour. 18628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

K=Density of the liquid stream, kilograms per below the lower detection limit where system listed in § 63.446 (b)(1) through cubic meter. the lower detection limit is greater than (b)(3) using the procedures specified in Vbi=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream 1 part per million by weight. paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section. entering the treatment process during (k) Oxygen concentration correction (ii) Multiply the total HAP mass each run i, cubic meters per hour, procedures. To demonstrate compliance determine in paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. with the total HAP concentration limit section by 0.65 to determine the target Vai=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream of 20 ppmv in § 63.443(d)(2), the HAP mass for the high-HAP fraction exiting the treatment process during each concentration measured using the condensate stream or streams. run i, cubic meters per hour, determined methods specified in paragraph (b)(5) of (iii) Compliance with the segregation as specified in paragraph (c) of this this section shall be corrected to 10 requirements specified in § 63.446(c)(1) section. percent oxygen using the following is demonstrated if the condensate Cbi=Concentration of total HAP or methanol procedures: stream or streams from each equipment in the stream entering the treatment (1) The emission rate correction factor system listed in § 63.446 (b)(1) through process during each run i, parts per and excess air integrated sampling and (b)(3) being treated as specified in million by weight, determined as analysis procedures of Methods 3A or specified in paragraph (c) of this section. § 63.446(e) contain at least as much total 3B of part 60, appendix A shall be used HAP mass as the target total HAP mass Cai=Concentration of total HAP or methanol in the stream exiting the treatment to determine the oxygen concentration. determined in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of process during each run i, parts per The samples shall be taken at the same this section. million by weight, determined as time that the HAP samples are taken. (2) To demonstrate compliance with specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) The concentration corrected to 10 the percent mass requirements specified n=Number of runs. percent oxygen shall be computed using in § 63.446(c)(2), the procedures (2) The mass of total HAP or methanol the following equation: specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through per megagram ODP shall be calculated (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be  10. 9  performed. using the following equation: CC=   c m − (i) Determine the total HAP mass  20.% 9 O2d  Ea contained in the high-HAP fraction F = Where: condensates from each equipment P Cc=Concentration of total HAP corrected to system listed in § 63.446(b)(1) through Where: 10 percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per (b)(3) and the total condensates streams F=Mass loading of total HAP or methanol in million by volume. from the equipment systems listed in the sample, in kilograms per megagram Cm=Concentration of total HAP dry basis, § 63.446(b)(4) and (b)(5), using the of ODP. parts per million by volume, as specified procedures specified in paragraphs (c) Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in paragraph (b) of this section. and (j) of this section. in the wastewater stream in kilograms %02d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, per hour as determined using the percent by volume. (ii) Compliance with the segregation procedures in paragraph (j)(1) of this requirements specified in § 63.446(c)(2) section. (1) Biological treatment system is demonstrated if the total HAP mass P=The production rate of pulp during the percent reduction calculation. To determined in paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this sampling period in megagrams of ODP determine compliance with an open section is equal to or greater than the per hour. biological treatment system option appropriate mass requirements specified specified in § 63.446(e)(2) and the (3) The percent reduction of total HAP in § 63.446(c)(2). monitoring requirements specified in across the applicable treatment process (n) Biological treatment system § 63.453(j)(2), the percent reduction due shall be calculated using the following monitoring sampling storage. The inlet to destruction in the biological equation: and outlet grab samples required to be treatment system shall be calculated collected in § 63.453(j)(2) shall be stored − using the following equation: ° ° = EEb a × at 4 C (40 F) to minimize the R 100 R=fbio×100 E biodegradation of the organic b Where: compounds in the samples. Where: R=Destruction of total HAP or methanol in R=Control efficiency of the treatment the biological treatment process, percent. § 63.458 Delegation of authority. process, percent. fbio=The fraction of total HAP or methanol (a) In delegating implementation and Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream removed in the biological treatment enforcement authority to a State under entering the treatment process, kilograms system. The site-specific biorate section 112(d) of the CAA, the per hour, as determined in paragraph constants shall be determined using the authorities contained in paragraph (b) of (j)(1) of this section. procedures specified and as limited in this section shall be retained by the Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream appendix C of part 63. Administrator and not transferred to a exiting the treatment process, kilograms (m) Condensate segregation per hour, as determined in paragraph State. (j)(1) of this section. procedures. The following procedures (b) Authorities which will not be shall be used to demonstrate delegated to States: (4) Compounds that meet the compliance with the condensate (1) Section 63.6(g)—Use of an requirements specified in paragraphs segregation requirements specified in alternative nonopacity emission (j)(4)(i) or (4)(ii) of this section are not § 63.446(c). standard; required to be included in the mass flow (1) To demonstrate compliance with (2) Section 63.453(m)—Use of an rate, mass per megagram of ODP, or the the percent mass requirements specified alternative monitoring parameter; mass percent reduction determinations. in § 63.446(c)(1), the procedures (3) Section 63.457(b)(5)(iii)—Use of an (i) Compounds with concentrations at specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) through alternative test method for total HAP or the point of determination that are (m)(1)(iii) of this section shall be methanol in vents; and below 1 part per million by weight; or performed. (4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(ii)—Use of an (ii) Compounds with concentrations (i) Determine the total HAP mass of alternative test method for total HAP or at the point of determination that are all condensates from each equipment methanol in wastewater. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18629

§ 63.459 [Reserved]

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART SÐGENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a

Applies to Reference Subpart S Comment

63.1(a)(1)±(3) ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(4) ...... Yes ...... Subpart S (this table) specifies applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to subpart S. 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.1(a)(6)±(8) ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(9) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.1(a)(10) ...... No ...... Subpart S and other cross-referenced subparts specify calendar or operating day. 63.1(a)(11)±(14) ...... Yes. 63.1(b)(1) ...... No ...... Subpart S specifies its own applicability. 63.1(b)(2)±(3) ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(1)±(2) ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.1(c)(4)±(5) ...... Yes. 63.1(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.1(e) ...... Yes. 63.2 ...... Yes. 63.3 ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(1) ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(3). 63.4(a)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.4(a)(5) ...... Yes. 63.4(b) ...... Yes. 63.4(c) ...... Yes. 63.5(a) ...... Yes. 63.5(b)(1) ...... Yes. 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.5(b)(3) ...... Yes. 63.5(b)(4)±(6) ...... Yes. 63.5(c) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.5(d) ...... Yes. 63.5(e) ...... Yes. 63.5(f) ...... Yes. 63.6(a) ...... Yes. 63.6(b) ...... No ...... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S. 63.6(c) ...... No ...... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S. 63.6(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.6(e) ...... Yes. 63.6(f) ...... Yes. 63.6(g) ...... Yes. 63.6(h) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.6(i) ...... Yes. 63.6(j) ...... Yes. 63.7 ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(1) ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(2) ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes. 63.8(b)(1) ...... Yes. 63.8(b)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart S specifies locations to conduct monitoring. 63.8(b)(3) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(1) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(2) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(3) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(4) ...... No ...... Subpart S allows site specific determination of monitoring frequency in § 63.453(n)(4). 63.8(c)(5) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.8(c)(6) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(7) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(8) ...... Yes. 63.8(d) ...... Yes. 63.8(e) ...... Yes. 63.8(f)(1)±(5) ...... Yes. 63.8(f)(6) ...... No ...... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy test for CEM's. 63.8(g) ...... Yes. 63.9(a) ...... Yes. 63.9(b) ...... Yes ...... Initial notifications must be submitted within one year after the source becomes subject to the relevant standard. 63.9(c) ...... Yes. 63.9(d) ...... No ...... Special compliance requirements are only applicable to kraft mills. 63.9(e) ...... Yes. 63.9(f) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 18630 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART SÐGENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S aÐContinued

Applies to Reference Subpart S Comment

63.9(g)(1) ...... Yes. 63.9(g)(2) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.9(g)(3) ...... No ...... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy tests, therefore no notification is required for an alternative. 63.9(h) ...... Yes. 63.9(i) ...... Yes. 63.9(j) ...... Yes. 63.10(a) ...... Yes. 63.10(b) ...... Yes. 63.10(c) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(1) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(2) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(3) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.10(d)(4) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(5) ...... Yes. 63.10(e)(1) ...... Yes. 63.10(e)(2)(i) ...... Yes. 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.10(e)(3) ...... Yes. 63.10(e)(4) ...... No ...... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 63.10(f) ...... Yes. 63.11±63.15 ...... Yes. a Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier). Submit- tals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not required.

3. Appendix A of part 63 is amended not purport to address all of the safety rate to within 2 percent of the selected by adding Method 308 in numerical problems associated with its use. It is flow rate of up to 1000 milliliter per order to read as follows: the responsibility of the user of this test minute (ml/min). Alternatively, the method to establish appropriate safety tester may use a critical orifice to set the Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods and health practices and to determine flow rate. * * * * * the applicability of regulatory 6.1.1.7 Volume Meter. Dry gas meter Method 308—Procedure for limitations before performing this test (DGM), sufficiently accurate to measure Determination of Methanol Emission method. the sample volume to within 2 percent, From Stationary Sources 5.2 Methanol Characteristics. calibrated at the selected flow rate and Methanol is flammable and a dangerous conditions actually encountered during 1.0 Scope and Application fire and explosion risk. It is moderately sampling, and equipped with a 1.1 Analyte. Methanol. Chemical toxic by ingestion and inhalation. temperature sensor (dial thermometer, or equivalent) capable of measuring Abstract Service (CAS) No. 67–56–1. 6.0 Equipment and Supplies 1.2 Applicability. This method temperature accurately to within 3 °C applies to the measurement of methanol 6.1 Sample Collection. The (5.4 °F). emissions from specified stationary following items are required for sample 6.1.1.8 Barometer. Mercury (Hg), sources. collection: aneroid, or other barometer capable of 6.1.1 Sampling Train. The sampling measuring atmospheric pressure to 2.0 Summary of Method train is shown in Figure 308–1 and within 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) Hg. See the A gas sample is extracted from the component parts are discussed below. NOTE in Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,  sampling point in the stack. The 6.1.1.1 Probe. Teflon , appendix A), section 6.1.2. methanol is collected in deionized approximately 6-millimeter (mm) (0.24 6.1.1.9 Vacuum Gauge and distilled water and adsorbed on silica inch) outside diameter. Rotameter. At least 760-mm (30-inch) gel. The sample is returned to the 6.1.1.2 Impinger. A 30-milliliter (ml) Hg gauge and 0- to 40-ml/min rotameter, laboratory where the methanol in the midget impinger. The impinger must be to be used for leak-check of the water fraction is separated from other connected with leak-free glass sampling train. organic compounds with a gas connectors. Silicone grease may not be 6.2 Sample Recovery. The following chromatograph (GC) and is then used to lubricate the connectors. items are required for sample recovery: measured by a flame ionization detector 6.1.1.3 Adsorbent Tube. Glass tubes 6.2.1 Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or (FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica packed with the required amount of the glass, 500-ml, two. gel is extracted with an aqueous specified adsorbent. 6.2.2 Sample Vials. Glass, 40-ml,  solution of n-propanol and is then 6.1.1.4 Valve. Needle valve, to with Teflon -lined septa, to store separated and measured by GC/FID. regulate sample gas flow rate. impinger samples (one per sample). 6.1.1.5 Pump. Leak-free diaphragm 6.2.3 Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml 3.0 Definitions [Reserved] pump, or equivalent, to pull gas through size. 4.0 Interferences [Reserved] the sampling train. Install a small surge 6.3 Analysis. The following are tank between the pump and rate meter required for analysis: 5.0 Safety to eliminate the pulsation effect of the 6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. GC with 5.1 Disclaimer. This method may diaphragm pump on the rotameter. an FID, programmable temperature involve hazardous materials, operations, 6.1.1.6 Rate Meter. Rotameter, or control, and heated liquid injection and equipment. This test method does equivalent, capable of measuring flow port. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18631

6.3.2 Pump. Capable of pumping organic matter are not expected to be and diluting the contents to exactly 100 100 ml/min. For flushing sample loop. present. ml with 3 percent n-propanol solution. 6.3.3 Flow Meter. To monitor 7.1.2 Silica Gel. Deactivated This standard will contain 10 µg/ml of accurately sample loop flow rate of 100 chromatographic grade 20/40 mesh methanol. Pipette 5, 15, and 25 ml of ml/min. silica gel packed in glass adsorbent this standard, respectively, into four 50- 6.3.4 Regulators. Two-stage tubes. The silica gel is packed in two ml volumetric flasks. Dilute each regulators used on gas cylinders for GC sections. The front section contains 520 solution to 50 ml with 3 percent n- and for cylinder standards. milligrams (mg) of silica gel, and the propanol solution. These standards will 6.3.5 Recorder. To record, integrate, back section contains 260 mg. have 1, 3, and 5 µg/ml of methanol, and store chromatograms. 7.2 Analysis. The following are respectively. Transfer all four standards 6.3.6 Syringes. 1.0- and 10- required for analysis: into 40-ml glass vials capped with microliter (l) size, calibrated, for 7.2.1 Water. Same as specified in Teflon-lined septa and store under injecting samples. section 7.1.1. refrigeration. Discard any excess 6.3.7 Tubing Fittings. Stainless steel, 7.2.2 n-Propanol, 3 Percent. Mix 3 solution. to plumb GC and gas cylinders. ml of n-propanol with 97 ml of water. 7.2.4 GC Column. Capillary column, 6.3.8 Vials. Two 5.0-ml glass vials 7.2.3 Methanol Stock Standard. 30 meters (100 feet) long with an inside with screw caps fitted with Teflon- Prepare a methanol stock standard by diameter (ID) of 0.53 mm (0.02 inch), lined septa for each sample. weighing 1 gram of methanol into a 100- coated with DB 624 to a film thickness 6.3.9 Pipettes. Volumetric type, ml volumetric flask. Dilute to 100 ml of 3.0 micrometers, (µm) or an assorted sizes for preparing calibration with water. equivalent column. Alternatively, a 30- standards. 7.2.3.1 Methanol Working Standard. meter capillary column coated with 6.3.10 Volumetric Flasks. Assorted Prepare a methanol working standard by polyethylene glycol to a film thickness sizes for preparing calibration pipetting 1 ml of the methanol stock of 1 µm such as AT–WAX or its standards. standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask. equivalent. 6.3.11 Vials. Glass 40-ml with Dilute the solution to 100 ml with 7.2.5 Helium. Ultra high purity.  Teflon -lined septa, to store calibration water. 7.2.6 Hydrogen. Zero grade. standards (one per standard). 7.2.3.2 Methanol Standards For 7.2.7 Oxygen. Zero grade. Impinger Samples. Prepare a series of 7.0 Reagents and Standards methanol standards by pipetting 1, 2, 5, 8.0 Procedure Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all 10, and 25 ml of methanol working reagents must conform to the specifications standard solution respectively into five 8.1 Sampling. The following items established by the Committee on Analytical 50-ml volumetric flasks. Dilute the are required for sampling: Reagents of the American Chemical Society. solutions to 50 ml with water. These 8.1.1 Preparation of Collection Where such specifications are not available, standards will have 2, 4, 10, 20, and 50 Train. Measure 20 ml of water into the use the best available grade. µg/ml of methanol, respectively. After midget impinger. The adsorbent tube 7.1 Sampling. The following are preparation, transfer the solutions to 40- must contain 520 mg of silica gel in the required for sampling: ml glass vials capped with Teflon front section and 260 mg of silica gel in 7.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled to septa and store the vials under the backup section. Assemble the train conform to the American Society for refrigeration. Discard any excess as shown in Figure 308–1. An optional, Testing and Materials (ASTM) solution. second impinger that is left empty may Specification D 1193–77, Type 3. At the 7.2.3.3 Methanol Standards for be placed in front of the water- option of the analyst, the potassium Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a containing impinger to act as a condensate trap. Place crushed ice and permanganate (KMnO4) test for series of methanol standards by first oxidizable organic matter may be pipetting 10 ml of the methanol working water around the impinger. omitted when high concentrations of standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 18632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560±50±C Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18633

8.1.2 Leak Check. A leak check prior pump, rotameter, and DGM) as follows: Section Quality control Effect to the sampling run is optional; measure Place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the however, a leak check after the sampling drying tube, and pull a vacuum of 250 run is mandatory. The leak-check 8.1.2, Sampling equip- Ensures accu- mm (10 inch) Hg; plug or pinch off the 8.1.3, ment leak rate measure- outlet of the flow meter, and then turn procedure is as follows: 10.1. check and ment of sam- off the pump. The vacuum shall remain Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0- calibration. ple volume. 10.2 ...... GC calibration .. Ensures preci- stable for at least 30 seconds. Carefully to 40-ml/min) rotameter to the outlet of release the vacuum gauge before the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at sion of GC analysis. releasing the flow meter end. or near the probe inlet. Plug the probe 10.1.1.2 Next, remove the drying inlet, pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm 9.2 Applicability. When the method tube, and calibrate the metering system (10 inch) Hg, and note the flow rate as is used to analyze samples to (at the sampling flow rate specified by indicated by the rotameter. A leakage demonstrate compliance with a source the method) as follows: Connect an rate not in excess of 2 percent of the emission regulation, an audit sample appropriately sized wet test meter (e.g., average sampling rate is acceptable. must be analyzed, subject to availability. 1 liter per revolution (0.035 cubic feet Note: Carefully release the probe inlet plug 9.3 Audit Procedure. Analyze an per revolution)) to the inlet of the drying before turning off the pump. audit sample with each set of tube. Make three independent compliance samples. Concurrently calibrations runs, using at least five 8.1.3 Sample Collection. Record the analyze the audit sample and a set of revolutions of the DGM per run. initial DGM reading and barometric compliance samples in the same manner Calculate the calibration factor, Y (wet pressure. To begin sampling, position to evaluate the technique of the analyst test meter calibration volume divided by  the tip of the Teflon tubing at the and the standards preparation. The the DGM volume, both volumes sampling point, connect the tubing to same analyst, analytical reagents, and adjusted to the same reference the impinger, and start the pump. analytical system shall be used both for temperature and pressure), for each run, Adjust the sample flow to a constant the compliance samples and the EPA and average the results. If any Y-value rate between 200 and 1000 ml/min as audit sample. deviates by more than 2 percent from indicated by the rotameter. Maintain 9.4 Audit Sample Availability. the average, the metering system is this constant rate (±10 percent) during Audit samples will be supplied only to unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the the entire sampling run. Take readings enforcement agencies for compliance average as the calibration factor for (DGM, temperatures at DGM and at tests. Audit samples may be obtained by subsequent test runs. impinger outlet, and rate meter) at least writing: Source Test Audit Coordinator 10.1.2 Posttest Calibration Check. every 5 minutes. Add more ice during (MD–77B), Air Measurement Research After each field test series, conduct a the run to keep the temperature of the Division, National Exposure Research calibration check as in section 10.1.1 Laboratory, U.S. Environmental above, except for the following gases leaving the last impinger at 20 °C Protection Agency, Research Triangle variations: (a) The leak check is not to (68 °F) or less. At the conclusion of each Park, NC 27711; or by calling the Source be conducted, (b) three, or more run, turn off the pump, remove the  Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (919) revolutions of the DGM may be used, Teflon tubing from the stack, and 541–7834. The audit sample request and (c) only two independent runs need record the final readings. Conduct a leak must be made at least 30 days prior to be made. If the calibration factor does check as in section 8.1.2. (This leak the scheduled compliance sample not deviate by more than 5 percent from check is mandatory.) If a leak is found, analysis. the initial calibration factor (determined void the test run or use procedures 9.5 Audit Results. Calculate the in section 10.1.1), then the DGM acceptable to the Administrator to audit sample concentration according to volumes obtained during the test series adjust the sample volume for the the calculation procedure provided in are acceptable. If the calibration factor leakage. the audit instructions included with the deviates by more than 5 percent, 8.2 Sample Recovery. The following audit sample. Fill in the audit sample recalibrate the metering system as in items are required for sample recovery: concentration and the analyst’s name on section 10.1.1, and for the calculations, the audit response form included with use the calibration factor (initial or 8.2.1 Impinger. Disconnect the the audit instructions. Send one copy to recalibration) that yields the lower gas impinger. Pour the contents of the the EPA Regional Office or the volume for each test run. midget impinger into a graduated appropriate enforcement agency and a 10.1.3 Temperature Sensors. cylinder. Rinse the midget impinger and second copy to the STAC. The EPA Calibrate against mercury-in-glass the connecting tubes with water, and Regional office or the appropriate thermometers. add the rinses to the graduated cylinder. enforcement agency will report the 10.1.4 Rotameter. The rotameter Record the sample volume. Transfer the results of the audit to the laboratory need not be calibrated, but should be sample to a glass vial and cap with a being audited. Include this response cleaned and maintained according to Teflon septum. Discard any excess with the results of the compliance the manufacturer’s instruction. sample. Place the samples in an ice samples in relevant reports to the EPA 10.1.5 Barometer. Calibrate against a chest for shipment to the laboratory. Regional Office or the appropriate mercury barometer. 10.2 Gas Chromatograph. The 8.2.2. Adsorbent Tubes. Seal the enforcement agency. following procedures are required for silica gel adsorbent tubes and place 10.0 Calibration and Standardization the gas chromatograph: them in an ice chest for shipment to the 10.1 Metering System. The following 10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Inject 1 µl laboratory. items are required for the metering of each of the standards prepared in 9.0 Quality Control system: sections 7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 into the GC 10.1.1 Initial Calibration. and record the response. Repeat the 9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 10.1.1.1 Before its initial use in the injections for each standard until two Measures. The following quality control field, first leak-check the metering successive injections agree within 5 measures are required: system (drying tube, needle valve, percent. Using the mean response for 18634 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations each calibration standard, prepare a 150 percent of the response of the 12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations linear least squares equation relating the sample. 12.1 Nomenclature. response to the mass of methanol in the 11.3 Silica Gel Adsorbent Sample. sample. Perform the calibration before Caf=Concentration of methanol in the The following items are required for the µ analyzing each set of samples. silica gel adsorbent samples: front of the adsorbent tube, g/ml. Cab=Concentration of methanol in the 10.2.2 Continuing Calibration. At 11.3.1 Preparation of Samples. back of the adsorbent tube, µg/ml. the beginning of each day, analyze the Extract the front and backup sections of Ci=Concentration of methanol in the mid level calibration standard as the adsorbent tube separately. With a impinger portion of the sample described in section 10.5.1. The file, score the glass adsorbent tube in response from the daily analysis must train, µg/ml. front of the first section of silica gel. µ agree with the response from the initial Break the tube open. Remove and E=Mass emission rate of methanol, g/ calibration within 10 percent. If it does discard the glass wool. Transfer the first hr (lb/hr). not, the initial calibration must be Mtot=Total mass of methanol collected section of the silica gel to a 5-ml glass µ repeated. vial and stopper the vial. Remove the in the sample train, g. Pbar=Barometric pressure at the exit 11.0 Analytical Procedure spacer between the first and second section of the adsorbent tube and orifice of the DGM, mm Hg (in. Hg). 11.1 Gas Chromatograph Operating discard it. Transfer the second section of Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 Conditions. The following operating silica gel to a separate 5-ml glass vial mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg). conditions are required for the GC: and stopper the vial. Qstd=Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate 11.1.1 Injector. Configured for corrected to standard conditions, ° 11.3.2 Desorption of Samples. Add 3 capillary column, splitless, 200 C (392 dscm/hr (dscf/hr). °F). ml of the 10 percent n-propanol solution to each of the stoppered vials and shake Tm=Average DGM absolute temperature, 11.1.2 Carrier. Helium at 10 ml/min. degrees K (°R). 11.1.3 Oven. Initially at 45 °C for 3 or vibrate the vials for 30 minutes. Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293 minutes; then raise by 10 °C to 70 °C; 11.3.3 Inject a 1-µl aliquot of the degrees K (528 °R). then raise by 70 °C/min to 200 °C. diluted sample from each vial into the 11.2 Impinger Sample. Inject 1 µl of GC. Repeat the injection and average the Vaf=Volume of front half adsorbent the stored sample into the GC. Repeat results. If the sample response is above sample, ml. the injection and average the results. If that of the highest calibration standard, Vab=Volume of back half adsorbent the sample response is above that of the either dilute the sample until it is in the sample, ml. highest calibration standard, either measurement range of the calibration Vi=Volume of impinger sample, ml. dilute the sample until it is in the line or prepare additional calibration Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by the measurement range of the calibration standards. If the sample response is DGM, dry cubic meters (dcm), dry line or prepare additional calibration below that of the lowest calibration cubic feet (dcf). standards. If the sample response is standard, prepare additional calibration Vm(std)=Dry gas volume measured by the below that of the lowest calibration standards. If additional calibration DGM, corrected to standard standard, prepare additional calibration standards are prepared, there shall be at conditions, dry standard cubic standards. If additional calibration least two that bracket the response of meters (dscm), dry standard cubic standards are prepared, there shall be at the sample. These standards should feet (dscf). least two that bracket the response of produce approximately 50 percent and 12.2 Mass of Methanol. Calculate the the sample. These standards should 150 percent of the response of the total mass of methanol collected in the produce approximately 50 percent and sample. sampling train using Equation 308–1.

= + + MVCVCVCtot i i af af ab ab Equation 308-1 12.3 Dry Sample Gas Volume, Corrected to Standard Conditions. Calculate the volume of gas sampled at standard conditions using Equation 308–2.

= VYTPm std bar Vm () std Equation 308- 2 TPm std 12.4 Mass Emission Rate of Methanol. Calculate the mass emission rate of methanol using Equation 308–3. MQ E = tot sd Equation 308- 3 Vm() std

13.0 Method Performance [Reserved] Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Standards.’’ Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. 3(1) :17–30. February 1978. 14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] APTD–0576 March 1972. 2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 4. Yu, K.K. ‘‘Evaluation of Moisture 15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] Part 31; Water, Atmospheric Analysis. Effect on Dry Gas Meter Calibration.’’ 16.0 Bibliography American Society for Testing and Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. Materials. Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp. 5(1) :24–28. February 1980. 1. Rom, J.J. ‘‘Maintenance, 40–42. 5. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic Methods, Volume 2. U.S. Department of Source Sampling Equipment.’’ Office of 3. Westlin, P.R. and R.T. Shigehara. Health and Human Services National Air Programs, Environmental Protection ‘‘Procedure for Calibrating and Using Institute for Occupational Safety and Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Health. Center for Disease Control. 4676 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18635

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 430.15 New source performance standards 430.44 Effluent limitations representing the 45226. (available from the (NSPS). degree of effluent reduction attainable by Superintendent of Documents, 430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing the application of best available Government Printing Office, sources (PSES). technology economically achievable 430.17 Pretreatment standards for new (BAT). Washington, DC 20402.) sources (PSNS). 430.45 New source performance standards 6. Pinkerton, J.E. ‘‘Method for (NSPS). Subpart BÐBleached Papergrade Kraft and Measuring Methanol in Pulp Mill Vent 430.46 Pretreatment standards for existing Soda Subcategory Gases.’’ National Council of the Pulp sources (PSES). and Paper Industry for Air and Stream Sec. 430.47 Pretreatment standards for new Improvement, Inc., New York, NY. 430.20 Applicability; description of the sources (PSNS). bleached papergrade kraft and soda 17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, subcategory. Subpart EÐPapergrade Sulfite Subcategory and Validation Data 430.21 Specialized definitions. Sec. [Reserved]. 430.22 Effluent limitations representing the 430.50 Applicability; description of the degree of effluent reduction attainable by * * * * * papergrade sulfite subcategory. the application of best practicable 430.51 Specialized definitions. control technology currently available PART 261Ð[AMENDED] 430.52 Effluent limitations representing the (BPT). degree of effluent reduction attainable by 1. The authority citation of part 261 430.23 Effluent limitations representing the the application of best practicable continues to read as follows: degree of effluent reduction attainable by control technology currently available the best conventional pollutant control (BPT). Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, technology (BCT). 430.53 Effluent limitations representing the 6922, and 6938. 430.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by 2. Section 261.4 is amended by degree of effluent reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control adding paragraph (a) (15) to read as the application of best available technology (BCT). follows: technology economically achievable 430.54 Effluent limitations representing the (BAT). degree of effluent reduction attainable by § 261.4 Exclusions. 430.25 New source performance standards the application of best available (a) * * * (NSPS). technology economically achievable 430.26 Pretreatment standards for existing (BAT). (15) Condensates derived from the sources (PSES). overhead gases from kraft mill steam 430.55 New source performance standards 430.27 Pretreatment standards for new (NSPS). strippers that are used to comply with sources (PSNS). 40 CFR 63.446(e). The exemption 430.56 Pretreatment standards for existing 430.28 Best management practices (BMPs). sources (PSES). applies only to combustion at the mill Subpart CÐUnbleached Kraft Subcategory 430.57 Pretreatment standards for new generating the condensates. Sec. sources (PSNS). * * * * * 430.30 Applicability; description of the 430.58 Best management practices (BMPs). 1. Part 430 is revised to read as unbleached kraft subcategory. Subpart FÐSemi-Chemical Subcategory follows: 430.31 Specialized definitions. 430.32 Effluent limitations representing the Sec. PART 430ÐTHE PULP, PAPER, AND degree of effluent reduction attainable by 430.60 Applicability; description of the PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE the application of best practicable semi-chemical subcategory. CATEGORY control technology currently available 430.61 Specialized definitions. (BPT). 430.62 Effluent limitations representing the General Provisions 430.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by Sec. degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable 430.00 Applicability. the best conventional pollutant control control technology currently available 430.01 General definitions. technology (BCT). (BPT). 430.02 Monitoring requirements. 430.34 Effluent limitations representing the 430.63 Effluent limitations representing the 430.03 Best management practices (BMPs) degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by for spent pulping liquor, soap, and the application of best available the best conventional pollutant control turpentine management, spill technology economically achievable technology (BCT). prevention, and control. (BAT). 430.64 Effluent limitations representing the 430.35 New source performance standards degree of effluent reduction attainable by Subpart AÐDissolving Kraft Subcategory (NSPS). the application of best available Sec. 430.36 Pretreatment standards for existing technology economically achievable 430.10 Applicability; description of the (PSES). (BAT). dissolving kraft subcategory. 430.37 Pretreatment standards for new 430.65 New source performance standards 430.11 Specialized definitions. sources (PSNS). (NSPS). 430.12 Effluent limitations representing the 430.66 Pretreatment standards for existing degree of effluent reduction attainable by Subpart DÐDissolving Sulfite Subcategory sources (PSES). the application of best practicable Sec. 430.67 Pretreatment standards for new control technology currently available 430.40 Applicability; description of the sources (PSNS). (BPT). dissolving sulfite subcategory. Subpart GÐMechanical Pulp Subcategory 430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines 430.41 Specialized definitions. representing the degree of effluent 430.42 Effluent limitations representing the Sec. reduction attainable by the best degree of effluent reduction attainable by 430.70 Applicability; description of the conventional pollutant control the application of best practicable mechanical pulp subcategory. technology (BCT). control technology currently available 430.71 Specialized definitions. 430.14 Effluent limitations representing the (BPT). 430.72 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by 430.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable technology economically achievable the best conventional pollutant control control technology currently available (BAT). technology (BCT). (BPT). 18636 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

430.73 Effluent limitations representing the 430.94 Effluent limitations representing the 430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by sources (PSES). the best conventional pollutant control the application of best available 430.117 Pretreatment standards for new technology (BCT). technology economically achievable sources (PSNS). 430.74 Effluent limitations representing the (BAT). degree of effluent reduction attainable by 430.95 New source performance standards Subpart LÐTissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and the application of best available (NSPS). Paperboard From Purchased Pulp technology economically achievable 430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing Subcategory (BAT). sources (PSES). Sec. 430.75 New source performance standards 430.97 Pretreatment standards for new 430.120 Applicability; description of the (NSPS). sources (PSNS). tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard 430.76 Pretreatment standards for existing Subpart JÐSecondary Fiber Non-Deink from purchased pulp subcategory. sources (PSES). Subcategory 430.121 Specialized definitions. 430.77 Pretreatment standards for new 430.122 Effluent limitations representing sources (PSNS). Sec. the degree of effluent reduction 430.100 Applicability; description of the attainable by the application of best Subpart HÐNon-Wood Chemical Pulp secondary fiber non-deink subcategory. practicable control technology currently Subcategory 430.101 Specialized definitions. available (BPT). 430.102 Effluent limitations representing Sec. 430.123 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 430.80 Applicability; description of the the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best attainable by the best conventional non-wood chemical pulp subcategory. practicable control technology currently 430.81 Specialized definitions. pollutant control technology (BCT). available (BPT). 430.124 Effluent limitations representing 430.82 Effluent limitations representing the 430.103 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction degree of effluent reduction attainable by the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best the application of best practicable attainable by the best conventional available technology economically control technology currently available pollutant control technology (BCT). achievable (BAT). (BPT). [Reserved] 430.104 Effluent limitations representing 430.125 New source performance standards 430.83 Effluent limitations representing the the degree of effluent reduction (NSPS). degree of effluent reduction attainable by attainable by the application of best 430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing the best conventional pollutant control available technology economically sources (PSES). technology (BCT). [Reserved] achievable (BAT). 430.127 Pretreatment standards for new 430.105 New source performance standards 430.84 Effluent limitations representing the sources (PSNS). degree of effluent reduction attainable by (NSPS). the application of best available 430.106 Pretreatment standards for existing Appendix A to Part 430—Methods 1650 and technology economically achievable sources (PSES). 1653 430.107 Pretreatment standards for new (BAT). [Reserved] Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, sources (PSNS). 430.85 New source performance standards 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as (NSPS). [Reserved] Subpart KÐFine and Lightweight Papers amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 430.86 Pretreatment standards for existing From Purchased Pulp Subcategory 1318, 1342, and 1361), and Section 112 of the sources (PSES). [Reserved] Sec. Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412). 430.87 Pretreatment standards for new 430.110 Applicability; description of the sources (PSNS). [Reserved] General Provisions fine and lightweight papers from Subpart IÐSecondary Fiber Deink purchased pulp subcategory. § 430.00 Applicability. Subcategory 430.111 Specialized definitions. 430.112 Effluent limitations representing (a) This part applies to any pulp, Sec. the degree of effluent reduction paper, or paperboard mill that 430.90 Applicability; description of the attainable by the application of best discharges or may discharge process secondary fiber deink subcategory. practicable control technology currently wastewater pollutants to the waters of 430.91 Specialized definitions. available (BPT). the United States, or that introduces or 430.92 Effluent limitations representing the 430.113 Effluent limitations representing degree of effluent reduction attainable by the degree of effluent reduction may introduce process wastewater the application of best practicable attainable by the best conventional pollutants into a publicly owned control technology currently available pollutant control technology (BCT). treatment works. (BPT). 430.114 Effluent limitations representing (b) The following table presents the 430.93 Effluent limitations representing the the degree of effluent reduction subcategorization scheme codified in degree of effluent reduction attainable by attainable by the application of best the best conventional pollutant control available technology economically this part, with references to former technology (BCT). achievable (BAT). subpart designations contained in the 430.115 New source performance standards 1997 edition of 40 CFR parts 425 (NSPS). through 699: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18637

SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME WITH REFERENCES TO FORMER SUBPARTS CONTAINED IN THE JULY 1, 1997 EDITION OF 40 CFR PARTS 425 THROUGH 699

Final codified subpart Final subcategorization scheme Types of products covered in the subpart

A ...... Dissolving Kraft ...... Dissolving pulp at kraft mills (Fa) B ...... Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Market pulp at bleached kraft mills (Ga); paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at Soda. bleached kraft mills (Ha); pulp and fine papers at bleached kraft mills (Ia); and pulp and paper at soda mills (Pa). C ...... Unbleached Kraft ...... Pulp and paper at unbleached kraft mills including linerboard or bag paper and other mixed products (Aa); pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process (Da); and pulp and paper at combined unbleached kraft and semi- chemical mills, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system (Va). D ...... Dissolving Sulfite ...... Pulp at dissolving sulfite mills for the following grades: nitration, viscose, cellophane, and acetate (Ka). E ...... Papergrade Sulfite ...... Pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where blow pit pulp washing techniques are used ÐCalcium-, Magnesium-, or So- (Ja) and pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where vacuum or pressure drums are dium-based pulps. used to wash pulp (Ua). ÐAmmonium-based pulps. ÐSpecialty grade pulps. F ...... Semi-Chemical ...... Pulp and paper at semi-chemical mills using an ammonia base or a sodium base (Ba). G ...... Mechanical Pulp ...... Pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills (La); pulp and paper at groundwood mills through the application of the thermo-mechanical process (Ma); pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills (Na); and pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills (Oa). H ...... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp ...... Pulp and paper at non-wood chemical pulp mills. I ...... Secondary Fiber Deink ...... Pulp and paper at deink mills including fine papers, tissue papers, or newsprint (Qa). J ...... Secondary Fiber Non-Deink ...... Paperboard from wastepaper from noncorrugating medium furnish or from corrugating medium furnish (Ea); tissue paper from wastepaper without deinking at secondary fiber mills (Ta); molded products from wastepaper without deinking (Wa); and builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper (40 CFR Part 431, Subpart Aa). K ...... Fine and Lightweight Papers from Fine Papers at nonintegrated mills using wood fiber furnish or cotton fiber furnish (Ra); and Purchased Pulp. lightweight papers at nonintegrated mills or lightweight electrical papers at nonintegrated mills (Xa). L ...... Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and Pa- Tissue papers at nonintegrated mills (Sa); filter and non-woven papers at nonintegrated mills perboard from Purchased Pulp. (Ya); and paperboard at nonintegrated mills (Za). a This subpart is contained in the 40 CFR parts 425 through 699, edition revised as of July 1, 1997.

§ 430.01 General definitions. or peroxide), each subsequent extraction (f) Elemental chlorine-free (ECF). Any In addition to the definitions set forth stage, and each subsequent stage where process for bleaching pulps in the in 40 CFR part 401 and 40 CFR 403.3, bleaching agents are applied to the pulp. absence of elemental chlorine and the following definitions apply to this For mills in Subpart E of this part hypochlorite that uses exclusively part: producing specialty grades of pulp, the chlorine dioxide as the only chlorine- bleach plant includes process (a) Adsorbable organic halides (AOX). containing bleaching agent. equipment used for the hydrolysis or A bulk parameter that measures the total extraction stages prior to the first (g) End of the pipe. The point at mass of chlorinated organic matter in application of bleaching agents. Process which final mill effluent is discharged water and wastewater. equipment used for oxygen to waters of the United States or (b) Annual average. The mean delignification prior to the application introduced to a POTW. concentration, mass loading or of bleaching agents is not part of the (h) Fiber line. A series of operations production-normalized mass loading of bleach plant. employed to convert wood or other a pollutant over a period of 365 (d) Bleach plant effluent. The total fibrous raw material into pulp. If the consecutive days (or such other period discharge of process wastewaters from final product is bleached pulp, the fiber of time determined by the permitting the bleach plant from each physical line encompasses pulping, de-knotting, authority to be sufficiently long to bleach line operated at the mill, brownstock washing, pulp screening, encompass expected variability of the comprising separate acid and alkaline concentration, mass loading, or centrifugal cleaning, and multiple filtrates or the combination thereof. bleaching and washing stages. production-normalized mass loading at (e) Chemical oxygen demand (COD). the relevant point of measurement). A bulk parameter that measures the (i) Minimum level (ML). The level at (c) Bleach plant. All process oxygen-consuming capacity of organic which the analytical system gives equipment used for bleaching beginning and inorganic matter present in water or recognizable signals and an acceptable with the first application of bleaching wastewater. It is expressed as the calibration point. The following agents (e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide, amount of oxygen consumed from a minimum levels apply to pollutants in ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, chemical oxidant in a specific test. this part. 18638 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Pollutant Method Minimum level

2,3,7,8-TCDD ...... 1613 10 pg/L a 2,3,7,8-TCDF ...... 1613 10 pg/L a Trichlorosyringol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b 3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 ug/L b 3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 ug/L b 3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b 3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b 4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b Tetrachlorocatechol ...... 1653 5.0 ug/L b Tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 1653 5.0 ug/L b 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ...... 1653 2.5 ug/L b Pentachlorophenol ...... 1653 5.0 ug/L b AOX ...... 1650 20 ug/L b a Picograms per liter. b Micrograms per liter.

(j) New source. (1) Notwithstanding discharge of pollutants at an existing authority from discharging pollutants the criteria codified at 40 CFR source (including a replacement fiber during specific periods of time or if it 122.29(b)(1), a source subject to subpart line), but only if such replacement is is required to release its discharge on a B or E of this part is a ‘‘new source’’ if performed for the purpose of achieving variable flow or pollutant loading rate it meets the definition of ‘‘new source’’ limitations that have been included in basis. at 40 CFR 122.2 and: the discharger’s NPDES permit pursuant (l) POTW. Publicly owned treatment (i) It is constructed at a site at which to § 430.24(b). works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(o). no other source is located; or (k) Non-continuous discharger. (1) (m) Process wastewater. For subparts (ii) It totally replaces the process or Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) B and E only, process wastewater is any production equipment that causes the of this section, a non-continuous water that, during manufacturing or discharge of pollutants at an existing discharger is a mill which is prohibited processing, comes into direct contact source, including the total replacement by the NPDES authority from with or results from the production or of a fiber line that causes the discharge discharging pollutants during specific use of any raw material, intermediate of pollutants at an existing source, periods of time for reasons other than product, finished product, byproduct, or except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of treatment plant upset control, such waste product. For purposes of subparts this section; or periods being at least 24 hours in B and E of this part, process wastewater (iii) Its processes are substantially duration. A mill shall not be deemed a includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters independent of an existing source at the non-continuous discharger unless its from water treatment and other utility same site. In determining whether these permit, in addition to setting forth the operations; blowdowns from high rate processes are substantially independent, prohibition described above, requires (e.g., greater than 98 percent) recycled the Director shall consider such factors compliance with the effluent limitations non-contact cooling water systems to as the extent to which the new facility established for non-continuous the extent they are mixed and co-treated is integrated with the existing plant; and dischargers and also requires with other process wastewaters; the extent to which the new facility is compliance with maximum day and wastewater, including leachates, from engaged in the same general type of average of 30 consecutive days effluent landfills owned by pulp and paper mills activity as the existing source. limitations. Such maximum day and subject to subpart B or E of this part if (2) The following are examples of average of 30 consecutive days effluent the wastewater is commingled with changes made by mills subject to limitations for non-continuous wastewater from the mill’s subparts B or E of this part that alone dischargers shall be established by the manufacturing or processing facility; do not cause an existing mill to become NPDES authority in the form of and storm waters from the immediate a ‘‘new source’’: concentrations which reflect wastewater process areas to the extent they are (i) Upgrades of existing pulping treatment levels that are representative mixed and co-treated with other process operations; of the application of the best practicable wastewaters. For purposes of this part, (ii) Upgrades or replacement of pulp control technology currently available, contaminated groundwaters from on-site screening and washing operations; the best conventional pollutant control or off-site groundwater remediation (iii) Installation of extended cooking technology, or new source performance projects are not process wastewater. and/or oxygen delignification systems standards in lieu of the maximum day (n) Production. (1) For all limitations or other post-digester, pre-bleaching and average of 30 consecutive days and standards specified in this part delignification systems; effluent limitations for conventional except those pertaining to AOX and (iv) Bleach plant modifications pollutants set forth in each subpart. chloroform: Production shall be defined including changes in methods or (2) A mill is a non-continuous as the annual off-the-machine amounts of chemical applications, new discharger for the purposes of production (including off-the-machine chemical applications, installation of determining applicable effluent coating where applicable) divided by new bleaching towers to facilitate limitations under subpart B or E of this the number of operating days during replacement of sodium or calcium part (other than conventional limits for that year. Paper and paperboard hypochlorite, and installation of new existing sources) if, for reasons other production shall be measured at the off- pulp washing systems; or than treatment plant upset control (e.g., the-machine moisture content, except (v) Total replacement of process or protecting receiving water quality), the for subpart C of this part (as it pertains production equipment that causes the mill is prohibited by the NPDES to pulp and paperboard production at Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18639 unbleached kraft mills including brownstock pulp entering the bleach drum barking operations which are linerboard or bag paper and other mixed plant at the stage during which chlorine those drum barking operations that use products, and to pulp and paperboard or chlorine-containing compounds are substantial quantities of water in either production using the unbleached kraft first applied to the pulp. In the case of water sprays in the barking drums or in neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross bleach plants that use totally chlorine a partial submersion of the drums in a recovery) process), and subparts F and free bleaching processes, unbleached ‘‘tub’’ of water. J of this part (as they pertain to pulp production shall be measured in paperboard production from wastepaper air-dried-metric tons (10% moisture) of § 430.02 Monitoring requirements. from noncorrugating medium furnish or brownstock pulp entering the first stage This section establishes minimum from corrugating medium furnish) of the bleach plant from which monitoring frequencies for certain where paper and paperboard production wastewater is discharged. Production pollutants. Where no monitoring shall be measured in air-dry-tons (10% shall be determined for each mill based frequency is specified in this section or moisture content). Market pulp shall be upon past production practices, present where the duration of the minimum measured in air-dry tons (10% trends, or committed growth. monitoring frequency has expired under moisture). Production shall be (o) TCDD. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- paragraphs (b) through (e) of this determined for each mill based upon p-dioxin. section, the permit writer or past production practices, present (p) TCDF. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- pretreatment control authority shall trends, or committed growth. p-furan. (2) For AOX and chloroform (q) Totally chlorine-free (TCF) determine the appropriate monitoring limitations and standards specified in bleaching. Pulp bleaching operations frequency in accordance with 40 CFR subparts B and E of this part: Production that are performed without the use of 122.44(i) or 40 CFR part 403, as shall be defined as the annual chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium applicable. unbleached pulp production entering hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine (a) BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS the first stage of the bleach plant monoxide, or any other chlorine- monitoring frequency for chlorinated divided by the number of operating days containing compound. organic pollutants. The following during that year. Unbleached pulp (r) Wet Barking. Wet barking monitoring frequencies apply to production shall be measured in air- operations shall be defined to include discharges subject to subpart B or dried-metric-tons (10% moisture) of hydraulic barking operations and wet subpart E of this part:

Minimum monitoring frequency CAS number Pollutant Non-TCF a TCF b

1198556 ...... Tetrachlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 2539175 ...... Tetrachloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 2539266 ...... Trichlorosyringol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 2668248 ...... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 32139723 ..... 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 56961207 ..... 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 57057837 ..... 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 58902 ...... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 60712449 ..... 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... (c) 87865 ...... Pentachlorophenol d ...... Monthly ...... (c) 88062 ...... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol d ...... Monthly ...... (c) 95954 ...... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol d ...... Monthly ...... (c) 1746016 ...... 2,3,7,8-TCDD ...... Monthly ...... (c) 51207319 ..... 2,3,7,8-TCDF ...... Monthly ...... (c) 67663 ...... chloroform e ...... Weekly ...... (c) 59473040 ..... AOX f ...... Daily ...... None specified. a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes. b TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22 or, for indirect dischargers, as reported to the pretreatment control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e). c This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes. d Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting or pretreatment control authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR Part 403, as applicable. e This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for Subpart E mills. f This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for the ammonium-based or specialty grade sulfite pulp segments of Subpart E.

(b) Duration of required monitoring (2) For existing indirect dischargers, enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The until April 17, 2006; Technology Incentives Program monitoring frequencies specified in (3) For new indirect dischargers, a established under subpart B of this part paragraph (a) of this section apply for duration of five years commencing on for a duration of five years commencing the following time periods: the date the indirect discharger after achievement of the applicable BAT (1) For direct dischargers, a duration commences operation. limitations specified in § 430.24(b)(3) or of five years commencing on the date (c) Reduced monitoring frequencies NSPS specified in § 430.25(c)(1) for the the applicable limitations or standards for bleach plant pollutants under the following pollutants, except as noted in from subpart B or subpart E of this part Voluntary Advanced Technology footnote f: are first included in the discharger’s Incentives Program. The following NPDES permit; monitoring frequencies apply to mills 18640 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Minimum monitoring frequency CAS number Pollutant Advanced Non-ECF a TCF c ECF b,f

1198556 ... Tetrachlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 2539175 ... Tetrachloroguiacol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 2539266 ... Trichlorosyringol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 2668248 ... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 32139723 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 56961207 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 57057837 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 58902 ...... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 60712449 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 87865 ...... Pentachlorophenol e ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 88062 ...... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol e ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 95954 ...... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol e ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 1746016 ... 2,3,7,8-TCDD ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 51207319 2,3,7,8-TCDF ...... Monthly ...... Monthly (d) 67663 ...... Chloroform ...... Weekly ...... Monthly (d) a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes. b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes, or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in § 430.24(b)(4)(i). c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. d This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes. e Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i). f Monitoring requirements for these pollutants by mills certifying as Advanced ECF in their NPDES permit application or other communication to the permitting authority will be suspended after one year of monitoring. The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for these pollutants beyond that time under 40 CFR 122.44(i).

(d) Reduced monitoring frequencies frequencies apply to direct dischargers for a duration of one year after for AOX under the Voluntary Advanced enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced achievement of the applicable BAT Technology Incentives Program (year Technology Incentives Program limitations specified in § 430.24(b)(4)(i) one). The following monitoring established under Subpart B of this part or NSPS specified in § 430.25(c)(2):

CAS Pollutant Non-ECF, Advanced ECF, TCF, number any tier a any tier b any tier c

59473040 AOX ...... Daily ...... Weekly ...... None specified. a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes. b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in § 430.24(b)(4)(i). c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.

(e) Reduced monitoring frequencies enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced BAT limitations specified in for AOX under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program § 430.24(b)(4)(i) or NSPS specified in Technology Incentives Program (years established under Subpart B of this part § 430.25(c)(2): two through five). The following for a duration of four years starting one monitoring frequencies apply to mills year after achievement of the applicable

CAS Pollutant Non-ECF Advanced ECFÐ Advanced ECFÐ Advanced ECFÐ TCFÐ number any tier a tier I b tier II b tier III b any tier c

59473040 AOX ...... Daily ...... Monthly ...... Quarterly ...... Annually ...... None specified.

a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes. b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in § 430.24(b)(4)(i). c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18641

§ 430.03 Best management practices responsibility for pulping and chemical be identified, temporary means for (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor, soap, and recovery operations. mitigating the leaks must be provided, turpentine management, spill prevention, (7) Soap: The product of reaction and the leaking equipment items and control. between the alkali in kraft pulping repaired during the next maintenance (a) Applicability. This section applies liquor and fatty acid portions of the outage; to direct and indirect discharging pulp, wood, which precipitate out when water (iii) Identification of conditions under paper, and paperboard mills with pulp is evaporated from the spent pulping which production will be curtailed or production in subparts B (Bleached liquor. halted to repair leaking equipment items Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and E (8) Spent Pulping Liquor: For kraft or to prevent pulping liquor, soap, and (Papergrade Sulfite). and soda mills ‘‘spent pulping liquor’’ turpentine leaks and spills; and (b) Specialized definitions. (1) Action means black liquor that is used, (iv) A means for tracking repairs over Level: A daily pollutant loading that generated, stored, or processed at any time to identify those equipment items when exceeded triggers investigative or point in the pulping and chemical where upgrade or replacement may be corrective action. Mills determine action recovery processes. For sulfite mills warranted based on frequency and levels by a statistical analysis of six ‘‘spent pulping liquor’’ means any severity of leaks, spills, or failures. months of daily measurements collected intermediate, final, or used chemical (3) The mill must operate continuous, at the mill. For example, the lower solution that is used, generated, stored, automatic monitoring systems that the action level may be the 75th percentile or processed at any point in the sulfite mill determines are necessary to detect of the running seven-day averages (that pulping and chemical recovery and control leaks, spills, and intentional value exceeded by 25 percent of the processes (e.g., ammonium-, calcium-, diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, running seven-day averages) and the magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite and turpentine. These monitoring upper action level may be the 90th liquors). systems should be integrated with the percentile of the running seven-day (9) Turpentine: A mixture of terpenes, mill process control system and may averages (that value exceeded by 10 principally pinene, obtained by the include, e.g., high level monitors and percent of the running seven-day steam distillation of pine gum recovered alarms on storage tanks; process area averages). from the condensation of digester relief conductivity (or pH) monitors and (2) Equipment Items in Spent Pulping gases from the cooking of softwoods by alarms; and process area sewer, process Liquor, Soap, and Turpentine Service: the kraft pulping process. Sometimes wastewater, and wastewater treatment Any process vessel, storage tank, referred to as sulfate turpentine. plant conductivity (or pH) monitors and pumping system, evaporator, heat (c) Requirement to implement Best alarms. exchanger, recovery furnace or boiler, Management Practices. Each mill (4) The mill must establish a program pipeline, valve, fitting, or other device subject to this section must implement of initial and refresher training of that contains, processes, transports, or the Best Management Practices (BMPs) operators, maintenance personnel, and comes into contact with spent pulping specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through other technical and supervisory liquor, soap, or turpentine. Sometimes (10) of this section. The primary personnel who have responsibility for referred to as ‘‘equipment items.’’ objective of the BMPs is to prevent leaks operating, maintaining, or supervising (3) Immediate Process Area: The and spills of spent pulping liquors, the operation and maintenance of location at the mill where pulping, soap, and turpentine. The secondary equipment items in spent pulping screening, knotting, pulp washing, objective is to contain, collect, and liquor, soap, and turpentine service. The pulping liquor concentration, pulping recover at the immediate process area, refresher training must be conducted at liquor processing, and chemical or otherwise control, those leaks, spills, least annually and the training program recovery facilities are located, generally and intentional diversions of spent must be documented. the battery limits of the aforementioned pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine (5) The mill must prepare a brief processes. ‘‘Immediate process area’’ that do occur. BMPs must be developed report that evaluates each spill of spent includes spent pulping liquor storage according to best engineering practices pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that and spill control tanks located at the and must be implemented in a manner is not contained at the immediate mill, whether or not they are located in that takes into account the specific process area and any intentional the immediate process area. circumstances at each mill. The BMPs diversion of spent pulping liquor, soap, (4) Intentional Diversion: The planned are as follows: or turpentine that is not contained at the removal of spent pulping liquor, soap, (1) The mill must return spilled or immediate process area. The report or turpentine from equipment items in diverted spent pulping liquors, soap, must describe the equipment items spent pulping liquor, soap, or and turpentine to the process to the involved, the circumstances leading to turpentine service by the mill for any maximum extent practicable as the incident, the effectiveness of the purpose including, but not limited to, determined by the mill, recover such corrective actions taken to contain and maintenance, grade changes, or process materials outside the process, or recover the spill or intentional shutdowns. discharge spilled or diverted material at diversion, and plans to develop changes (5) Mill: The owner or operator of a a rate that does not disrupt the receiving to equipment and operating and direct or indirect discharging pulp, wastewater treatment system. maintenance practices as necessary to paper, or paperboard manufacturing (2) The mill must establish a program prevent recurrence. Discussion of the facility subject to this section. to identify and repair leaking equipment reports must be included as part of the (6) Senior Technical Manager: The items. This program must include: annual refresher training. person designated by the mill manager (i) Regular visual inspections (e.g., (6) The mill must establish a program to review the BMP Plan. The senior once per day) of process areas with to review any planned modifications to technical manager shall be the chief equipment items in spent pulping the pulping and chemical recovery engineer at the mill, the manager of liquor, soap, and turpentine service; facilities and any construction activities pulping and chemical recovery (ii) Immediate repairs of leaking in the pulping and chemical recovery operations, or other such responsible equipment items, when possible. areas before these activities commence. person designated by the mill manager Leaking equipment items that cannot be The purpose of such review is to who has knowledge of and repaired during normal operations must prevent leaks and spills of spent 18642 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine amendments thereto, must be reviewed during the planned modifications, and service—for the purpose of determining by the senior technical manager at the to ensure that construction and the magnitude and routing of potential mill and approved and signed by the supervisory personnel are aware of leaks, spills, and intentional diversions mill manager. Any person signing the possible liquor diversions and of the of spent pulping liquors, soap, and BMP Plan or its amendments must requirement to prevent leaks and spills turpentine during the following periods certify to the permitting or pretreatment of spent pulping liquors, soap, and of operation: control authority under penalty of law turpentine during construction. (i) Process start-ups and shut downs; that the BMP Plan (or its amendments) (7) The mill must install and maintain (ii) Maintenance; has been prepared in accordance with secondary containment (i.e., (iii) Production grade changes; good engineering practices and in containment constructed of materials (iv) Storm or other weather events; accordance with this regulation. The impervious to pulping liquors) for spent (v) Power failures; and mill is not required to obtain approval pulping liquor bulk storage tanks (vi) Normal operations. from the permitting or pretreatment equivalent to the volume of the largest (3) As part of the engineering review, control authority of the BMP Plan or any tank plus sufficient freeboard for the mill must determine whether amendments thereto. precipitation. An annual tank integrity existing spent pulping liquor (g) Record keeping requirements. (1) testing program, if coupled with other containment facilities are of adequate Each mill subject to this section must containment or diversion structures, capacity for collection and storage of maintain on its premises a complete may be substituted for secondary anticipated intentional liquor diversions copy of the current BMP Plan and the containment for spent pulping liquor with sufficient contingency for records specified in paragraph (g)(2) of bulk storage tanks. collection and containment of spills. this section and must make such BMP (8) The mill must install and maintain The engineering review must also Plan and records available to the secondary containment for turpentine consider: permitting or pretreatment control bulk storage tanks. (i) The need for continuous, automatic authority and the Regional (9) The mill must install and maintain monitoring systems to detect and Administrator or his or her designee for curbing, diking or other means of control leaks and spills of spent pulping review upon request. isolating soap and turpentine processing liquor, soap, and turpentine; (2) The mill must maintain the and loading areas from the wastewater (ii) The need for process wastewater following records for three years from treatment facilities. diversion facilities to protect end-of- the date they are created: (10) The mill must conduct pipe wastewater treatment facilities (i) Records tracking the repairs wastewater monitoring to detect leaks from adverse effects of spills and performed in accordance with the repair and spills, to track the effectiveness of diversions of spent pulping liquors, program described in paragraph (c)(2) of the BMPs, and to detect trends in spent soap, and turpentine; this section; pulping liquor losses. Such monitoring (iii) The potential for contamination (ii) Records of initial and refresher must be performed in accordance with of storm water from the immediate training conducted in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. process areas; and paragraph (c)(4) of this section; (d) Requirement to develop a BMP (iv) The extent to which segregation (iii) Reports prepared in accordance Plan. (1) Each mill subject to this and/or collection and treatment of with paragraph (c)(5) of this section; and section must prepare and implement a contaminated storm water from the (iv) Records of monitoring required by BMP Plan. The BMP Plan must be based immediate process areas is appropriate. paragraphs (c)(10) and (i) of this section. on a detailed engineering review as (e) Amendment of BMP Plan. (1) Each (h) Establishment of wastewater described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of mill subject to this section must amend treatment system influent action levels. this section. The BMP Plan must specify its BMP Plan whenever there is a change (1) Each mill subject to this section must the procedures and the practices in mill design, construction, operation, conduct a monitoring program, required for each mill to meet the or maintenance that materially affects described in paragraph (h)(2) of this requirements of paragraph (c) of this the potential for leaks or spills of spent section, for the purpose of defining section, the construction the mill pulping liquor, turpentine, or soap from wastewater treatment system influent determines is necessary to meet those the immediate process areas. characteristics (or action levels), requirements including a schedule for (2) Each mill subject to this section described in paragraph (h)(3) of this such construction, and the monitoring must complete a review and evaluation section, that will trigger requirements to program (including the statistically of the BMP Plan five years after the first initiate investigations on BMP derived action levels) that will be used BMP Plan is prepared and, except as effectiveness and to take corrective to meet the requirements of paragraph provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this action. (i) of this section. The BMP Plan also section, once every five years thereafter. (2) Each mill subject to this section must specify the period of time that the As a result of this review and must employ the following procedures mill determines the action levels evaluation, the mill must amend the in order to develop the action levels established under paragraph (h) of this BMP Plan within three months of the required by paragraph (h) of this section may be exceeded without review if the mill determines that any section: triggering the responses specified in new or modified management practices (i) Monitoring parameters. The mill paragraph (i) of this section. and engineered controls are necessary to must collect 24-hour composite samples (2) Each mill subject to this section reduce significantly the likelihood of and analyze the samples for a measure must conduct a detailed engineering spent pulping liquor, soap, and of organic content (e.g., Chemical review of the pulping and chemical turpentine leaks, spills, or intentional Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic recovery operations—including but not diversions from the immediate process Carbon (TOC)). Alternatively, the mill limited to process equipment, storage areas, including a schedule for may use a measure related to spent tanks, pipelines and pumping systems, implementation of such practices and pulping liquor losses measured loading and unloading facilities, and controls. continuously and averaged over 24 other appurtenant pulping and chemical (f) Review and certification of BMP hours (e.g., specific conductivity or recovery equipment items in spent Plan. The BMP Plan, and any color). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18643

(ii) Monitoring locations. For direct daily monitoring of the influent to the require the construction of containment dischargers, monitoring must be wastewater treatment system in or diversion structures or the conducted at the point influent enters accordance with the procedures installation of monitoring and alarm the wastewater treatment system. For described in paragraph (h)(2) of this systems not later than April 15, 1999. indirect dischargers monitoring must be section for the purpose of detecting (iii) Establish initial action levels conducted at the point of discharge to leaks and spills, tracking the required by paragraph (h)(3) of this the POTW. For the purposes of this effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting section not later than April 15, 1999. requirement, the mill may select trends in spent pulping liquor losses. alternate monitoring point(s) in order to (2) Whenever monitoring results (iv) Commence operation of any new isolate possible sources of spent pulping exceed the lower action level for the or upgraded continuous, automatic liquor, soap, or turpentine from other period of time specified in the BMP monitoring systems that the mill possible sources of organic wastewaters Plan, the mill must conduct an determines to be necessary under that are tributary to the wastewater investigation to determine the cause of paragraph (c)(3) of this section (other treatment facilities (e.g., bleach plants, such exceedance. Whenever monitoring than those associated with construction paper machines and secondary fiber results exceed the upper action level for of containment or diversion structures) operations). the period of time specified in the BMP not later than April 17, 2000. (3) By the date prescribed in Plan, the mill must complete corrective paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section, each action to bring the wastewater treatment (v) Complete construction and existing discharger subject to this system influent mass loading below the commence operation of any spent section must complete an initial six- lower action level as soon as pulping liquor, collection, containment, month monitoring program using the practicable. diversion, or other facilities, including procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) (3) Although exceedances of the any associated continuous monitoring of this section and must establish initial action levels will not constitute systems, necessary to fully implement action levels based on the results of that violations of an NPDES permit or BMPs specified in paragraph (c) of this program. A wastewater treatment pretreatment standard, failure to take section not later than April 16, 2001. influent action level is a statistically the actions required by paragraph (i)(2) (vi) Establish revised action levels determined pollutant loading of this section as soon as practicable required by paragraph (h)(4) of this determined by a statistical analysis of will be a permit or pretreatment section as soon as possible after fully six months of daily measurements. The standard violation. implementing the BMPs specified in (4) Each mill subject to this section action levels must consist of a lower paragraph (c) of this section, but not must report to the NPDES permitting or action level, which if exceeded will later than January 15, 2002. trigger the investigation requirements pretreatment control authority the described in paragraph (i) of this results of the daily monitoring (2) New Sources. Upon commencing section, and an upper action level, conducted pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) discharge, new sources subject to this which if exceeded will trigger the of this section. Such reports must section must implement all of the BMPs corrective action requirements include a summary of the monitoring specified in paragraph (c) of this described in paragraph (i) of this results, the number and dates of section, prepare the BMP Plan required section. exceedances of the applicable action by paragraph (d) of this section, and (4) By the date prescribed in levels, and brief descriptions of any certify to the permitting or pretreatment paragraph (j)(1)(vi) of this section, each corrective actions taken to respond to authority that the BMP Plan has been existing discharger must complete a such exceedances. Submission of such prepared in accordance with this second six-month monitoring program reports shall be at the frequency regulation as required by paragraph (f) using the procedures specified in established by the NPDES permitting or of this section, except that the action paragraph (h)(2) of this section and must pretreatment control authority, but in no levels required by paragraph (h)(5) of establish revised action levels based on case less than once per year. this section must be established not the results of that program. The initial (j) Compliance deadlines. (1) Existing later than 12 months after action levels shall remain in effect until direct and indirect dischargers. Except commencement of discharge, based on replaced by revised action levels. as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this six months of monitoring data obtained (5) By the date prescribed in section for new sources, indirect prior to that date in accordance with the paragraph (j)(2) of this section, each new discharging mills subject to this section procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) source subject to this section must must meet the deadlines set forth below. of this section. complete a six-month monitoring Except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of program using the procedures specified this section for new sources, NPDES Subpart AÐDissolving Kraft in paragraph (h)(2) of this section and permits must require direct discharging Subcategory must develop a lower action level and mills subject to this section to meet the an upper action level based on the deadlines set forth below. If a deadline § 430.10 Applicability; description of the results of that program. set forth below has passed at the time dissolving kraft subcategory. (6) Action levels developed under this the NPDES permit containing the BMP The provisions of this subpart apply paragraph must be revised using six requirement is issued, the NPDES to discharges resulting from the months of monitoring data after any permit must require immediate production of dissolving pulp at kraft change in mill design, construction, compliance with such BMP operation, or maintenance that requirement(s). mills. materially affects the potential for leaks (i) Prepare BMP Plans and certify to § 430.11 Specialized definitions. or spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, the permitting or pretreatment authority or turpentine from the immediate that the BMP Plan has been prepared in For the purpose of this subpart, the process areas. accordance with this regulation not later general definitions, abbreviations, and (i) Monitoring, corrective action, and than April 15, 1999; methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR reporting requirements. (1) Each mill (ii) Implement all BMPs specified in part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall subject to this section must conduct paragraph (c) of this section that do not apply to this subpart. 18644 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

§ 430.12 Effluent limitations representing point source subject to this subpart must (BPT), except that non-continuous the degree of effluent reduction attainable achieve the following effluent dischargers shall not be subject to the by the application of the best practicable limitations representing the degree of maximum day and average of 30 control technology currently available (BPT). effluent reduction attainable by the consecutive days limitations but shall application of the best practicable be subject to annual average effluent (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR control technology currently available limitations: 125.30 through 125.32, any existing

SUBPART A [BPT effluent limitations]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Non-contin- Maximum daily values uous dis- for any 1 for 30 con- chargers day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 23.6 12.25 6.88 TSS ...... 37.3 20.05 11.02 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The following limitations establish the provisions of this subpart. These subject to such operations. Non- the quantity or quality of pollutants or limitations are in addition to the continuous dischargers shall not be pollutant properties, controlled by this limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of subject to the maximum day and section, resulting from the use of wet this section and shall be calculated average of 30 consecutive days barking operations, which may be using the proportion of the mill’s total limitations, but shall be subject to discharged by a point source subject to production due to use of logs which are annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART A [BPT effluent limitations]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Non-continu- Average of ous discharg- Maximum daily values ers (annual for any 1 for 30 con- average) day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 3.2 1.7 0.95 TSS ...... 6.9 3.75 2.0 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish source subject to the provisions of this and/or chips which are subject to such the quantity or quality of pollutants or subpart. These limitations are in operations. Non-continuous dischargers pollutant parameters, controlled by this addition to the limitations set forth in shall not be subject to the maximum day section, resulting from the use of log paragraph (a) of this section and shall be and average of 30 consecutive days washing or chip washing operations, calculated using the proportion of the limitations, but shall be subject to the which may be discharged by a point mill’s total production due to use of logs annual average effluent limitations: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18645

SUBPART A [BPT effluent limitations]

BOD5 ...... 0.35 0.2 0.1 TSS ...... 0.70 0.4 0.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish the provisions of this subpart. These subject to such operations. Non- the quantity or quality of pollutants or limitations are in addition to the continuous dischargers shall not be pollutant properties, controlled by this limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of subject to the maximum day and section, resulting from the use of log this section and shall be calculated average of 30 consecutive days flumes or log ponds, which may be using the proportion of the mill’s total limitations but shall be subject to the discharged by a point source subject to production due to use of logs which are annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART A [BPT effluent limitations]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Non-contin- Average of uous dis- Maximum for daily values chargers any 1 day for 30 con- (annual secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 0.6 0.35 0.2 TSS ...... 1.45 0.8 0.4 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in degree of effluent reduction attainable representing the degree of effluent § 430.12 of this subpart for the best by the application of the best available reduction attainable by the application of practicable control technology currently technology economically achievable the best conventional pollutant control available (BPT). technology (BCT). (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.14 Effluent limitations representing through 125.32, any existing point the degree of effluent reduction attainable mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) source subject to this subpart shall by the application of the best available but shall be subject to concentration achieve the following effluent technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations. Concentration limitations limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 are only applicable to non-continuous effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point dischargers. Permittees not using application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing biocides pollutant control technology (BCT): The chlorophenolic-containing biocides are must certify to the permit-issuing limitations shall be the same as those used must achieve the following authority that they are not using these specified for conventional pollutants effluent limitations representing the biocides: 18646 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART A [BAT effluent limitations]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0025 (0.011)(55.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.016 (0.068)(55.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.15 New source performance effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, chlorophenolic-containing biocides are standards (NSPS). but shall be subject to annual average used shall be subject to Any new source subject to this effluent limitations. Also, for non- pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol subpart must achieve the following new continuous dischargers, concentration limitations. Permittees not using source performance standards (NSPS), limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides except that non-continuous dischargers provided. Concentration limitations will must certify to the permit-issuing shall not be subject to the maximum day only apply to non-continuous authority that they are not using these and average of 30 consecutive days dischargers. Only facilities where biocides:

SUBPART A [NSPS]

BOD5 ...... 15.6 8.4 4.4 TSS ...... 27.3 14.3 7.5 pH ...... (1) (1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0025 (0.012)(50.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.016 (0.074)(50.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.16 Pretreatment standards for to this subpart that introduces pretreatment standards for existing existing sources (PSES). pollutants into a publicly owned sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic- Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 treatment works must: comply with 40 containing biocides. Permittees not and 403.13, any existing source subject CFR part 403; and achieve the following using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit- issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18647

SUBPART A [PSES]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(55.1)/y ...... 0.0025 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.082)(55.1)/y ...... 0.019 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.17 Pretreatment standards for new publicly owned treatment works must: biocides. Permittees not using sources (PSNS). comply with 40 CFR part 403; and chlorophenolic-containing biocides Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, achieve the following pretreatment must certify to the permit-issuing any new source subject to this subpart standards for new sources (PSNS) if it authority that they are not using these that introduces pollutants into a uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides:

SUBPART A [PSNS]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.012)(50.7)/y ...... 0.0025 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.089)(50.7)/y ...... 0.019 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart BÐBleached Papergrade Kraft in the ‘‘Voluntary Advanced established under § 430.24(b) (for and Soda Subcategory Technology Incentives Program.’’ existing direct dischargers) and (c) Enroll means to notify the § 430.25(c) (for new direct dischargers) § 430.20 Applicability; description of the permitting authority that a mill intends bleached papergrade kraft and soda whereby participating mills agree to subcategory. to participate in the ‘‘Voluntary accept enforceable effluent limitations Advanced Technology Incentives and conditions in their NPDES permits The provisions of this subpart apply Program.’’ A mill can enroll by that are more stringent than the to discharges resulting from: the indicating its intention to participate in production of market pulp at bleached ‘‘baseline BAT limitations or NSPS’’ the program either as part of its that would otherwise apply, in kraft mills; the integrated production of application for a National Pollutant paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue exchange for regulatory- and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) paper at bleached kraft mills; the enforcement-related rewards and permit, or through separate integrated production of pulp and fine incentives. correspondence to the permitting papers at bleached kraft mills; and the authority as long as the mill signs the § 430.22 Effluent limitations representing integrated production of pulp and paper correspondence in accordance with 40 the degree of effluent reduction attainable at soda mills. CFR 122.22. by the application of the best practicable § 430.21 Specialized definitions. (d) Existing effluent quality means the control technology currently available (BPT). (a) The general definitions, level at which the pollutants identified abbreviations, and methods of analysis in § 430.24(a)(1) are present in the (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and effluent of a mill ‘‘enrolled’’ in the 125.30 through 125.32, any existing § 430.01 of this part apply to this ‘‘Voluntary Advanced Technology point source subject to this subpart must Incentives Program.’’ subpart. achieve the following effluent (e) Kappa number is a measure of the (b) Baseline BAT limitations or NSPS limitations representing the degree of lignin content in unbleached pulp, means the BAT limitations specified in effluent reduction attainable by the § 430.24(a) (1) or (2), as applicable, and determined after pulping and prior to application of the best practicable the NSPS specified in § 430.25(b) (1) or bleaching. control technology currently available (2), as applicable, that apply to any (f) Voluntary Advanced Technology (BPT): direct discharger that is not ‘‘enrolled’’ Incentives Program is the program 18648 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant parameter Non-contin- Average of uous dis- Maximum for daily values chargers any 1 day for 30 con- (annual secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 15.45 8.05 4.52 TSS ...... 30.4 16.4 9.01 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of uous dis- daily values chargers Maximum for for 30 con- (annual any 1 day secutive average) days

BOD5 ...... 13.65 7.1 3.99 TSS ...... 24.0 12.9 7.09 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average) days

BOD5 ...... 10.6 5.5 3.09 TSS ...... 22.15 11.9 6.54 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

BOD5 ...... 13.7 7.1 3.99 TSS ...... 24.5 13.2 7.25 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18649

(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs which are subject to such operations:

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant parameter Non-contin- Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 2.3 1.2 0.70 TSS ...... 5.3 2.85 1.55 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

BOD5 ...... 2.25 1.2 0.65 TSS ...... 5.75 3.1 1.70 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 11 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 1.95 1.0 0.55 TSS ...... 5.3 2.85 1.55 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 2.05 1.1 0.60 18650 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART BÐContinued [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

TSS ...... 5.25 2.8 1.55 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(c) The following limitations establish which may be discharged by a point calculated using the proportion of the the quantity or quality of pollutants or source subject to the provisions of this mill’s total production due to use of logs pollutant parameters, controlled by this subpart. These limitations are in and/or chips which are subject to such section, resulting from the use of log addition to the limitations set forth in operations: washing or chip washing operations, paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.2 0.1 0.1 TSS ...... 0.6 0.3 0.15 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times..

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.25 0.15 0.05 TSS ...... 0.65 0.35 0.20 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Subpart B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.2 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 0.55 0.3 0.15 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18651

Subpart BÐContinued [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 0.5 0.25 0.15 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(d) The following limitations establish discharged by a point source subject to using the proportion of the mill’s total the quantity or quality of pollutants or the provisions of this subpart. These production due to use of logs which are pollutant properties, controlled by this limitations are in addition to the subject to such operations: section, resulting from the use of log limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of flumes or log ponds, which may be this section and shall be calculated

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.4 0.2 0.15 TSS ...... 1.15 0.6 0.35 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.45 0.25 0.10 TSS ...... 1.25 0.7 0.35 18652 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART BÐContinued [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.35 0.2 0.10 TSS ...... 1.15 0.6 0.30 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.3 0.2 0.10 TSS ...... 1.1 0.55 0.35 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.23 Effluent limitations representing specified in § 430.22 of this subpart for effluent reduction attainable by the the degree of effluent reduction attainable the best practicable control technology application of the best available by the application of the best conventional currently available (BPT). technology economically achievable pollutant control technology (BCT). (BAT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.24 Effluent limitations representing (a) Except as provided in paragraph the degree of effluent reduction attainable (b) of this section— through 125.32, any existing point by the application of best available source subject to this subpart must technology economically achievable (BAT). (1) The following effluent limitations achieve the following effluent apply with respect to each fiber line that limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 does not use an exclusively TCF effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point bleaching process, as disclosed by the application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart must discharger in its NPDES permit pollutant control technology (BCT). The achieve the following effluent application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) limitations shall be the same as those limitations representing the degree of and certified under 40 CFR 122.22: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18653

SUBPART B

BAT effluent limitations Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD ......

AOX ...... 0.951 0.623 0.512 COD ...... (e)(e)(e) a ``

(2) The following effluent limitations processes, as disclosed by the discharger 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under apply with respect to each fiber line that in its NPDES permit application under 40 CFR 122.22: uses exclusively TCF bleaching

SUBPART B

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg(or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ......

(b) The following limitations apply permitting authority must determine those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. with respect to each fiber line enrolled existing effluent quality for each fiber These limitations must be recalculated in the Voluntary Advanced Technology line enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced each time the NPDES permit of a Incentives Program: Technology Incentives Program at the discharger enrolled in the Voluntary (1) Stage 1 Limitations: Numeric end of the pipe based on loadings Advanced Technology Incentives limitations that are equivalent to the attributable to that fiber line. For the Program is reissued, up to: discharger’s existing effluent quality or remaining pollutants, with the (i) April 15, 2004 for all pollutants in the discharger’s current effluent exception of COD, the permitting paragraph (a)(1) of this section except limitations established under CWA authority must determine existing AOX; and section 301(b)(2), whichever are more effluent quality for each fiber line (ii) The date specified in paragraph stringent, for the pollutants identified in enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced (b)(4)(ii) of this section for achieving the paragraph (a)(1) of this section (with the Technology Incentives Program at the applicable AOX limitation specified in exception of COD). For AOX, the point where the wastewater containing paragraph (b)(4)(i). 18654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Best Professional Judgment paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this limitations specified in paragraph Milestones: Narrative or numeric section, as applicable. (b)(4)(i) of this section must achieve the limitations and/or special permit (3) Six-year Milestones: By April 15, AOX limitation specified in that conditions, as appropriate, established 2004 all dischargers enrolled in the paragraph; or Voluntary Advanced Technology by the permitting authority on the basis (ii) For dischargers that use Incentives Program must achieve the of his or her best professional judgment exclusively TCF bleaching processes as that reflect reasonable interim following: (i) The effluent limitations specified of April 15, 2004, the effluent milestones toward achievement of the in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, limitations specified in paragraph (a)(2) effluent limitations specified in except that, with respect to AOX, of this section. dischargers subject to Tier I effluent (4)(i) Stage 2 Limitations:

ULTIMATE VOLUNTARY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM BAT LIMITATIONS

AOX (kg/kkg) Total pulping area condensate, evaporator Non-TCF a TCF Tier Kappa number (annual average) Filtrate condensate, and bleach recycling plant wastewater flow Maximum Maximum (annual average) for any 1 Annual for any 1 Annual day average day average

Tier I ...... 20 (softwood furnish) ...... (b) ...... N/A ...... 0.58 0.26

(ii) Deadlines. (A) A discharger Tier II limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i) subject to this section in accordance enrolled in Tier I of the Voluntary of this section by April 15, 2009. with the previous subcategorization Advanced Technology Incentives (C) A discharger enrolled in Tier III of scheme unless the discharger certifies to Program must achieve for Tier I the Voluntary Advanced Technology the permitting authority that it is not limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this Incentives Program must achieve the using these compounds as biocides. section by April 15, 2004. Tier III limitations in paragraph (b)(4)(i) Also, for non-continuous dischargers, of this section by April 15, 2014. concentration limitation (mg/l) shall (B) A discharger enrolled in Tier II of (c) [RESERVED]. apply. Concentration limitations will the Voluntary Advanced Technology (d) The following additional effluent only apply to non-continuous Incentives Program must achieve the limitations apply to all dischargers dischargers:

SUBPART B [Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pullutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0019 (0.011)(41.6)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.012 (0.068)(41.6)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Maximun for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.11)(35.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.010 (0.068)(35.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18655

SUBPART B [Supplemental BAT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0014 (0.011) (30.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0088 (0.068) (30.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(e) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and 122.44(i) and 122.45(h). In addition, a § 430.25 New source performance 122.45(h), a discharger must discharger subject to a limitation on standards (NSPS). demonstrate compliance with the total pulping area condensate, New sources subject to this subpart effluent limitations in paragraph (a)(1) evaporator condensate, and bleach plant must achieve the following new source or (b)(3) of this section, as applicable, by wastewater flow under paragraph performance standards (NSPS), as monitoring for all pollutants (except for (b)(4)(i) of this section, for Tier II and applicable. AOX and COD) at the point where the Tier III, must demonstrate compliance (a) The following standards apply to wastewater containing those pollutants with that limitation by establishing and each new source that commenced leaves the bleach plant. The permitting maintaining flow measurement authority may impose effluent discharge after June 15, 1988 and before equipment to monitor these flows at the limitations and/or monitoring June 15, 1998, provided that the new point or points where they leave the requirements on internal wastestreams source was constructed to meet these pulping area, evaporator area, and for any other pollutants covered in this standards: section as appropriate under 40 CFR bleach plant.

SUBPART B [1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dis- Average of chargers Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive Annual days average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

BOD5 ...... 10.3 5.5 2.88 TSS ...... 18.2 9.5 5.00 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART B [1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dis- Average of chargers Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive Annual days average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

BOD5 ...... 8.5 4.6 2.41 TSS ...... 14.6 7.6 4.00 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART B [1982 New Source Performance Standards for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dis- Average of chargers Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive Annual days average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

BOD5 ...... 5.7 3.1 1.62 TSS ...... 9.1 4.8 2.53 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph line that does not use an exclusively and certified under 40 CFR 122.22, and (c) of this section— TCF bleaching process, as disclosed by that commences discharge after June 15, (1) The following standards apply the discharger in its NPDES permit 1998: with respect to each new source fiber application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3)

SUBPART B

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD ......

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Monthly aver- any 1 day age (kg/kkg) Annual aver- (kg/kkg) age (kg/kkg)

AOX ...... 0.476 0.272 0.208 BOD5 ...... 4.52 2.41 1.73 TSS ...... 8.47 3.86 2.72 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) COD ...... (e)(e)(e) a ``

(2) The following standards apply line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching in its NPDES permit application under with respect to each new source fiber processes, as disclosed by the discharger 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22, and that commences discharge after June 15, 1998: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18657

SUBPART B

NSPS (TCF) Non-continuous Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers dischargers Maximum for Monthly Maximum for Annual any 1 day average any 1 day average

AOX d ......

(c) With respect to each new source Incentives Program, dischargers subject for AOX) or paragraph (b)(2) of this fiber line that is enrolled in the to this section must achieve: section, as applicable; and Voluntary Advanced Technology (1) The standards specified in (2) Standards for filtrates, flow, and paragraph (b)(1) of this section (except AOX:

ULTIMATE VOLUNTARY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM NSPS

AOX (kg/kkg) Total pulping area condensate, evaporator conden- Non-TCF a TCF Tier Filtrate sate, and bleach plant recycling wastewater flow (annual Maximum Maximum average) for any 1 Annual for any 1 Annual day average day average

Tier II ...... (b) ...... 10 cubic meters/kkg ...... 0.23 0.10

(d) These additional standards apply subcategorization scheme unless the continuous dischargers, concentration to all new sources, regardless of when discharger certifies to the permitting limitations (mg/l) shall apply. they commenced discharge, in authority that it is not using these Concentration limitations will only accordance with the previous compounds as biocides. Also, for non- apply to non-continuous dischargers:

SUBPART B [Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0019 (0.013)(36.6)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.012 (0.077)(36.6)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.012)(31.7)/y 18658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART BÐContinued [Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Trichlorophenol ...... 0.010 (0.076)(31.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental NSPS for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0014 (0.014)(25.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0088 (0.084)(25.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(e) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and total pulping area condensate, pollutants into a publicly owned 122.45(h), a discharger must evaporator condensate, and bleach plant treatment works must: comply with 40 demonstrate compliance with the wastewater flow under paragraph (c)(2) CFR part 403; and achieve the following limitations in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(1) of this section must demonstrate pretreatment standards for existing of this section, as applicable, by compliance with that limitation by sources (PSES). monitoring for all pollutants (except for establishing and maintaining flow (a)(1) The following pretreatment AOX, COD, BOD5, TSS, and pH) at the measurement equipment monitoring standards apply with respect to each point where the wastewater containing these flows at the point or points where fiber line operated by an indirect those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. they leave the pulping area, evaporator discharger subject to this section, unless The permitting authority may impose area, and the bleach plant. the indirect discharger discloses to the effluent limitations and/or monitoring pretreatment control authority in a requirements on internal wastestreams § 430.26 Pretreatment standards for report submitted under 40 CFR existing sources (PSES). for any other pollutants covered in this 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF section as appropriate under 40 CFR Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 bleaching processes at that fiber line. 122.44(i) and 122.45(h). In addition, a and 403.13, any existing source subject These pretreatment standards must be discharger subject to a limitation on to this subpart that introduces attained on or before April 16, 2001:

SUBPART B

PSES Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD ......

e Kilograms per 1,000 kilograms (kg/kkg). (2) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each fiber line operated by an indirect discharger subject to this section if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line. These pretreatment standards must be attained on or before April 16, 2001:

SUBPART B

PSES (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0019 (0.011)(41.6)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.014 (0.082)(41.6)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.011)(35.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.012 (0.082)(35.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSES for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0014 (0.011)(30.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.011 (0.082)(30.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product

(c) An indirect discharger must containing those pollutants leaves the § 430.27 Pretreatment standards for new demonstrate compliance with the bleach plant. sources (PSNS). pretreatment standards in paragraph Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, (a)(1) of this section by monitoring at any new source subject to this subpart the point where the wastewater that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: 18660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations comply with 40 CFR part 403; and (a)(1) The following pretreatment pretreatment control authority in a achieve the following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12 standards for new sources (PSNS). fiber line that is a new source, unless that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching the indirect discharger discloses to the processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART B

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD ......

a ``

SUBPART B

PSNS (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

a ``

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where market pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0019 (0.013)(36.6)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.014 (0.093)(36.6)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18661

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.012)(31.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.012 (0.092)(31.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART B [Supplemental PSNS for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and fine papers are produced and soda facilities where pulp and paper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant parameter pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0014 (0.014)(25.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.011 (0.101)(25.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) An indirect discharger must the production of pulp and paper at § 430.32 Effluent limitations representing demonstrate compliance with the unbleached kraft mills; the production the degree of effluent reduction attainable pretreatment standards in paragraph of pulp and paper at unbleached kraft- by the application of the best practicable (a)(1) of this section by monitoring at neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross control technology currently available (BPT). the point where the wastewater recovery) mills; and the production of containing those pollutants leaves the pulp and paper at combined unbleached Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 bleach plant. kraft and semi-chemical mills, wherein through 125.32, any existing point § 430.28 Best management practices the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor source subject to this subpart must (BMPs). is burned within the unbleached kraft achieve the following effluent The definitions and requirements set chemical recovery system. limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the forth in 40 CFR 430.03 apply to facilities § 430.31 Specialized definitions. in this subpart. application of the best practicable For the purpose of this subpart, the control technology currently available Subpart CÐUnbleached Kraft general definitions, abbreviations, and (BPT): Subcategory methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR § 430.30 Applicability; description of the part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall unbleached kraft subcategory. apply to this subpart. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from:

SUBPART C [BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Maximum for daily values any 1 day for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... 5.6 2.8 TSS ...... 12.0 6.0 pH ...... (1)(1)

1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART C [BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities producing pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Maximum for daily values any 1 day for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... 8.0 4.0 TSS ...... 12.5 6.25 pH ...... (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C [BPT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Maximum for daily values any 1 day for 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... (a)(a) TSS ...... (a)(a) pH ...... (a)(a) a [Reserved].

§ 430.33 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart shall achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART C [BCT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Non-continuous dischargers (annual average) Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous Average of dischargers Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 5.6 2.8 1.9 TSS ...... 12.0 6.0 3.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18663

SUBPART C [BCT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Non-continu- Average of ous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 8.0 4.0 2.9 TSS ...... 12.5 6.25 3.57 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.34 Effluent limitations representing used must achieve the following but shall be subject to concentration the degree of effluent reduction attainable effluent limitations representing the limitations. Concentration limitations by the application of the best available degree of effluent reduction attainable are only applicable to non-continuous technology economically achievable (BAT). by the application of the best available dischargers. Permittees not using Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 technology economically achievable chlorophenolic-containing biocides through 125.32, any existing point (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers must certify to the permit-issuing source subject to this subpart where shall not be subject to the maximum day authority that they are not using these chlorophenolic-containing biocides are mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb), biocides:

SUBPART C [BAT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058 (0.011)(12.6)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00053 (0.010)(12.6)/y y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART C [BAT effluent limitations for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00064 (0.011)(14.0)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00059 (0.010)(14.0)/y y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.35 New source performance effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, chlorophenolic-containing biocides are standards (NSPS). but shall be subject to annual average used shall be subject to Any new source subject to this effluent limitations. Also, for non- pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol subpart must achieve the following new continuous dischargers, concentration limitations. Permittees not using source performance standards (NSPS), limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides except that non-continuous dischargers provided. Concentration limitations will must certify to the permit-issuing shall not be subject to the maximum day only apply to non-continuous authority that they are not using these and average of 30 consecutive days dischargers. Only facilities where biocides: 18664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART C [NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where linerboard is produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Non-continu- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of ous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average) days

BOD5 ...... 3.4 1.8 0.94 TSS ...... 5.8 3.0 1.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058 (0.015)(9.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00053 (0.013)(9.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C [NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where bag paper and other mixed products are produced]

BOD5 ...... 5.0 2.71 1.4 TSS ...... 9.1 4.8 2.5 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058 (0.012)(11.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00053 (0.011)(11.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART C [NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

BOD5 ...... 3.9 2.1 1.1 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18665

SUBPART CÐContinued [NSPS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

TSS ...... 7.3 3.8 1.9 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00064 (0.013)(11.5)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00059 (0.012)(11.5)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.36 Pretreatment standards for treatment works must: comply with 40 using chlorophenolic-containing existing sources (PSES). CFR part 403; and achieve the following biocides must certify to the permit- Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 pretreatment standards for existing issuing authority that they are not using and 403.13, any existing source subject sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic- those biocides. PSES must be attained to this subpart that introduces containing biocides. Permittees not on or before July 1, 1984: pollutants into a publicly owned

SUBPART C [PSES for unbleached kraft facilities]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(12.6)/y ...... 0.00058 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(12.6)/y ...... 0.00053 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C [PSES for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(14.0)/y ...... 0.00064 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(14.0)/y ...... 0.00059 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. 18666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

§ 430.37 Pretreatment standards for new publicly owned treatment works must: biocides. Permittees not using sources (PSNS). comply with 40 CFR part 403; and chlorophenolic-containing biocides (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR achieve the following pretreatment must certify to the permit-issuing 403.7, any new source subject to this standards for new sources (PSNS) if it authority that they are not using these subpart that introduces pollutants into a uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides:

SUBPART C [PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where linerboard is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.015)(9.4)/y ...... 0.00058 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.013)(9.4)/y ...... 0.00053 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C [PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where bag paper and other mixed products are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.012)(11.4)/y ...... 0.00058 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.011)(11.4)/y ...... 0.00053 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART C [PSNS for unbleached kraft facilities where pulp and paper are produced using the unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery) process and/or a combined unbleached kraft and semi-chemical process, wherein the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery system]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.013)(11.5)/y ...... 0.00064 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.012)(11.5)/y ...... 0.00059 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart DÐDissolving Sulfite methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR limitations representing the degree of Subcategory part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall effluent reduction attainable by the apply to this subpart. application of the best practicable § 430.40 Applicability; description of the control technology currently available dissolving sulfite subcategory. § 430.42 Effluent limitations representing (BPT), except that non-continuous The provisions of this subpart are the degree of effluent reduction attainable dischargers shall not be subject to the applicable to discharges resulting from by the application of the best practicable maximum day and average of 30 the production of pulp at dissolving control technology currently available (BPT). sulfite mills. consecutive days limitations but shall (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR be subject to annual average effluent § 430.41 Specialized definitions. 125.30 through 125.32, any existing limitations: For the purpose of this subpart, the point source subject to this subpart must general definitions, abbreviations, and achieve the following effluent Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18667

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 41.4 21.5 12.1 TSS ...... 70.65 38.05 20.9 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where viscose grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 44.3 23.0 12.9 TSS ...... 70.65 38.05 20.9 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where cellophane grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 48.05 24.95 14.0 TSS ...... 70.65 38.05 20.9 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 150.80 126.40 114.83 TSS ...... 70.65 38.05 20.9 pH ...... (2)(2)(2) 1 BOD5 effluent limitations were remanded (Weyerhaeuser Company, et al v. Costle, 590 F. 2nd 1011; D.C. Circuit 1978). 2 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Non-continu- Average of ous dis- Maximum for daily values chargers any 1 day for 30 con- (annual secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 0.7 0.35 0.2 TSS ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [BPT effluent limitations]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.43 Effluent limitations guidelines (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in degree of effluent reduction attainable representing the degree of effluent § 430.42 of this subpart for the best by the application of the best available reduction attainable by the application of practicable control technology currently technology economically achievable the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). available (BPT). (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.44 Effluent limitations representing shall not be subject to the maximum day through 125.32, any existing point the degree of effluent reduction attainable mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) source subject to this subpart shall by the application of the best available but shall be subject to concentration achieve the following effluent technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations. Concentration limitations limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 are only applicable to non-continuous effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point dischargers. Permittees not using application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing biocides pollutant control technology (BCT): The chlorophenolic-containing biocides are must certify to the permit-issuing limitations shall be the same as those used must achieve the following authority that they are not using these specified for conventional pollutants effluent limitations representing the biocides:

SUBPART D [BAT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane pulps are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.011)(66.0)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.019 (0.068)(66.0)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART D [BAT effluent limitations for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0033 (0.011)(72.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.021 (0.068)(72.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.45 New source performance and average of 30 consecutive days only apply to non-continuous standards (NSPS). effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, dischargers. Only facilities where Any new source subject to this but shall be subject to annual average chlorophenolic-containing biocides are subpart must achieve the following new effluent limitations. Also, for non- used shall be subject to source performance standards (NSPS), continuous dischargers, concentration pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol except that non-continuous dischargers limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where limitations. Permittees not using shall not be subject to the maximum day provided. Concentration limitations will chlorophenolic-containing biocides 18670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART D [NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 26.9 14.5 7.59 TSS ...... 40.8 21.3 11.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.019 (0.012)(59.0)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where viscose grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 28.7 15.5 8.12 TSS ...... 40.8 21.3 11.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.019 (0.012)(59.0)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18671

SUBPART D [NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where cellophane grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 31.2 16.8 8.80 TSS ...... 40.8 21.3 11.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.012)(59.0)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.019 (0.076)(59.0)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART D [NSPS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

BOD5 ...... 39.6 21.4 11.2 TSS ...... 41.1 21.5 11.3 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0033 (0.012)(65.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.021 (0.075)(65.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.46 Pretreatment standards for to this subpart that introduces pretreatment standards for existing existing sources (PSES). pollutants into a publicly owned sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic- Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 treatment works must: comply with 40 containing biocides. Permittees not and 403.13, any existing source subject CFR part 403; and achieve the following using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit- issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984: 18672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART D [PSES for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane grade pulps are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(66.0)/y ...... 0.0030 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.082)(66.0)/y ...... 0.023 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART D [PSES for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(72.7)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.082)(72.7)/y ...... 0.025 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.47 Pretreatment standards for new publicly owned treatment works must: biocides. Permittees not using sources (PSNS). comply with 40 CFR part 403; and chlorophenolic-containing biocides Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, achieve the following pretreatment must certify to the permit-issuing any new source subject to this subpart standards for new sources (PSNS) if it authority that they are not using these that introduces pollutants into a uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides:

SUBPART D [PSNS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where nitration, viscose, or cellophane grade pulps are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.012)(59.0)/y ...... 0.0030 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.092)(59.0)/y ...... 0.023 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART D [PSNS for dissolving sulfite pulp facilities where acetate grade pulp is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.012)(65.7)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.091)(65.7)/y ...... 0.025 y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18673

Subpart EÐPapergrade Sulfite the liquor is between 3.0 and 6.0 and as with a high percentage of alpha Subcategory acid sulfite cooking liquor when the pH cellulose and high brightness sufficent is less than 3.0. to produce end products such as plastic § 430.50 Applicability; description of the (c) For this subpart, the segments for molding compounds, saturating and papergrade sulfite subcategory. the papergrade sulfite subcategory are laminating products, and photographic The provisions of this subpart apply defined as follows: papers. The specialty grade segment to discharges resulting from the: (1) The calcium-, magnesium-, or also includes those mills where a major integrated production of pulp and paper sodium-based sulfite pulp segment portion of production is 91 ISO at papergrade sulfite mills, where blow consists of papergrade sulfite mills brightness and above. pit pulp washing techniques are used; where pulp and paper are produced and the integrated production of pulp using an acidic cooking liquor of § 430.52 Effluent limitations representing and paper at papergrade sulfite mills calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite, the degree of effluent reduction attainable where vacuum or pressure drums are unless those mills are specialty grade by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available used to wash pulp. sulfite mills; (BPT). (2) The ammonium-based sulfite pulp § 430.51 Specialized definitions. segment consists of papergrade sulfite (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR (a) Except as provided in paragraphs mills where pulp and paper are 125.30 through 125.32, any existing (b) and (c) of this section, the general produced using an acidic cooking liquor point source subject to this subpart must definitions, abbreviations, and methods of ammonium sulfite, unless those mills achieve the following effluent of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 are specialty grade sulfite mills; limitations representing the degree of and § 430.01 of this part apply to this (3) The specialty grade sulfite pulp effluent reduction attainable by the subpart. segment consists of those papergrade application of the best practicable (b) Sulfite cooking liquor is defined as sulfite mills where a significant portion control technology currently available bisulfite cooking liquor when the pH of of production is characterized by pulp (BPT):

SUBPART E [Bisulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- daily values chargers Maximum for for 30 con- (annual any 1 day secutive average) days

BOD5 ...... 31.8 16.55 9.30 TSS ...... 43.95 23.65 12.99 pH ...... (1) (1) (1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Pollutant or pollutant property Non-contin- Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 34.7 18.05 10.14 TSS ...... 52.2 28.1 15.44 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18674 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E [Acid sulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

BOD5 ...... 32.3 16.8 9.44 TSS ...... 43.95 23.65 12.99 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [Acid sulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

BOD5 ...... 35.55 18.5 10.39 TSS ...... 52.2 28.1 15.44 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [Bisulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 26.7 13.9 7.81 TSS ...... 43.95 23.65 12.99 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E [Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 29.4 15.3 8.60 TSS ...... 52.2 28.1 15.44 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18675

SUBPART EÐContinued [Bisulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average) days pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E [Acid sulfite liquor/surface condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive days average)

BOD5 ...... 29.75 15.5 8.71 TSS ...... 43.95 23.65 12.99 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E [Acid sulfite liquor/barometric condensers; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 32.5 16.9 9.49 TSS ...... 52.2 28.1 15.44 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. NOTE: Limitations above do not apply to mills using continuous digesters.

SUBPART E [Continuous digesters; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 38.15 19.85 11.15 TSS ...... 53.75 28.95 15.91 18676 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART EÐContinued [Continuous digesters; BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

(b) The following limitations establish discharged by a point source subject to using the proportion of the mill’s total the quantity or quality of pollutants or the provisions of this subpart. These production due to use of logs which are pollutant properties, controlled by this limitations are in addition to the subject to such operations: section, resulting from the use of wet limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of barking operations, which may be this section and shall be calculated

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

BOD5 ...... 2.7 1.45 0.80 TSS ...... 7.5 3.95 2.19 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 3.05 1.6 0.90 TSS ...... 7.5 3.95 2.19 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 2.55 1.35 0.75 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 0.35 0.2 0.1 TSS ...... 2.55 1.35 0.75 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where blow pit washing techniques are used]

BOD5 ...... 0.35 0.2 0.1 TSS ...... 1.7 0.9 0.5 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18678 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART E [BPT effluent limitations for papergrade sulfite facilities where vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp]

BOD5 ...... 0.7 0.35 0.2 TSS ...... 1.70 0.9 0.5 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.53 Effluent limitations representing limitations shall be the same as those source subject to this subpart must the degree of effluent reduction attainable specified for conventional pollutants in achieve the following effluent by the application of the best conventional § 430.52 of this subpart for the best limitations representing the degree of pollutant control technology (BCT). practicable control technology currently effluent reduction attainable by the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 available (BCT). application of the best available through 125.32, any existing point technology economically achievable source subject to this subpart must § 430.54 Effluent limitations representing (BAT). achieve the following effluent the degree of effluent reduction attainable limitations representing the degree of by the application of best available (a) (1) The following effluent effluent reduction attainable by the technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations apply to all dischargers in application of the best conventional Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium- pollutant control technology (BCT). The through 125.32, any existing point based sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E [Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

BAT effluent limitations Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum Monthly Maximum for any 1 average for any 1 Annual day day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ...... (d)(d)(d)(d) COD ...... (d)(d)(d)(d) a These limitations do not apply with respect to fiber lines that use a TCF bleaching process as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. b ``

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

BAT effluent limitations Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day Average

TCDD a ......

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

d [Reserved]. (ii) The following effluent limitations apply to dischargers in the specialty grade pulp segment with respect to each fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE PULPS

BAT effluent limitations (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART E [Supplemental BAT effluent limitations]

Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.011)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0036exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.068)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y x = percent sulfite pulp in final product. y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and authority may impose effluent § 430.55 New source performance 122.45(h), a discharger must limitations and/or monitoring standards (NSPS). demonstrate compliance with the requirements on internal wastestreams New sources subject to this subpart limitations in paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) for any other pollutants covered in this must achieve the following new source of this section, as applicable, by section as appropriate under 40 CFR performance standards (NSPS), as monitoring for all pollutants (except for 122.44(i) and 122.45(h). applicable. AOX and COD) at the point where the (a) The following standards apply to wastewater containing those pollutants each new source regardless of when it leaves the bleach plant. The permitting commenced discharge:

SUBPART E [1982 NSPS]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Pollutant or pollutant Continuous dischargers property Average of daily values for Non-continuous dischargers (annual average) Maximum for any 1 day 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... 4.38exp(0.017x) ...... 2.36exp(0.017x) ...... Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days divided by 1.91. TSS ...... 5.81exp(0.017x) ...... 3.03exp(0.017x) ...... Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days divided by 1.90. pH ...... (1) ...... (1) ...... (1) x = percent sulfite pulp in final product. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line that commences discharge after June 15, 1998. (1) The following standards apply to all new sources in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18681

SUBPART E [Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

NSPS (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPSÐContinued

NSPS (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

COD ...... (c)(c)(c)(c) a ``

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

NSPS (TCF)

Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous dischargers Non-continuous dischargers Maximum for Maximum for Annual any 1 day Monthly average any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1000 lb) of product

AOX ......

(c) The following standards apply to each new source regardless of when it commenced discharge, unless it certifies to the permitting authority that it is not using these compounds as biocides. Also, for non-continuous dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply. Concentration limitations will only apply to non-continuous dischargers:

SUBPART E [Supplemental NSPS]

Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.015)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0036exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.094)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y x = percent sulfite pulp in final product. y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(d) Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and requirements on internal wastestreams treatment works must: comply with 40 122.45(h), a discharger must for any other pollutants covered in this CFR part 403; and achieve the following demonstrate compliance with the section as appropriate under 40 CFR pretreatment standards for existing standards in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3) 122.44(i) and 122.45(h). sources (PSES). of this section, as applicable, by (a) The following pretreatment monitoring for all pollutants (except for § 430.56 Pretreatment standards for standards must be attained on or before existing sources (PSES). AOX, COD, BOD5, TSS, and pH) at the April 16, 2001. point where the wastewater containing Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 (1) The following pretreatment those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. and 403.13, any existing source subject standards apply to all indirect dis- The permitting authority may impose to this subpart that introduces chargers in the calcium-, magnesium-, effluent limitations and/or monitoring pollutants into a publicly owned or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment:

SUBPART E [Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite Pulps]

PSES Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ...... >ML a (b) a ``

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

PSES Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

(ii) The following pretreatment standards apply with respect to each new source fiber line operated by an indirect discharger producing ammonium-based sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger discloses to the pretreatment control authority in a report submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes at that fiber line:

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

PSNS (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

SUBPART EÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

PSES Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

(ii) The following pretreatment sulfite pulps if the indirect discharger TCF bleaching processes at that fiber standards apply with respect to each discloses to the pretreatment control line. These pretreatment standards must fiber line operated by an indirect authority in a report submitted under 40 be attained on or before April 16, 2001: discharger producing specialty grade CFR 403.12(b) that it uses exclusively

SUBPART E

PSES (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

SUBPART E

Supplemental PSES

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.011)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18685

SUBPART EÐContinued

Supplemental PSES

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any 1 day kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Milligrams/liter

Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0043exp(0.017x) ...... ((0.082)(12.67)exp(0.017x))/y x = percent sulfite pulp in final product. y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(c) An indirect discharger must demonstrate compliance with the pretreatment standards in paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, as applicable, by monitoring for all pollutants at the point where the wastewater containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. § 430.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). (a) (1) The following pretreatment standards apply to each indirect discharger in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment that is a new source:

SUBPART E [Production of Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Pulps]

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

AOX ......

SUBPART E.ÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

SUBPART E.ÐPRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM-BASED SULFITE PULPS

PSNS (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

SUBPART E.ÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

TCDD a ......

SUBPART E.ÐPRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY GRADE SULFITE PULPS

PSNS (TCF) Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly any 1 day average

AOX ......

SUBPART E

Supplemental PSNS Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00058exp ((0.015)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y (0.017x). Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0043exp ((0.114)(9.12)exp(0.017x))/y (0.017x). x = percent sulfite pulp in final product. y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18687

(c) An indirect discharger must Subpart FÐSemi-Chemical § 430.62 Effluent limitations representing demonstrate compliance with the Subcategory the degree of effluent reduction attainable pretreatment standards in paragraphs by the application of the best practicable § 430.60 Applicability; description of the (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, as control technology currently available semi-chemical subcategory. (BPT). applicable, by monitoring for all The provisions of this subpart are pollutants at the point where the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 applicable to discharges resulting from wastewater containing those pollutants the integrated production of pulp and through 125.32, any existing point leaves the bleach plant. paper at semi-chemical mills. source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent § 430.58 Best management practices § 430.61 Specialized definitions. limitations representing the degree of (BMPs). For the purpose of this subpart, the effluent reduction attainable by the The definitions and requirements set general definitions, abbreviations, and application of the best practicable forth in 40 CFR 430.03 apply to facilities methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR control technology currently available in this subpart. part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall (BPT): apply to this subpart.

SUBPART F [BPT effluent limitations for ammonia base mills]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Average Pollutant or pollutant property of daily Maximum for values for any 1 day 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... 8.0 4.0 TSS ...... 10.0 5.0 pH ...... (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART F [BPT effluent limitations for sodium base mills]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Average Pollutant or pollutant property of daily Maximum for values for any 1 day 30 consecutive days

BOD5 ...... 8.7 4.35 TSS ...... 11.0 5.5 pH ...... (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.63 Effluent limitations guidelines available (BPT), except that non- effluent limitations representing the representing the degree of effluent continuous dischargers shall not be degree of effluent reduction attainable reduction attainable by the application of subject to the maximum day and by the application of the best available the best conventional pollutant control average-of-30-consecutive-days technology (BCT). technology economically achievable limitations, but shall be subject to (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 annual average effluent limitations shall not be subject to the maximum day through 125.32, any existing point determined by dividing the average-of- mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb), source subject to this subpart shall 30-consecutive-days limitations for but shall be subject to concentration achieve the following effluent BOD5 by 1.36 and TSS by 1.36. limitations. Concentration limitations limitations representing the degree of § 430.64 Effluent limitations representing are only applicable to non-continuous effluent reduction attainable by the the degree of effluent reduction attainable dischargers. Permittees not using application of the best conventional by the application of the best available chlorophenolic-containing biocides pollutant control technology (BCT): The technology economically achievable (BAT). must certify to the permit-issuing limitations shall be the same as those Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 authority that they are not using these specified for conventional pollutants through 125.32, any existing point biocides: (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in source subject to this subpart where § 430.62 of this subpart for the best chlorophenolic-containing biocides are practicable control technology currently used must achieve the following 18688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART F

BAT effluent limitations Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0012 (0.029)(10.3)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00043 (0.010)(10.3)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.65 New source performance effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, chlorophenolic-containing biocides are standards (NSPS). but shall be subject to annual average used shall be subject to Any new source subject to this effluent limitations. Also, for non- pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol subpart must achieve the following new continuous dischargers, concentration limitations. Permittees not using source performance standards (NSPS), limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides except that non-continuous dischargers provided. Concentration limitations will must certify to the permit-issuing shall not be subject to the maximum day only apply to non-continuous authority that they are not using these and average of 30 consecutive days dischargers. Only facilities where biocides:

SUBPART F [NSPS]

BOD5 ...... 3.0 1.6 0.84 TSS ...... 5.8 3.0 1.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0012 (0.041)(7.3)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00043 (0.014)(7.3)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.66 Pretreatment standards for treatment works must: comply with 40 using chlorophenolic-containing existing sources (PSES). CFR part 403; and achieve the following biocides must certify to the permit- Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 pretreatment standards for existing issuing authority that they are not using and 403.13, any existing source subject sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic- these biocides. PSES must be attained to this subpart that introduces containing biocides. Permittees not on or before July 1, 1984: pollutants into a publicly owned

SUBPART F

PSES Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(10.3)/y ...... 0.0014 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18689

SUBPART FÐContinued

PSES Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(10.3)/y ...... 0.00043 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

§ 430.67 Pretreatment standards for new publicly owned treatment works must: biocides. Permittees not using sources (PSNS). comply with 40 CFR part 403; and chlorophenolic-containing biocides Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, achieve the following pretreatment must certify to the permit-issuing any new source subject to this subpart standards for new sources (PSNS) if it authority that they are not using these that introduces pollutants into a uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides:

SUBPART F

PSNS Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.045)(7.3)/y ...... 0.0014 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.014)(7.3)/y ...... 0.00043 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

Subpart GÐMechanical Pulp pulp and fine paper at groundwood point source subject to this subpart must Subcategory mills. achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of § 430.71 Specialized definitions. § 430.70 Applicability; description of the effluent reduction attainable by the mechanical pulp subcategory. For the purpose of this subpart, the application of the best practicable general definitions, abbreviations, and The provisions of this subpart are control technology currently available methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR applicable to discharges resulting from: (BPT), except that non-continuous the production of pulp and paper at part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall apply to this subpart. dischargers shall not be subject to the groundwood chemi-mechanical mills; maximum day and average of 30 the production of pulp and paper at § 430.72 Effluent limitations representing consecutive days limitations but shall groundwood mills through the the degree of effluent reduction attainable be subject to annual average effluent application of the thermo-mechanical by the application of the best practicable limitations: process; the integrated production of control technology currently available pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp (BPT). products, and newsprint at groundwood (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR mills; and the integrated production of 125.30 through 125.32, any existing

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

BOD5 ...... 13.5 7.05 3.96 TSS ...... 19.75 10.65 5.85 18690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART GÐContinued [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

BOD5 ...... 10.6 5.55 3.12 TSS ...... 15.55 8.35 4.59 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 7.45 3.9 2.19 TSS ...... 12.75 6.85 3.76 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 6.85 3.6 2.0 TSS ...... 11.75 6.3 3.5 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

1 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18691

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.9 0.45 0.25 TSS ...... 2.6 1.45 0.80 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

BOD5 ...... 0.9 0.45 0.3 TSS ...... 2.7 1.45 0.75 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 1.15 0.55 0.30 TSS ...... 2.0 1.1 0.60 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18692 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 1.1 0.55 0.35 TSS ...... 1.95 1.1 0.60 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. (c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by this section, resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs and/ or chips which are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days limitations, but shall be subject to the annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.05 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.25 0.15 0.10 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

BOD5 ...... 0.05 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.30 0.15 0.05 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18693

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.20 0.15 0.10 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.2 0.15 0.10 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. (d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the proportion of the mill’s total production due to use of logs which are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to the annual average effluent limitations:

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.55 0.3 0.15 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

BOD5 ...... 0.15 0.15 0.05 TSS ...... 0.60 0.35 0.15 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 0.25 0.1 0.05 TSS ...... 0.45 0.25 0.15 pH ...... (1) (1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 0.2 0.05 0.05 TSS ...... 0.4 0.25 0.15 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. (e) For those mills using zinc hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent in the manufacturing process, the following effluent limitations are to be added to the base limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Permittees not using zinc hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must certify to the permit issuing authority that they are not using this bleaching compound. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18695

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills are produced]

Zinc ...... 0.34 0.17 0.11

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

Zinc ...... 0.26 0.13 0.09

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Zinc ...... 0.30 0.15 0.10

SUBPART G [BPT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Zinc ...... 0.275 0.135 0.090

§ 430.73 Effluent limitations guidelines integrated production of pulp and (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR representing the degree of effluent coarse paper, molded pulp products, 125.30 through 125.32, any existing reduction attainable by the application of and newsprint at groundwood mills point source subject to this subpart shall the best conventional pollutant control occurs; and mechanical pulp facilities achieve the following effluent technology (BCT). where the integrated production of pulp limitations representing the degree of (a)(1) The following applies to: and fine paper at groundwood mills effluent reduction attainable by the mechanical pulp facilities where the occurs: application of the best conventional 18696 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations pollutant control technology (BCT): The production of pulp and coarse paper, concentration limitations. Concentration limitations shall be the same as those molded pulp products, and newsprint at limitations are only applicable to non- specified for conventional pollutants groundwood mills occurs; and continuous dischargers. (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in mechanical pulp facilities where the Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol § 430.72 of this subpart for the best integrated production of pulp and fine limitations are only applicable at practicable control technology currently paper at groundwood mills occurs: facilities where chlorophenolic- available (BPT). except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 containing biocides are used. Permittees (b) [Reserved] through 125.32, any existing point not using chlorophenolic-containing § 430.74 Effluent limitations representing source subject to this subpart must biocides must certify to the permit- the degree of effluent reduction attainable achieve the following effluent issuing authority that they are not using by the application of the best available limitations representing the degree of these biocides. Zinc limitations are only technology economically achievable (BAT). effluent reduction attainable by the applicable at facilities where zinc (a) The following applies to application of the best available hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching mechanical pulp facilities where pulp technology economically achievable agent. Permittees not using zinc and paper at groundwood mills are (BAT), except that non-continuous hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must produced through the application of the dischargers shall not be subject to the certify to the permit issuing authority thermo-mechanical process; mechanical maximum day mass limitations in kg/ that they are not using this bleaching pulp facilities where the integrated kkg (lb/1000 lb), but shall be subject to compound:

SUBPART G [BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00097 (0.011)(21.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00088 (0.010)(21.1)/y Zinc ...... 0.26 (3.0)(21.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART G [BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0011 (0.011)(23.8)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00099 (0.010)(23.8)/y Zinc ...... 0.30 (3.0)(23.8)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART G [BAT effluent limitations for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0010 (0.011)(21.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00092 (0.010)(21.9)/y Zinc ...... 0.27 (3.0)(21.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

(b) [Reserved] § 430.75 New source performance and paper at groundwood mills are standards (NSPS). produced through the application of the (a) The following applies to thermo-mechanical process; mechanical mechanical pulp facilities where pulp pulp facilities where the integrated Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18697 production of pulp and coarse paper, limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall biocides must certify to the permit- molded pulp products, and newsprint at be subject to annual average effluent issuing authority that they are not using groundwood mills occurs; and limitations. Also, for non-continuous these biocides. Zinc limitations are only mechanical pulp facilities where the dischargers, concentration limitations applicable at facilities where zinc integrated production of pulp and fine (mg/l) shall apply, where provided. hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching paper at groundwood mills occurs: any Concentration limitations will only agent. Permittees not using zinc new source subject to this subpart must apply to non-continuous dischargers. hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must achieve the following new source Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol certify to the permit issuing authority performance standards (NSPS), except limitations are only applicable at that they are not using this bleaching that non-continuous dischargers shall facilities where chlorophenolic- compound: not be subject to the maximum day and containing biocides are used. Permittees average of 30 consecutive days effluent not using chlorophenolic-containing

SUBPART G [NSPS for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

BOD5 ...... 4.6 2.5 1.3 TSS ...... 8.7 4.6 2.4 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00097 (0.017)(13.8)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00088 (0.015)(13.8)/y Zinc ...... 0.17 (3.0)(13.8)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART G [NSPS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 4.6 2.5 1.3 TSS ...... 7.3 3.8 2.0 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0011 (0.016)(16.8)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00099 (0.014)(16.8)/y Zinc ...... 0.21 (3.0)(16.8)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. 18698 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G [NSPS mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

BOD5 ...... 3.5 1.9 0.99 TSS ...... 5.8 3.0 1.58 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0010 (0.016) (15.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00092 (0.014) (15.4)/y Zinc ...... 0.19 (3.0) (15.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) [Reserved] mechanical pulp facilities where the containing biocides are used. Permittees integrated production of pulp and fine not using chlorophenolic-containing § 430.76 Pretreatment standards for paper at groundwood mills occurs: biocides must certify to the permit- existing sources (PSES). except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and issuing authority that they are not using (a) The following applies to 403.13, any existing source subject to these biocides. Zinc limitations are only mechanical pulp facilities where pulp this subpart that introduces pollutants applicable at facilities where zinc and paper at groundwood mills are into a publicly owned treatment works hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching produced through the application of the must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and agent. Permittees not using zinc thermo-mechanical process; mechanical achieve the following pretreatment hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must pulp facilities where the integrated standards for existing sources (PSES). certify to the permit-issuing authority production of pulp and coarse paper, Pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol that they are not using this bleaching molded pulp products, and newsprint at limitations are only applicable at compound. PSES must be attained on or groundwood mills occurs; and facilities where chlorophenolic- before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART G [PSES for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/1) 1,000 1b) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011) (21.1)/y ...... 0.00097 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010) (21.1)/y ...... 0.00088 Zinc ...... (3.0) (21.1)/y ...... 0.26 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18699

SUBPART G [PSES for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/1) 1,000 1b) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011) (23.8)/y ...... 0.0011 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010) (23.8)/y ...... 0.00099 Zinc ...... (3.0) (23.8)/y ...... 0.30 y = wasterwater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART G [PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Maximum for any 1 day

Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.011)(21.9)/y ...... 0.0010 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(21.9)/y ...... 0.00092 Zinc ...... (3.0)(21.9)/y ...... 0.27 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

(b) [Reserved] mechanical pulp facilities where the used. Permittees not using integrated production of pulp and fine chlorophenolic-containing biocides § 430.77 Pretreatment standards for new paper at groundwood mills occurs: sources (PSNS). must certify to the permit-issuing except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any authority that they are not using these (a) The following applies to new source subject to this subpart that biocides. Zinc limitations are only mechanical pulp facilities where pulp introduces pollutants into a publicly applicable at facilities where zinc and paper at groundwood mills are owned treatment works must comply hydrosulfite is used as a bleaching produced through the application of the with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the agent. Permittees not using zinc thermo-mechanical process; mechanical following pretreatment standards for hydrosulfite as a bleaching agent must pulp facilities where the integrated new sources (PSNS). Pentachlorophenol certify to the permit issuing authority production of pulp and coarse paper, and trichlorophenol limitations are only that they are not using this bleaching molded pulp products, and newsprint at applicable at facilities where compound: groundwood mills occurs; and chlorophenolic-containing biocides are

SUBPART G [PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where pulp and paper at groundwood mills are produced through the application of the thermo-mechanical process]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.017)(13.8)/y ...... 0.00097 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.015)(13.8)/y ...... 0.00088 Zinc ...... (3.0)(13.8)/y ...... 0.17 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. 18700 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART G [PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products, and newsprint at groundwood mills occurs]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.016)(16.8)/y ...... 0.0011 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.014)(16.8)/y ...... 0.00099 Zinc ...... (3.0)(16.8)/y ...... 0.21 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART G [PSNS for mechanical pulp facilities where the integrated production of pulp and fine paper at groundwood mills occurs]

Maximum for any 1 day

Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.016)(15.4)/y ...... 0.0010 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.014)(15.4)/y ...... 0.00092 Zinc ...... (3.0)(15.4)/y ...... 0.19 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

(b) [Reserved] § 430.82 Effluent limitations representing the integrated production of pulp and the degree of effluent reduction attainable paper at deink mills. Subpart HÐNon-Wood Chemical Pulp by the application of best practicable Subcategory control technology currently available § 430.91 Specialized definitions. (BPT). [Reserved] For the purpose of this subpart, the § 430.80 Applicability; description of the § 430.83 Effluent limitations representing general definitions, abbreviations, and non-wood chemical pulp subcategory. the degree of effluent reduction attainable methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR The provisions of this subpart are by the application of best conventional part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall applicable to discharges resulting from pollutant control technology (BCT). apply to this subpart. [Reserved] the production of pulp and paper at § 430.92 Effluent limitations representing non-wood chemical pulp mills. This § 430.84 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable subcategory includes, but is not limited the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable to, mills producing non-wood pulps by the application of best available control technology currently available from chemical pulping processes such technology economically achievable (BAT). (BPT). [Reserved] as kraft, sulfite, or soda. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.85 New source performance through 125.32, any existing point § 430.81 Specialized definitions. standards (NSPS). [Reserved] source subject to this subpart must The general definitions, abbreviations, achieve the following effluent § 430.86 Pretreatment standards for limitations representing the degree of and methods of analysis set forth in 40 existing sources (PSES). [Reserved] CFR 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall effluent reduction attainable by the apply to this subpart. § 430.87 Pretreatment standards for new application of the best practicable sources (PSNS). [Reserved] control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous Subpart IÐSecondary Fiber Deink dischargers shall not be subject to the Subcategory maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days limitations but shall § 430.90 Applicability; description of the secondary fiber deink subcategory. be subject to annual average effluent The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18701

SUBPART I [BPT effluent limitations]

BOD5 ...... 18.1 9.4 5.3 TSS ...... 24.05 12.95 7.12 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.93 Effluent limitations guidelines (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in degree of effluent reduction attainable representing the degree of effluent § 430.92 of this subpart for the best by the application of the best available reduction attainable by the application of practicable control technology currently technology economically achievable the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). available (BPT). (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.94 Effluent limitations representing shall not be subject to the maximum day through 125.32, any existing point the degree of effluent reduction attainable mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) source subject to this subpart shall by the application of the best available but shall be subject to concentration achieve the following effluent technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations. Concentration limitations limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 are only applicable to non-continuous effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point dischargers. Permittees not using application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing biocides pollutant control technology (BCT): The chlorophenolic-containing biocides are must certify to the permit-issuing limitations shall be the same as those used must achieve the following authority that they are not using these specified for conventional pollutants effluent limitations representing the biocides:

SUBPART I [Facilities where fine or tissue paper is produced]

BAT effluent limitations Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.029)(24.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0069 (0.068)(24.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART I [Facilities where newsprint is produced]

BAT effluent limitations Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.029)(24.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0010 (0.010)(24.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.95 New source performance source performance standards (NSPS), effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, standards (NSPS). except that non-continuous dischargers but shall be subject to annual average Any new source subject to this shall not be subject to the maximum day effluent limitations. Also, for non- subpart must achieve the following new and average of 30 consecutive days continuous dischargers, concentration 18702 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides are chlorophenolic-containing biocides provided. Concentration limitations will used shall be subject to must certify to the permit-issuing only apply to non-continuous pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol authority that they are not using these dischargers. Only facilities where limitations. Permittees not using biocides:

SUBPART I [Facilities where fine paper is produced] [NSPS]

BOD5 ...... 5.7 3.1 1.6 TSS ...... 8.7 4.6 2.4 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.045)(15.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0069 (0.104)(15.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART I [Facilities where tissue paper is produced] [NSPS]

BOD5 ...... 9.6 5.2 2.72 TSS ...... 13.1 6.8 3.58 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.036)(19.5)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0069 (0.085)(19.5)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18703

SUBPART I [Facilities where newsprint is produced] [NSPS]

BOD5 ...... 6.0 3.2 1.7 TSS ...... 12.0 6.3 3.3 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.044)(16.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0010 (0.015)(16.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. § 430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART I [Facilities where fine or tissue paper is produced]

PSES Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(24.4)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.082)(24.4)/y ...... 0.0084 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I [Facilities where newsprint is produced]

PSES Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(24.4)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(24.4)/y ...... 0.0010 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations. 18704 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

§ 430.97 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART I [Facilities where fine paper is produced]

PSNS Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.049)(15.9)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.126)(15.9)/y ...... 0.0084 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I [Facilities where tissue paper is produced]

PSNS Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg (or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.040)(19.5)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.103)(19.5)/y ...... 0.0084 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

SUBPART I [Facilities where newsprint is produced]

PSNS Maximum for any 1 day Pollutant or pollutant property Kg/kkg ( or pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.048)(16.2)/y ...... 0.0033 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.015)(16.2)/y ...... 0.0010 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass equivalent limitations.

Subpart JÐSecondary Fiber Non- from wastepaper without deinking at (b) Noncorrugating medium furnish Deink Subcategory secondary fiber mills; and builders’ subdivision mills are mills where paper and roofing felt from wastepaper. recycled corrugating medium is not § 430.100 Applicability; description of the used in the production of paperboard. secondary fiber non-deink subcategory. § 430.101 Specialized definitions. (c) Corrugating medium furnish The provisions of this subpart are For the purpose of this subpart: subdivision mills are mills where only applicable to discharges resulting from (a) Except as provided below, the the production of: paperboard from general definitions, abbreviations, and recycled corrugating medium is used in wastepaper; tissue paper from methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR the production of paperboard. wastepaper without deinking at part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall secondary fiber mills; molded products apply to this subpart. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18705

§ 430.102 Effluent limitations representing point source subject to this subpart must control technology currently available the degree of effluent reduction attainable achieve the following effluent (BPT): by the application of the best practicable limitations representing the degree of control technology currently available (BPT). effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing

SUBPART J [BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is producedÐnoncorrugating medium finish subdivision]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Average of Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 3.0 1.5 TSS ...... 5.0 2.5 pH ...... (1)(1)

1 1Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is producedÐcorrugating medium finish subdivision]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Average of Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 5.7 2.8 TSS ...... 9.2 4.6 pH ...... (1)(1)

1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Average of Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 5.0 3.0 TSS ...... 5.0 3.0 pH ...... (1)(1) Setteable Solids ...... (2)(2)

1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 2 Not to exceed 0.2 ml/l.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations: 18706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J [BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average days days)

BOD5 ...... 13.7 7.1 4.0 TSS ...... 17.05 9.2 5.1 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [BPT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average days days)

BOD5 ...... 4.4 2.3 1.3 TSS ...... 10.8 5.8 3.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.103 Effluent limitations guidelines average-of-30-consecutive-days source subject to this subpart where representing the degree of effluent limitations, but shall be subject to chlorophenolic-containing biocides are reduction attainable by the application of annual average effluent limitations used must achieve the following the best conventional pollutant control determined by dividing the average-of- technology (BCT). effluent limitations representing the 30-consecutive-days limitations for degree of effluent reduction attainable (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR BOD5 and TSS by 1.77 and 2.18. 125.30 through 125.32, any existing by the application of the best available (c) For secondary fiber non-deink technology economically achievable point source subject to this subpart shall facilities where builders’ paper and achieve the following effluent (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers roofing felt from wastepaper are shall not be subject to the maximum day limitations representing the degree of produced, non-continuous dischargers effluent reduction attainable by the mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) shall not be subject to the maximum day but shall be subject to concentration application of the best conventional and average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations. Concentration limitations pollutant control technology (BCT): The limitations, but shall be subject to are only applicable to non-continuous limitations shall be the same as those annual average effluent limitations dischargers. Permittees not using specified for conventional pollutants determined by dividing the average-of- (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in 30-consecutive-days limitations for chlorophenolic-containing biocides § 430.102 of this subpart for the best BOD5 and TSS by 1.90 and 1.90. must certify to the permit-issuing practicable control technology currently authority that they are not using these available (BPT). § 430.104 Effluent limitations representing biocides: (b) For secondary fiber non-deink the degree of effluent reduction attainable facilities where paperboard from by the application of the best available wastepaper is produced, non- technology economically achievable (BAT). continuous dischargers shall not be Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 subject to the maximum day and through 125.32, any existing point Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18707

SUBPART J [BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00087 (0.029)(7.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00030 (0.010)(7.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J [BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0017 (0.029)(14.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00060 (0.010)(14.4)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J [BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.029)(25.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0011 (0.010)(25.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J [BAT effluent limitations for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0026 (0.029)(21.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00088 (0.010)(21.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.105 New source performance effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, chlorophenolic-containing biocides are standards (NSPS). but shall be subject to annual average used shall be subject to Any new source subject to this effluent limitations. Also, for non- pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol subpart must achieve the following new continuous dischargers, concentration limitations. Permittees not using source performance standards (NSPS), limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides except that non-continuous dischargers provided. Concentration limitations will must certify to the permit-issuing shall not be subject to the maximum day only apply to non-continuous authority that they are not using these and average of 30 consecutive days dischargers. Only facilities where biocides: 18708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is producedÐnoncorrugating medium furnish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 2.6 1.4 0.73 TSS ...... 3.5 1.8 0.95 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00087 (0.065)(3.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00030 (0.023)(3.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is producedÐcorrugating medium finish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 3.9 2.1 1.1 TSS ...... 4.4 2.3 1.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.00087 (0.065)(3.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00030 (0.023)(3.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

BOD5 ...... 1.7 0.94 0.49 TSS ...... 2.7 1.40 0.74 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18709

SUBPART JÐContinued [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0017 (0.155)(2.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00060 (0.053)(2.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

BOD5 ...... 4.6 2.5 1.3 TSS ...... 10.2 5.3 2.8 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0030 (0.045)(16.3)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0011 (0.015)(16.3)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART J [NSPS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

BOD5 ...... 2.1 1.1 0.58 TSS ...... 4.4 2.3 1.21 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 18710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0026 (0.107)(5.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00088 (0.037)(5.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.106 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic- containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART J [PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of producta

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(7.2)/y ...... 0.00096 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(7.2)/y ...... 0.00030 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J [PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(14.4)y ...... 0.0019 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(14.4)y ...... 0.00060 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J [PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(25.2)y ...... 0.0034 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(25.2)/y ...... 0.0011 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART J [PSES for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(21.1)y ...... 0.0028 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(21.1)y ...... 0.00088 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.107 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART J [PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where paperboard from wastepaper is produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.072)(3.2)/y ...... 0.00096 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.023)(3.2)/y ...... 0.00030 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J [PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where builders' paper and roofing felt from wastepaper are produced]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.171)(2.7)/y ...... 0.0019 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.053)(2.7)/y ...... 0.00060 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART J [PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where tissue from wastepaper is produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.049)(16.3)/y 0.0034 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.015)(16.3)/y 0.0011 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. 18712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART J [PSNS for secondary fiber non-deink facilities where molded products from wastepaper are produced without deinking]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.118)(5.7)/y ...... 0.0028 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.037)(5.7)/y ...... 0.00088 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart KÐFine and Lightweight and § 430.01 of this part shall apply to § 430.112 Effluent limitations representing Papers from Purchased Pulp this subpart. the degree of effluent reduction attainable Subcategory by the application of the best practicable (b) Cotton fiber furnish subdivision control technology currently available § 430.110 Applicability; description of the mills are those mills where significant (BPT). fine and lightweight papers from purchased quantities of cotton fibers (equal to or Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 pulp subcategory. greater than 4 percent of the total through 125.32, any existing point The provisions of this subpart are product) are used in the production of source subject to this subpart must applicable to discharges resulting from fine papers. achieve the following effluent the production of: fine paper at (c) Wood fiber furnish subdivision limitations representing the degree of nonintegrated mills; and lightweight mills are those mills where cotton fibers effluent reduction attainable by the paper at nonintegrated mills. are not used in the production of fine application of the best practicable papers. control technology currently available § 430.111 Specialized definitions. (BPT), except that non-continuous For the purpose of this subpart: dischargers shall not be subject to the (a) Except as provided in paragraphs maximum day and average of 30 (b) and (c) of this section, the general consecutive days limitations but shall definitions, abbreviations, and methods be subject to annual average effluent of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 limitations:

SUBPART K [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐwood fiber furnish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 8.2 4.25 2.4 TSS ...... 11.0 5.9 3.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 17.4 9.1 5.1 TSS ...... 24.3 13.1 7.2 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18713

SUBPART KÐContinued [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

SUBPART K [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product

Continuous dischargers Non-contin- Pollutant or pollutant property Average of uous dis- Maximum daily values chargers for any 1 for 30 con- (annual day secutive average) days

BOD5 ...... 24.1 13.2 7.37 TSS ...... 21.6 10.6 6.0 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulpÐ electrical grade papers subdivision

BOD5 ...... 38.0 20.9 11.7 TSS ...... 34.2 16.7 9.5 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.113 Effluent limitations guidelines § 430.102 of this subpart for the best technology economically achievable representing the degree of effluent practicable control technology currently (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers reduction attainable by the application of available (BPT). shall not be subject to the maximum day the best conventional pollutant control mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) technology (BCT). § 430.114 Effluent limitations representing but shall be subject to concentration Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available limitations. Concentration limitations through 125.32, any existing point technology economically achievable (BAT). are only applicable to non-continuous source subject to this subpart shall dischargers. Permittees not using achieve the following effluent Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 chlorophenolic-containing biocides limitations representing the degree of through 125.32, any existing point must certify to the permit-issuing effluent reduction attainable by the source subject to this subpart where authority that they are not using these application of the best conventional chlorophenolic-containing biocides are biocides: pollutant control technology (BCT): The used must achieve the following limitations shall be the same as those effluent limitations representing the specified for conventional pollutants degree of effluent reduction attainable (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in by the application of the best available 18714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART K [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐwood fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0018 (0.029)(15.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00064 (0.010)(15.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0051 (0.029)(42.3)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0018 (0.010)(42.3)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0059 (0.029)(48.7)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0020 (0.010)(48.7)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART K [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulpÐelectrical grade papers subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0093 (0.029)(76.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0032 (0.010)(76.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.115 New source performance standards (NSPS). Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall be subject to annual average effluent limitations. Also, for non-continuous dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where provided. Concentration limitations will only apply to non-continuous dischargers. Only facilities where chlorophenolic-containing biocides are used shall be subject to pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol limitations. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18715

SUBPART K [NSPS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐwood fiber furnish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 3.5 1.9 1.0 TSS ...... 4.4 2.3 1.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0018 (0.047)(9.4)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00064 (0.016)(9.4)/y y=wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART K [NSPS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 7.8 4.2 2.2 TSS ...... 9.5 4.9 2.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0051 (0.039)(31.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0018 (0.014)(31.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. SUBPART K [NSPS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 13.7 6.7 4.5 TSS ...... 12.0 5.2 3.2 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 18716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0059 (0.037)(38.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0020 (0.013)(38.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. SUBPART K [NSPS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulpÐelectrical grade papers subdivision]

BOD5 ...... 24.1 11.7 7.9 TSS ...... 21.1 9.2 5.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0093 (0.033)(66.8)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0032 (0.012)(66.8)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. § 430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic- containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART K [PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐwood fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(15.2)/y ...... 0.0020 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(15.2)/y ...... 0.00064 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K [PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(42.3)/y ...... 0.0056 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18717

SUBPART KÐContinued [PSES for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(42.3)/y ...... 0.0018 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K [PSES for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(48.7)/y ...... 0.0065 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(48.7)/y ...... 0.0032 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K [PSES for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulpÐelectrical grade papers subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(76.9)/y ...... 0.010 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(76.9)/y ...... 0.0032 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

§ 430.117 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART K [PSNS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐwood fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.052)(9.4)/y ...... 0.0020 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.016)(9.4)/y ...... 0.0064 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. 18718 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART K [PSNS for non-integrated mills where fine paper is produced from purchased pulpÐcotton fiber furnish subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.044)(31.1)/y ...... 0.0056 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.014)(31.1)/y ...... 0.0018 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K [PSNS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.041)(38.2)/y ...... 0.0065 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.013)(38.2)/y ...... 0.0020 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART K [PSNS for non-integrated mills where lightweight papers are produced from purchased pulpÐelectrical grade papers subdivision]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.037)(66.8)/y ...... 0.010 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.012)(66.8)/y ...... 0.0032 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart LÐTissue, Filter, Non-Woven, § 430.121 Specialized definitions. limitations representing the degree of and Paperboard From Purchased Pulp For the purpose of this subpart, the effluent reduction attainable by the Subcategory general definitions, abbreviations, and application of the best practicable methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR control technology currently available § 430.120 Applicability; description of the tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard part 401 and § 430.01 of this part shall (BPT), except that non-continuous from purchased pulp subcategory. apply to this subpart. dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 The provisions of this subpart are § 430.122 Effluent limitations representing applicable to discharges resulting from the degree of effluent reduction attainable consecutive days limitations but shall the production of tissue papers at non- by the application of the best practicable be subject to annual average effluent integrated mills, filter and non-woven control technology currently available limitations: papers at non-integrated mills, and (BPT). paperboard at non-integrated mills. The Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 production of electrical grades of board through 125.32, any existing point and matrix board is not included in this source subject to this subpart must subpart. achieve the following effluent Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18719

SUBPART L [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 11.4 6.25 3.49 TSS ...... 10.25 5.0 2.84 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 29.6 16.3 9.1 TSS ...... 26.6 13.0 7.4 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L [BPT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of product Non-continuous dischargers (Annual average) Pollutant or pollutant property Continuous Average of dischargers Maximum daily values for any 1 for 30 con- day secutive days

BOD5 ...... 6.5 3.6 2.0 TSS ...... 5.8 2.8 1.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 430.123 Effluent limitations guidelines (which are defined in 40 CFR 401.16) in degree of effluent reduction attainable representing the degree of effluent § 430.122 of this subpart for the best by the application of the best available reduction attainable by the application of practicable control technology currently technology economically achievable the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). available (BPT). (BAT). Non-continuous dischargers Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 430.124 Effluent limitations representing shall not be subject to the maximum day through 125.32, any existing point the degree of effluent reduction attainable mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) source subject to this subpart shall by the application of the best available but shall be subject to concentration achieve the following effluent technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations. Concentration limitations limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 are only applicable to non-continuous effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point dischargers. Permittees not using application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing biocides pollutant control technology (BCT): The chlorophenolic-containing biocides are must certify to the permit-issuing limitations shall be the same as those used must achieve the following authority that they are not using these specified for conventional pollutants effluent limitations representing the biocides: 18720 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

SUBPART L [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0028 (0.029)(22.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00096 (0.010)(22.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART L [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0072 (0.029)(59.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0025 (0.010)(59.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

SUBPART L [BAT effluent limitations for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.029)(12.9)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00054 (0.010)(12.9)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product.

§ 430.125 New source performance effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, chlorophenolic-containing biocides are standards (NSPS). but shall be subject to annual average used shall be subject to Any new source subject to this effluent limitations. Also, for non- pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol subpart must achieve the following new continuous dischargers, concentration limitations. Permittees not using source performance standards (NSPS), limitations (mg/l) shall apply, where chlorophenolic-containing biocides except that non-continuous dischargers provided. Concentration limitations will must certify to the permit-issuing shall not be subject to the maximum day only apply to non-continuous authority that they are not using these and average of 30 consecutive days dischargers. Only facilities where biocides:

SUBPART L [NSPS for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 7.0 3.4 2.3 TSS ...... 6.0 2.6 1.6 pH ...... (1)(1)(1) Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18721

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0028 (0.035)(19.1)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00096 (0.012)(19.1)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L [NSPS for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 17.1 8.3 5.6 TSS ...... 15.0 6.6 4.0 pH ...... (1) (1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0072 (0.037)(47.5)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.0025 (0.013)(47.5)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. 1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

SUBPART L [NSPS for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

BOD5 ...... 4.0 1.9 1.3 TSS ...... 3.5 1.5 0.9 pH ...... (1)(1)(1)

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter product

Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.0016 (0.033)(11.2)/y Trichlorophenol ...... 0.00054 (0.012)(11.2)/y y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at all times. (1) Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times. § 430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic- 18722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained on or before July 1, 1984:

SUBPART L [PSES for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(22.9)/y ...... 0.0031 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(22.9)/y ...... 0.00096 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L [PSES for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(59.9)/y ...... 0.0080 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(59.9)/y ...... 0.0025 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L [PSES for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.032)(12.9)/y ...... 0.0017 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.010)(12.9)/y ...... 0.00054 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations. § 430.127 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that they are not using these biocides:

SUBPART L [PSNS for non-integrated mills where tissue papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.038)(19.1)/y ...... 0.0031 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.012)(19.1)/y ...... 0.00096 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limita- Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18723

SUBPART L [PSNS for non-integrated mills where filter and non-woven papers are produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.040)(47.5)/y ...... 0.0080 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.013)(47.5)/y ...... 0.0025 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

SUBPART L [PSNS for non-integrated mills where paperboard is produced from purchased pulp]

Maximum for any 1 day Kg/kkg (or Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of product a

Pentachlorophenol ...... (0.037)(11.2)/y ...... 0.0017 Trichlorophenol ...... (0.012)(11.2)/y ...... 0.00054 y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of product. a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to impose mass effluent limitations.

Appendix A to Part 430—Methods 1650 1.5 Any modification of the method nature of the organo-halides and the presence and 1653 beyond those expressly permitted (Section of semi-extractable material will influence 9.1.2) is subject to application and approval the amount measured and interpretation of Method 1650—Adsorbable Organic Halides of an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR results. by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration 136.4 and 136.5. 3.2 Definitions for terms used in this method are given in the glossary at the end 1.0 Scope and Application 2.0 Summary of Method of the method (Section 18). 1.1 This method is for determination of 2.1 Sample preservation: Residual adsorbable organic halides (AOX) associated chlorine that may be present is removed by 4.0 Interferences with the Clean Water Act; the Resource the addition of sodium thiosulfate. Samples 4.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and Conservation and Recovery Act; the are adjusted to a pH < 2 and maintained at other sample processing hardware may yield Comprehensive Environmental Response, 0 to 4°C until analysis. elevated readings from the micro-coulometer. Compensation, and Liability Act; and other 2.2 Sample analysis: Organic halide in All materials used in the analysis shall be organic halides amenable to combustion and water is determined by adsorption onto demonstrated to be free from interferences coulometric titration. The method is granular activated carbon (GAC), washing the under the conditions of analysis by running designed to meet the survey and monitoring adsorbed sample and GAC to remove method blanks initially and with each requirements of the Environmental inorganic halide, combustion of the sample sample batch (samples started through the Protection Agency (EPA). and GAC to form the hydrogen halide, and adsorption process in a given eight-hour 1.2 The method is applicable to the titration of the hydrogen halide with a micro- shift, to a maximum of 20 samples). Specific selection of reagents and purification of determination of AOX in water and coulometer, as shown in Figure 1. solvents may be required. wastewater. This method is a combination of 2.3 Micro-coulometer. 4.2 Glassware is cleaned by detergent several existing methods for organic halide 2.3.1 This detector operates by maintaining a constant silver-ion washing in hot water, rinsing with tap water measurements (References 1 through 7). concentration in a titration cell. An electric and distilled water, capping with aluminum 1.3 The method can be used to measure potential is applied to a solid silver electrode foil, and baking at 450°C for at least one hour. organically-bound halides (chlorine, to produce silver ions in the cell. As For some glassware, immersion in a chromate bromine, iodine) present in dissolved or hydrogen halide produced from the cleaning solution prior to detergent washing suspended form. Results are reported as combustion of organic halide enters the cell, may be required. If blanks from glassware - organic chloride (Cl ). The detection limit of it is partitioned into an acetic acid electrolyte without cleaning or with fewer cleaning steps the method is usually dependent on where it precipitates as silver halide. The show no detectable organic halide, the interferences rather than instrumental current produced is integrated over the cleaning steps that do not eliminate organic limitations. A method detection limit (MDL; combustion period. The electric charge is halide may be omitted. µ Reference 8) of 6.6 g/L, and a minimum proportional to the number of moles of 4.3 Most often, contamination results µ level (ML; Section 18) of 20 g/L, can be halogen captured in the cell (Reference 6). from methylene chloride vapors in achieved with no interferences present. 2.3.2 The mass concentration of organic laboratories that perform organic extractions. 1.4 This method is for use by or under the halides is reported as an equivalent Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning supervision of analysts experienced in the concentration of organically bound chloride systems that are shared between the use of a combustion/micro-coulometer. Each (Cl¥). extraction laboratory and the laboratory in laboratory that uses this method must which organic halide measurements are demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable 3.0 Definitions performed transfer the methylene chloride results using the procedures described in 3.1 Adsorbable organic halides is defined vapors to the air in the organic halide Section 9.2. as the analyte measured by this method. The laboratory. Exposure of the activated carbon 18724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations used in the analysis results in contamination. 6.1 Sampling equipment. steel borer (2 mm ID) with ejection rod Separate air handling systems, charcoal 6.1.1 Bottles: 100- to 4000-mL, amber (available from Dohrmann or Mitsubishi) to filters, and glove boxes can be used to glass, sufficient for all testing (Section 8.2). hold 40 mg of granular activated carbon minimize this exposure. Detergent water wash, chromic acid rinse, (GAC). Caution: Handle Cerafelt with gloves. 4.4 Activated carbon. rinse with tap and distilled water, cover with 6.4.4 Column holders: To support 4.4.1 The purity of each lot of activated aluminum foil, and heat to 450°C for at least adsorption columns. carbon must be verified before each use by one hour before use. 6.5 Combustion/micro-coulometer measuring the adsorption capacity and the 6.1.2 PTFE liner: Cleaned as above and system: Commercially available as a single background level of halogen (Section 9.5). baked at 100 to 200°C for at least one hour. unit or assembled from parts. At the time of The stock of activated carbon should be 6.1.3 Bottles and liners must be lot the writing of this method, organic halide stored in its granular form in a glass certified to be free of organic halide by units were commercially available from the container that is capped tightly. Protect running blanks according to this method. Dohrmann Division of Rosemount Analytical, carbon at all times from sources of halogen 6.2 Scoop for granular activated carbon Santa Clara, California; Euroglas BV, Delft, vapors. (GAC): Capable of precisely measuring 40 mg the Netherlands; and Mitsubishi Chemical ± 4.4.2 Inorganic substances such as ( 5 mg) GAC (Dohrmann Measuring Cup Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. chloride, chlorite, bromide, and iodide will 521–021, or equivalent). 6.5.1 Combustion system: Older systems adsorb on activated carbon to an extent 6.3 Batch adsorption and filtration may not have all of the features shown in dependent on their original concentration in system. Figure 4. These older systems may be used the aqueous solution and the volume of 6.3.1 Adsorption system: Rotary shaker, provided the performance requirements sample adsorbed. Treating the activated wrist action shaker, ultrasonic system, or (Section 9) of this method are met. other system for assuring thorough contact of carbon with a solution of nitrate causes 6.5.1.1 Combustion tube: Quartz, capable sample with activated carbon. Systems ° competitive desorption of inorganic halide of being heated to 800 to 1000 C and different from the one described below must species. However, if the inorganic halide accommodating a boat sampler. The tube be demonstrated to meet the performance concentration is greater than 2,000 times the must contain an air lock for introduction of requirements in Section 9 of this method. organic halide concentration, artificially high a combustion boat, connections for purge and 6.3.1.1 Erlenmeyer flasks: 250- to 1500- combustion gas, and connection to the micro- results may be obtained. mL with ground-glass stopper, for use with 4.4.3 Halogenated organic compounds coulometer cell. rotary shaker. 6.5.1.2 Tube furnace capable of that are weakly adsorbed on activated carbon 6.3.1.2 Shake table: Sybron Thermolyne are only partially recovered from the sample. controlling combustion tube in the range of Model LE ‘‘Big Bill’’ rotator/shaker, or ° These include certain alcohols and acids 800 to 1000 C. equivalent. 6.5.1.3 Boat sampler: Capable of holding such as chloroethanol and chloroacetic acid 6.3.1.3 Rack attached to shake table to that can be removed from activated carbon by 35 to 45 mg of activated carbon and a permit agitation of 16 to 25 samples polycarbonate filter, and fitting into the the nitrate wash. simultaneously. 4.5 Polyethylene gloves should be worn combustion tube (Section 6.5.1.1). Some 6.3.2 Filtration system (Figure 2). manufacturers offer an enlarged boat and when handling equipment surfaces in contact 6.3.2.1 Vacuum filter holder: Glass, with with the sample to prevent transfer of combustion tube for this purpose. Under a fritted-glass support (Fisher Model 09–753E, time-controlled sequence, the boat is first contaminants that may be present on the or equivalent). hands. moved into an evaporation zone where water 6.3.2.2 Polycarbonate filter: 0.40 to 0.45 and other volatiles are evaporated, and then 5.0 Safety micron, 25-mm diameter (Micro Separations into the combustion zone where the carbon Inc, Model K04CP02500, or equivalent). and all other organic material in the boat are 5.1 The toxicity or carcinogenicity of 6.3.2.3 Filter forceps: Fisher Model 09– each reagent used in this method has not burned in a flowing oxygen stream. The 753–50, or equivalent, for handling filters. evolved gases are transported by a non- been precisely determined; however, each Two forceps may better aid in handling chemical substance should be treated as a reactive carrier gas to the micro-coulometer filters. Clean by washing with detergent and cell. potential health hazard. Exposure to these water, rinsing with tap and deionized water, substances should be reduced to the lowest 6.5.1.4 Motor driven boat sampler: and air drying on aluminum foil. Capable of advancing the combustion boat possible level. The laboratory is responsible 6.3.2.4 Vacuum flask: 500- to 1500-mL for maintaining a current awareness file of into the furnace in a reproducible time (Fisher 10–1800, or equivalent). sequence. A suggested time sequence is as OSHA regulations regarding the safe 6.3.2.5 Vacuum Source: A pressure/ handling of the chemicals specified in this follows: vacuum pump, rotary vacuum pump, or A. Establish initial gas flow rates: 160 mL/ method. A reference file of material safety other vacuum source capable of providing at min CO2; 40 mL/min O2. data sheets (MSDSs) should be made least 610 mm (24 in.) Hg vacuum at 30 L/min B. Sequence start. available to all personnel involved in the free air displacement. C. Hold boat in hatch for five seconds to chemical analysis. Additional information on 6.3.2.6 Stopper and tubing to mate the allow integration for baseline subtraction. laboratory safety can be found in References filter holder to the flask and the flask to the D. Advance boat into vaporization zone. 9 through 11. pump. E. Hold boat in vaporization zone for 110 5.2 This method employs strong acids. 6.3.2.7 Polyethylene gloves: (Fisher 11– seconds. Appropriate clothing, gloves, and eye 394–110–B, or equivalent). F. Establish gas flow rates for combustion: protection should be worn when handling 6.4 Column adsorption system. 200 mL/min O2; 0 mL/min CO2; advance boat these substances. 6.4.1 Adsorption module: Dohrmann AD– into pyrolysis zone (800°C). 5.3 Field samples may contain high 2, Mitsubishi TXA–2, or equivalent with G. Hold boat in pyrolysis zone for six concentrations of toxic volatile compounds. pressurized sample and nitrate-wash minutes. Sample containers should be opened in a reservoirs, adsorption columns, column H. Return gas flow rates to initial values; hood and handled with gloves that will housings, gas and gas pressure regulators, retract boat into hatch to cool and to allow prevent exposure. and receiving vessels. For each sample remaining HX to be swept into detector reservoir, there are two adsorption columns (approximately two minutes). 6.0 Equipment and Supplies connected in series. A small steel funnel for I. Stop integration at 10 minutes after Note: Brand names, suppliers, and part filling the columns and a rod for pushing out sequence start. numbers are for illustrative purposes only. the carbon are also required. A schematic of No endorsement is implied. Equivalent the column adsorption system is shown in Note: If the signal from the detector does performance may be achieved using Figure 3. not return to baseline, it may be necessary to apparatus and materials other than those 6.4.2 Adsorption columns: Pyrex, 5 ± 0.2 extend the pyrolysis time.The sequence specified here, but demonstration of cm long × 2 mm ID, to hold 40 mg of granular above may need to be optimized for each equivalent performance that meets the activated carbon (GAC). instrument. requirements of this method is the 6.4.3 Cerafelt: Johns-Manville, or 6.5.1.5 Absorber: Containing sulfuric acid responsibility of the laboratory. equivalent, formed into plugs using stainless to dry the gas stream after combustion to Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18725 prevent backflush of electrolyte is highly 7.4 Sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (100 8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and recommended. µg/mL of Cl¥): Dissolve 0.165g NaCl in 1000 Storage 6.5.2 Micro-coulometer system: Capable mL reagent water. This solution is used for 8.1 Sample preservation. µ ¥ of detecting the equivalent of 0.2 g of Cl cell testing and for the inorganic halide 8.1.1 Residual chlorine: If the sample is at a signal-to-noise ratio of 2; capable of rejection test. known or suspected to contain free chlorine, µ ¥ detecting the equivalent of 1 g of Cl with 7.5 Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) solution the chlorine must be reduced to eliminate a relative standard deviation less than 10%, µ ¥ (100 g/mL of Cl ): Dissolve 0.1509 g NH4Cl positive interference that may result from and capable of accumulating a minimum of in 1000 mL reagent water. µ ¥ continued chlorination reactions. A the equivalent of 500 g of Cl before a 7.6 Sulfuric acid: Reagent grade (specific knowledge of the process from which the change of electrolyte is required. gravity 1.84). sample is collected may be of value in 6.5.2.1 Micro-coulometer cell: The three 7.7 Oxygen: 99.9% purity. determining whether dechlorination is cell designs presently in use are shown in 7.8 Carbon Dioxide: 99.9% purity. necessary. Immediately after sampling, test Figure 1. Cell operation is described in 7.9 Nitrate stock solution: In a 1000-mL for residual chlorine using the following Section 2. volumetric flask, dissolve 17g of NaNO3 in method or an alternative EPA method 6.5.2.2 Cell controller: Electronics approximately 100 mL of reagent water, add (Reference 12): capable of measuring the small currents 1.4 mL nitric acid (Section 7.3) and dilute to 8.1.1.1 Dissolve a few crystals of generated in the cell and accumulating and potassium iodide in the sample and add displaying the charge produced by hydrogen the mark with reagent water. three to five drops of a 1% starch solution. halides entering the cell. A strip-chart 7.10 Nitrate wash solution: Dilute 50 mL recorder is desirable for display of of nitrate stock solution (Section 7.9) to 1000 A blue color indicates the presence of accumulated charge. mL with reagent water. residual chlorine. 6.6 Miscellaneous glassware: nominal 7.11 Sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) 8.1.1.2 If residual chlorine is found, add sizes are specified below; other sizes may be solution (1 N): Weigh 79 grams of Na2S2O3 1 mL of sodium thiosulfate solution (Section used, as necessary. in a 1-L volumetric flask and dilute to the 7.11) for each 2.5 ppm of free chlorine or 6.6.1 Volumetric flasks: 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, mark with reagent water. until the blue color disappears. Do not add 100-, and 1000-mL. 7.12 Trichlorophenol solutions. an excess of sodium thiosulfate. Excess 6.6.2 Beakers: 100-, 500-, and 1000-mL. Note: The calibration solutions in this sodium thiosulfate may cause decomposition of a small fraction of the OX. 6.6.3 Volumetric pipets: 1- and 10-mL section employ 100-mL volumes. For 8.1.2 Acidification: Adjust the pH of with pipet bulbs. determinations requiring a larger or smaller aqueous samples to < 2 with nitric acid. 6.6.4 Volumetric micro-pipets: 10-, 20-, volume, increase or decrease the size of the Acidification inhibits biological activity and 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-µL with pipet control volumetric flasks commensurately. For stabilizes chemical degradation, including (Hamilton 0010, or equivalent). example, if a 1-L sample is to be analyzed, 6.6.5 Graduated cylinders: 10-, 100-, and possible dehalogenation reactions that may use 1000-mL flasks (Sections 7.12.3.1 and occur at high pH. Acidification is necessary 1000-mL. 7.12.4) and 10 times the volume of reagent 6.7 Micro-syringes: 10-, 50-, and 100-µL. to facilitate thorough adsorption. water (Sections 7.12.3.1 and 7.12.4). The 8.1.3 Refrigeration: Maintain samples at a 6.8 Balances. volume of stock solution added to the ° 6.8.1 Top-loading, capable of weighing temperature of 0 to 4 C from time of calibration solutions and precision and collection until analysis. 0.1 g. recovery (PAR) test solution remain as 6.8.2 Analytical, capable of weighing 0.1 8.2 Collect the amount of sample specified (Sections 7.12.3.2 and 7.12.4) so necessary for analysis (Section 11) and all QC mg. that the same amount of chloride is delivered 6.9 pH meter. tests (Section 9) in an amber glass bottle of to the coulometric cell regardless of the the appropriate size (Section 6.1.1). 6.10 Wash bottles: 500- to 1000-mL, PTFE volume of the calibration and PAR solutions. or polyethylene. 8.3 Analyze samples no less than three 7.12.1 Methanol: HPLC grade. 6.11 Strip-chart recorder: suggested but days nor more than six months after 7.12.2 Trichlorophenol stock solution not required—useful for determining end of collection. ¥): Dissolve 0.186 g of 2,4,6- integration (Section 11.4.2). (1.0 mg/mL of Cl trichlorophenol in 100 mL of halide-free 9.0 Quality Control 7.0 Reagents and Standards methanol. 9.1 Each laboratory that uses this method 7.1 Granular activated carbon (GAC): 75 7.12.3 Trichlorophenol calibration is required to operate a formal quality to 150 µm (100 to 200 mesh); (Dohrmann, solutions. assurance program. The minimum Mitsubishi, Carbon Plus, or equivalent), with 7.12.3.1 Place approximately 90 mL of requirements of this program consist of an chlorine content less than 1 µg Cl¥ per scoop reagent water in each of five 100-mL initial demonstration of laboratory capability, (< 25 µg Cl¥ per gram), adsorption capacity volumetric flasks. an ongoing analysis of standards and blanks greater than 1000 µg Cl¥ (as 2,4,6- 7.12.3.2 Using a calibrated micro-syringe as tests of continued performance, and µ trichlorophenol) per scoop (>25,000 µg/g), or micro-pipets, add 2, 5, 10, 30, and 80 L analysis of matrix spike and matrix spike inorganic halide retention of less than 1 µg of the trichlorophenol stock solution (Section duplicate (MS/MSD) samples to assess Cl- per scoop in the presence of 10 mg of 7.12.2) to the volumetric flasks and dilute accuracy and precision. Laboratory inorganic halide (< 20 µg Cl¥ per gram in the each to the mark with reagent water to performance is compared to established presence of 2500 mg of inorganic halide), and produce calibration solutions of 2, 5, 10, 30, performance criteria to determine if the that meets the other test criteria in this and 80 µg Cl¥ per 100 mL of solution (20, results of analyses meet the performance method. 50, 100, 300, and 800 µg/L). characteristics of the method. 7.2 Reagent water: Water in which 7.12.3.3 Some instruments may have a 9.1.1 The laboratory shall make an initial organic halide is not detected by this method. calibration range that does not extend to 800 demonstration of the ability to produce 7.2.1 Preparation: Reagent water may be µg/L (80 µg of Cl¥). For those instruments, acceptable results with this method. This generated by: a narrower dynamic range may be used. ability is demonstrated as described in 7.2.1.1 Activated carbon: Pass tap water However, if the concentration of halide in a Section 9.2. through a carbon bed (Calgon Filtrasorb-300, sample exceeds that range, the sample must 9.1.2 The laboratory is permitted to or equivalent). be diluted to bring the concentration within modify this method to improve separations 7.2.1.2 Water purifier: Pass tap water the range calibrated. or lower the costs of measurements, provided through a purifier (Millipore Super Q, or 7.12.4 Trichlorophenol precision and that all performance specifications are met. equivalent). recovery (PAR) test solution (10 µg/L of Cl¥): Each time a modification is made to the 7.2.2 pH adjustment: Adjust the pH of the Partially fill a 100-mL volumetric flask, add method, the laboratory is required to repeat reagent water to < 2 with nitric acid for all 10 µL of the stock solution (Section 7.12.2), the procedures in Sections 9.2.2 and 10 to reagent water used in this method, except for and dilute to the mark with reagent water. demonstrate continued method performance. the acetic acid solution (Section 7.13). 7.13 Acetic acid solution: Containing 30 to If the detection limit of the method will be 7.3 Nitric acid (HNO3): Concentrated, 70% acetic acid in deionized water, per the affected by the modification, the laboratory analytical grade. instrument manufacturer’s instructions. should demonstrate that the MDL (40 CFR 18726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

136, Appendix B) is less than or equal to the against a regulatory concentration limit, the 9.4 Blanks. MDL in this method or one-third the spiking level shall be at that limit or at one 9.4.1 Reagent water blanks: Analyzed to regulatory compliance level, whichever is to five times higher than the background demonstrate freedom from contamination. higher. concentration determined in Section 9.3.2, 9.4.1.1 Analyze a reagent water blank 9.1.3 The laboratory shall spike 10% of whichever concentration is higher. with each batch of samples. The blank must the samples with known concentrations of 9.3.1.2 If the concentration of OX is not be analyzed immediately preceding 2,4,6-trichlorophenol to monitor method being checked against a regulatory limit, the calibration verification to allow for blank performance and matrix interferences spike shall be at the concentration of the subtraction and to demonstrate freedom from (interferences caused by the sample matrix). precision and recovery standard (PAR; contamination and memory effects, and must This test is described in Section 9.3. When Section 7.12.4) or at one to five times higher include all details of the procedure to be results of these spikes indicate atypical than the background concentration followed when analyzing samples. method performance for samples, the determined in Section 9.3.2, whichever 9.4.1.2 Prepare the reagent water blank samples are diluted to bring method concentration is higher. using a volume of reagent water equivalent performance within acceptable limits. 9.3.2 Analyze one sample out of each to the volume used for sample preparation 9.1.4 Analyses of blanks are required to batch of 10 samples from each site to (Section 11.1). If using the micro-column demonstrate freedom from contamination. determine the background concentration of procedure, adsorb the method blank using The procedures and criteria for analysis of AOX. If necessary, prepare a solution of two columns, as described in Section 11. blanks are described in Section 9.4. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol appropriate to produce Combust the GAC from each column 9.1.5 The laboratory shall, on an ongoing a level in the sample one to five times the separately, as described in Section 11. basis, demonstrate through the analysis of the background concentration. Spike two 9.4.1.3 If the result from the blank from precision and recovery (PAR) standard that additional sample aliquots with spiking the batch method or the sum of the results the analysis system is in control. These solution and analyze them to determine the from two columns is more than 20 µg/L, procedures are described in Section 9.10. concentration after spiking. analysis of samples is halted until the source 9.1.6 The laboratory shall perform quality 9.3.2.1 Compute the percent recovery of of contamination is eliminated and a blank control tests on the granular activated carbon. each analyte in each aliquot: shows no evidence of contamination at this These procedures are described in Section level. 100 (Found− Background) 9.5. % Recovery = 9.4.2 Nitrate-washed GAC blanks: 9.1.7 Samples are analyzed in duplicate T Analyzed daily to demonstrate that the GAC to demonstrate precision. These procedures where: is free from contamination. are described in Section 9.6. T is the true value of the spike 9.4.2.1 Nitrate-washed GAC blank for the 9.2 Initial demonstration of laboratory batch procedure: Analyze a batch nitrate- 9.3.2.2 Compute the relative percent capability. washed GAC blank by adding a scoop of dry difference (RPD) between the two results (not 9.2.1 Method Detection Limit (MDL): To GAC to the assembled filter apparatus between the two recoveries) as described in establish the ability to detect AOX, the containing the polycarbonate membrane and Section 12.4. laboratory should determine the MDL per the washing the GAC with the nitrate wash 9.3.2.3 If the RPD is less than 20%, and procedure in 40 CFR 136, Appendix B using the recoveries for the MS and MSD are solution (Section 7.10) using the procedure the apparatus, reagents, and standards that within the range of 78 to 116%, the results in Section 11.2.6. will be used in the practice of this method. are acceptable. 9.4.2.2 Nitrate-washed GAC blank for the An MDL less than or equal to the MDL in 9.3.2.4 If the RPD is greater than 20%, column procedure: Analyze a column nitrate- Section 1.3 should be achieved prior to the analyze two aliquots of the precision and washed GAC blank by assembling two carbon practice of this method. recovery standard (PAR). columns in series and washing the columns 9.2.2 Initial precision and recovery (IPR): 9.3.2.4.1 If the RPD for the two aliquots with the nitrate wash solution (Section 7.10) To establish the ability to generate acceptable of the PAR is greater than 20%, the analytical using the procedure in Section 11.3.4.2. precision and recovery, the laboratory shall system is out of control. In this case, repair Analyze the GAC in each column separately. perform the following operations: the problem and repeat the analysis of the The results of the second analysis must be ± µ ¥ 9.2.2.1 Analyze four aliquots of the PAR sample batch, including the MS/MSD. within 0.2 g Cl of the first. A difference µ ¥ standard (Section 7.12.4) and a method blank 9.3.2.4.2 If, however, the RPD for the two greater than 0.2 g Cl indicates a lack of according to the procedures in Sections 9.4 aliquots of the PAR is less than 20%, dilute homogeneity in the GAC that could introduce and 11. the sample chosen for the MS/MSD by a unacceptable variability. If the difference 9.2.2.2 Using the blank-subtracted results factor of 2–10 (to remain within the working exceeds this amount, the GAC should be of the set of four analyses, compute the range of the analytical system) and repeat the replaced. average percent recovery (X) and the MS/MSD test. If the RPD is still greater than 9.4.3 The result for the reagent water standard deviation of the percent recovery (s) 20%, the result may not be reported for blank (Section 9.4.1) shall not exceed the for the results. regulatory compliance purposes. In this case, result for the nitrate wash blank (Section µ ¥ 9.2.2.3 The average percent recovery shall choose another sample for the MS/MSD and 9.4.2.1 or 9.4.2.2) by more than 0.5 g Cl . µ be in the range of 81 to 114 g/L and the repeat analysis of the sample batch. 9.5 Granular activated carbon (GAC) standard deviation shall be less than 8 µg/L. 9.3.2.5 If the percent recovery for both the batch testing: Each lot number or batch of If X and s meet these acceptance criteria, MS and MSD are less than 78% or greater activated carbon received from a supplier is system performance is acceptable and than 116%, analyze the precision and tested once before use to ensure adequate analysis of blanks and samples may begin. If, recovery (PAR) standard. quality. Use only GAC that meets the test however, s exceeds the precision limit or X 9.3.2.5.1 If the recovery of the PAR is criteria below. falls outside the range for recovery, system outside the 78 to 116% range, the analytical 9.5.1 Contamination test: Analyze a scoop performance is unacceptable. In this case, system is out of control. In this case, repair of GAC. Reject carbon if the amount of OX correct the problem and repeat the test. the problem and repeat the analysis of the exceeds 1 µg (25 µg Cl¥/g). 9.3 Matrix spikes: The laboratory shall sample batch, including the MS/MSD. 9.5.2 Inorganic chloride adsorption test: spike a minimum of 10% of samples from a 9.3.2.5.2 If the recovery of the PAR is Attempt to adsorb NaCl from 100 mL of a given matrix type (e.g., C-stage filtrate, within the range of 78 to 116%, dilute the solution containing 100 mg/L in reagent produced water, treated effluent) in duplicate sample, MS, and MSD by a factor of 2–10 (to water. Wash with nitrate solution and (MS/MSD). If only one sample from a given remain within the working range of the analyze. The amount of halide should be less matrix type is analyzed, an additional two analytical system) and re-analyze. If the than 1 µg Cl¥ larger than the blank. A larger aliquots of that sample shall be spiked. results of the dilute analyses remain outside amount indicates significant uptake of 9.3.1 The concentration of the analytes of the acceptable range, these results may not inorganic chloride by the carbon. Reject spiked into the MS/MSD shall be determined be reported for regulatory compliance carbon if the 1 µg level is exceeded. as follows: purposes. In this case, choose another sample 9.6 Samples that are being used for 9.3.1.1 If, as in compliance monitoring, for the MS/MSD and repeat the analysis of regulatory compliance purposes shall be the concentration of OX is being checked the sample batch. analyzed in duplicate. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18727

9.6.1 The procedure for preparing analyzed at the end of the eight-hour shift, introduced. It should be used during duplicate sample aliquots is described in correct the problem, repeat the ongoing instrument setup and when it is necessary to Section 11.5. precision and recovery test (Section 9.10), or isolate the adsorption and combustion steps. 9.6.2 Calculate the RPD by following the recalibrate (Sections 10.5 through 10.6), and 10.4.1 Inject 10 µL of the 1 mg/mL same procedure described in Section 12.4. reanalyze the sample batch that was analyzed trichlorophenol stock solution (Section 9.6.3 If the RPD is greater than 20%, the during the eight-hour shift. 7.12.2) onto one level scoop of GAC in a analyses must be repeated. 9.10.5 If the recovery is within the quartz boat. 9.6.4 If the RPD remains greater than acceptable range at the end of the shift, and 10.4.2 Immediately proceed with the 20%, the result may not be reported for samples are to be analyzed during the next analysis to prevent loss of trichlorophenol regulatory compliance purposes. eight-hour shift, the end of shift verification and to prevent contamination of the carbon. 9.7 The specifications in this method can may be used as the beginning of shift 10.4.3 The result shall be between 9.0 be met if the apparatus used is calibrated verification for the subsequent shift, and 11.0 µg Cl¥. If the recovery is not properly and maintained in a calibrated state. provided the next eight-hour shift begins as between these limits, the combustion/micro- The standards used for calibration (Section the first shift ends. coulometer system shall be adjusted and the 10), calibration verification (Section 9.9), and 9.11 It is suggested but not required that test repeated until the result falls within for initial (Section 9.2.2) and ongoing the laboratory develop a statement of data these limits. (Section 9.10) precision and recovery should quality for AOX and develop QC charts to 10.5 Background level of Cl¥: Determine be identical, so that the most precise results form a graphic demonstration of method the average background level of Cl¥ for the will be obtained. performance. Add results that pass the entire analytical system as follows: 9.8 Depending on specific program specification in Section 9.10.2 to initial and 10.5.1 Using the procedure in Section 11 requirements, field duplicates may be previous ongoing data. Develop a statement (batch or column) that will be used for the collected to determine the precision of the of data quality by calculating the average analysis of samples, determine the sampling technique. percent recovery (R) and the standard background level of Cl¥ in each of three 9.9 At the beginning and end of each deviation of percent recovery (sr). Express the portions of reagent water. The volume of eight-hour shift during which analyses are accuracy as a recovery interval from R ¥ 2sr reagent water used shall be the same as the performed, system performance and to R + 2sr. For example, if R=95% and sr=5%, volume used for analysis of samples. calibration are verified. Verification of the accuracy is 85 to 105%. 10.5.2 Calculate the average (mean) system performance and calibration may be concentration of Cl¥ and the standard performed more frequently, if desired. 10.0 Calibration and Standardization deviation of the concentration. 9.9.1 If performance and calibration are 10.1 Assemble the OX system and 10.5.3 The sum of the average verified at the beginning and end of each establish the operating conditions necessary concentration plus two times the standard shift (or more frequently), samples analyzed for analysis. Differences between various deviation of the concentration shall be less during that period are considered valid. makes and models of instruments will than 20 µg/L. If not, the water or carbon shall 9.9.2 If performance and calibration are require different operating procedures. be replaced, or the adsorption system moved not verified at both the beginning and end of Laboratories should follow the operating to an area free of organic halide vapors, and a shift (or more frequently), samples analyzed instructions provided by the manufacturer of the test (Section 10.5) shall be repeated. Only during that period must be reanalyzed. their particular instrument. Sensitivity, after this test is passed may calibration 9.9.3 If calibration is verified at the instrument detection limit, precision, linear proceed. beginning of a shift, recalibration using the range, and interference effects must be 10.6 Calibration by external standard: A five standards described in Section 10.6 is investigated and established for each calibration line encompassing the calibration not necessary; otherwise, the instrument particular instrument. Calibration is range is developed using solutions of 2,4,6- must be recalibrated prior to analyzing performed when the instrument is first set up trichlorophenol. samples (Section 10). and when calibration cannot be verified 10.6.1 Analyze each of the five 9.9.4 Cell maintenance and other changes (Section 9.9). calibration solutions (Section 7.12.3) using to the analytical system that can affect system 10.2 Cell performance test: Inject 100 µL the procedure in Section 11 (batch or performance may not be performed during of the sodium chloride solution (10 µg Cl¥; column) that will be used for the analysis of the eight-hour (or shorter) shift. Section 7.4) directly into the titration cell samples, and the same procedure that was 9.10 Calibration verification and ongoing electrolyte. Adjust the instrument to produce used for determination of the system precision and recovery: Calibration and a reading of 10 µg Cl¥. background (Section 10.5). Analyze these system performance are verified by the 10.3 Combustion system test: This test solutions beginning with the lowest analysis of the 100 µg/L PAR standard. can be used to assure that the combustion/ concentration and proceeding to the highest. 9.10.1 Analyze a blank (Section 9.4) and micro-coulometer systems are performing Record the response of the micro-coulometer analyze the PAR standard (Section 7.12.4) properly without introduction of carbon. to each calibration solution. immediately thereafter at the beginning and This test should be used during initial 10.6.2 Prepare a method blank as end of each shift. Compute the concentration instrument setup and when instrument described in Section 9.4. Subtract the value of organic halide in the blank and in the PAR performance indicates a problem with the of the blank from each of the five calibration standard using the procedures in Section 12. combustion system. results, as described in Section 12. The blank shall be less than 2 µg Cl¥ (20 µg/ 10.3.1 Designate a quartz boat for use 10.6.3 Calibration factor (ratio of response L equivalent). with the ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) to concentration) Using the blank subtracted 9.10.2 Subtract the result for the blank solution only. results, compute the calibration factor at each from the result of the PAR standard using the 10.3.2 Inject 100 µL of the NH4Cl solution calibration point, and compute the average procedures in Section 12, and compute the (Section 7.5) into this boat and proceed with calibration factor and the relative standard percent recovery of the blank-subtracted PAR the analysis. deviation (coefficient of variation; Cv) of the standard. The percent recovery shall be in 10.3.3 The result shall be between 9.5 calibration factor over the calibration range. the range of 78 to 116%. and 10.5 µg Cl¥. If the recovery is not 10.6.4 Linearity: The Cv of the calibration 9.10.3 If the recovery is within this range, between these limits, the combustion or factor shall be less than 20%; otherwise, the the analytical process is in control and micro-coulometer systems are not performing calibration shall be repeated after adjustment analysis of blanks and samples may proceed. properly. Check the temperature of the of the combustion/micro-coulometer system If, however, the recovery is not within the combustion system, verify that there are no and/or preparation of fresh calibration acceptable range, the analytical process is not leaks in the combustion system, confirm that standards. in control. In this event, correct the problem the cell is performing properly (Section 10.2), 10.6.5 Using the average calibration and repeat the ongoing precision and and then repeat the test. factor, compute the percent recovery at each recovery test (Section 9.10), or recalibrate 10.4 Trichlorophenol combustion test: calibration point. The recovery at each (Sections 10.5 through 10.6). This test can be used to assure that the calibration point shall be within the range of 9.10.4 If the recovery is not within the combustion/micro-coulometer systems are 80 to 111%. If any point is not within this acceptable range for the PAR standard performing properly when carbon is range, a fresh calibration standard shall be 18728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations prepared for that point, this standard shall be coulometer can be overloaded, resulting in may be used, provided the concentration of analyzed, and the calibration factor (Section frequent cell cleaning and downtime. The AOX in the sample can be measured reliably, 10.6.3) and calibration linearity (Section following guidance is provided to assist in as defined by the requirements in Section 10.6.4) shall be computed using the new estimating dilution levels. 9.11. To minimize volumetric error, an calibration point. All points used in the 11.1.1 Paper and pulp mills that employ adsorption volume less than 25 mL may not calibration must meet the 80 to 111% chlorine bleaching: Samples from pulp mills be used. If AOX cannot be measured reliably recovery specification. that use a chlorine bleaching process may in a 100-mL sample volume, a sample 11.0 Procedure overload the micro-coulometer. To prevent volume to a maximum of 1000 mL must be system overload, the maximum volume used. The sample and adsorption volumes 11.1 Sample dilution: Many samples will suggested for paper industry samples that are suggested for paper industry samples contain high concentrations of halide. If employ halide in the bleaching process is 100 employing chlorine compounds in the analyzed without dilution, the micro- mL. An adsorption volume as small as 25 mL bleaching process:

Sample Adsorption Paper or pulp mill stream volume volume (mL)* (mL)

Evaporator condensate ...... 100.0 100 Process water ...... 100.0 100 Pulp mill effluent ...... 30.0 50 Paper mill effluent ...... 10.0 25 Combined mill effluent ...... 5.0 25 Combined bleach effluent ...... 1.0 25 C-stage filtrate ...... 0.5 25 E-stage filtrate ...... 0.5 25 * Assumes dilution to final volume of 100 mL. All sample aliquots (replicates, diluted samples) must be analyzed using the same fixed final volume (sample volume plus reagent water, as needed).

11.1.2 Sample dilution procedure. 11.2.3 Add one level scoop of activated granular activated carbon that has passed the 11.1.2.1 Partially fill a precleaned carbon that has passed the quality control quality control tests in Section 9. volumetric flask with pH < 2 reagent water, tests in Section 9. 11.3.1.3 Insert a Cerafelt plug into the allowing for the volume of sample to be 11.2.4 Shake the suspension for at least open end of the column to hold the carbon added. one hour in a mechanical shaker. in place. 11.1.2.2 Mix sample thoroughly by 11.2.5 Filter the suspension through a 11.3.1.4 Store the columns in a glass jar tumbling or shaking vigorously. polycarbonate membrane filter. Filter by with PTFE lined screw-cap to prevent suction until the liquid level reaches the top infiltration of halide vapors from the air. 11.1.2.3 Immediately withdraw the of the carbon. 11.3.2 Column setup. required sample aliquot using a pipet or 11.2.6 Wash the inside surface of the 11.3.2.1 Install two columns in series in micro-syringe. filter funnel with 25 mL (±5 mL) of nitrate the adsorption module. Note: Because it will be necessary to rinse wash solution in several portions. After the 11.3.2.2 If the sample is known or the pipet or micro-syringe (Section 11.1.2.5), level of the final wash reaches the top of the expected to contain particulates that could it may be necessary to pre-calibrate the pipet GAC, filter by suction until the cake is barely prevent free flow of sample through the or micro-syringe to assure that the exact dry. The time required for drying should be micro-columns, a Cerafelt plug is placed in volume desired will be delivered. minimized to prevent exposure of the GAC the tubing ahead of the columns. If a 11.1.2.4 Dispense or inject the aliquot to halogen vapors in the air, but should be measurement of the OX content of the sufficient to permit drying of the cake so that particulates is desired, the Cerafelt plug can into the volumetric flask. excess water is not introduced into the be washed with nitrate solution, placed in a 11.1.2.5 Rinse the pipet or syringe with combustion apparatus. A drying time of combustion boat, and processed as a separate small portions of reagent water and add to approximately 10 seconds under vacuum has sample. the flask. been shown to be effective for this operation. 11.3.3 Adjusting sample flow rate: 11.1.2.6 Dilute to the mark with pH < 2 11.2.7 Carefully remove the top of the Because the flow rate used to load the sample reagent water. filter holder, making sure that no carbon is onto the columns can affect the ability of the 11.1.3 All samples to be reported for lost. This operation is most successfully GAC to adsorb organic halides, the flow rate regulatory compliance monitoring purposes performed by removing the clamp, tilting the of the method blank is measured, and the gas must be analyzed in duplicate, as described top of the filter holder (the funnel portion) pressure used to process samples is adjusted in Section 11.5. to one side, and lifting upward. accordingly. The flow rate of the blank, 11.1.4 Pulp and Paper in-process 11.2.8 Using a squeeze bottle or micro- which is composed of acidified reagent water samples: The concentration of organic halide syringe, rapidly rinse the carbon from the and contains no particulate matter, should be in in-process samples has been shown to be inside of the filter holder onto the filter cake greater than the flow rate of any sample 20 to 30% greater using the micro-column using small portions of wash solution. Allow containing even small amounts of particulate adsorption technique than using the batch the cake to dry under vacuum for no more matter. adsorption technique. For this reason, the than 10 seconds after the final rinse. 11.3.3.1 Fill the sample reservoir with the micro-column technique shall be used for Immediately turn the vacuum off. volume of reagent water chosen for the monitoring in-process samples. Examples of 11.2.9 Using tweezers, carefully fold the analysis (Section 9.4.1.2) that has been polycarbonate filter in half, then in fourths, preserved and acidified as described in in-process samples include: combined bleach making sure that no carbon is lost. Section 8. Cap the reservoir. plant effluent, C-stage filtrate, and E-stage 11.3 Column adsorption. 11.3.3.2 Adjust the gas pressure per the filtrate. 11.3.1 Column preparation: Prepare a manufacturer’s instructions. Record the time 11.2 Batch adsorption and filtration. sufficient number of columns for one day’s required for the entire volume of reagent 11.2.1 Place the appropriate volume of operation as follows: water to pass through both columns. The sample (diluted if necessary), preserved as 11.3.1.1 In a glove box or area free from flow rate must not exceed 3 mL/min over the described in Section 8, into an Erlenmeyer halide vapors, place a plug of Cerafelt into duration of the time required to adsorb the flask. the end of a clean glass column. volume. If this flow rate is exceeded, adjust 11.2.2 Add 5 mL of nitrate stock solution 11.3.1.2 Fill the glass column with one gas pressure, prepare another blank, and to the sample aliquot. level scoop (approximately 40 mg) of repeat the adsorption. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18729

¥ 11.3.3.3 Once the flow rate for the blank column adsorption procedures. In addition, if B2=µg C1 from micro-coulometer for second has been established, the same adsorption it is necessary to dilute the sample for the column from the reagent water blank conditions must be applied to all subsequent purposes of reducing breakthrough or (Section 9.4.1) samples during that eight-hour shift, or until maintaining the concentration within the V=volume of sample in liters another method blank is processed, calibration range, a more or less dilute 12.3 Percent breakthrough: For each whichever comes first. To aid in overcoming sample must be analyzed. The adsorption sample analyzed by the column method, breakthrough problems, a lower gas pressure volumes used for analysis of undiluted calculate the percent breakthrough of halide (and, therefore, flow rate) may be used for samples, diluted samples, and all replicates from the first column to the second column, processing of samples, if desired. If the must be the same as the volume used for QC using the following equation: sample adsorption unit is disassembled or tests and calibration (Sections 9 and 10). cleaned, the flow rate must be checked before 11.5.1 Using results from analysis of one − (CB2 2 )(100 ) processing additional samples. sample volume (Section 11.4) and the %Breakthrough = 11.3.3.4 Elute the pair of columns with 2 − + − procedure in Section 11.1.2, determine if the []()C1 BCB1() 2 2 mL of nitrate wash solution. The flow rate of dilution used was within the calibration nitrate wash solution must not exceed 3 mL/ 12.3.1 For samples to be reported for range of the instrument and/or if min. regulatory compliance purposes, the percent breakthrough exceeded the specification in 11.3.3.5 Separate the columns and mark breakthrough must be less than or equal to Section 12.3.1. If the breakthrough criterion for subsequent analysis. 25% for both of the two analyses performed was exceeded or the sample was not within 11.3.4 The adsorption of sample volumes on each sample (see Section 11.5). the calibration range, adjust the dilution is performed in a similar fashion. Fill the 12.3.2 If the breakthrough exceeds 25%, volume as needed. If the breakthrough sample reservoir with the sample volume dilute the affected sample further, criterion was not exceeded and the sample chosen for the analysis (Section 11.1), that maintaining the amount of halide at least has been preserved as described in Section 8. dilution was within the calibration range, a second volume at the same dilution level three times higher than the level of blank, All analyses must be performed with this and reanalyze the sample. Ensure that the volume (sample volume plus reagent water, may be used. 11.5.2 Adsorb the sample using the same sample is also analyzed at a second level of as needed) in order to maintain a flow rate dilution that is at least a factor of 2 different no greater than that determined for the blank technique (batch or column) used for the first sample volume. Combust the GAC from the (and still higher than three times the blank). (see Section 11.3.3). 12.4 Relative percent difference (RPD): 11.3.4.1 Use the same gas pressure for second volume as described in Section 11.4, Calculate the relative percent difference sample adsorption as is used for the blank. and calculate the results as described in between the results of the two analyses of 11.3.4.2 Elute the columns with 2 mL of Section 12. Compare the results of the two each sample, using the following equation: the nitrate wash solution. analyses as described in Section 12.4. 11.3.4.3 Separate the columns and mark 11.5.3 Duplicate analyses are not required − for subsequent analysis. for method blanks, as different dilution levels 200 ()AOX1 AOX 2 11.3.5 If it is desirable to make are not possible. RPD = + measurements at levels lower than can be 11.5.4 Duplicate analyses of the PAR []()AOX1 AOX 2 achieved with the sample volume chosen, or standard used for calibration verification if the instrument response of an undiluted (Section 9.10) are not required. 12.5 High concentrations of AOX: If the sample is less than three times the amount of halide from either analysis instrument response of the blank (Section 12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations exceeds the calibration range, dilute the 12.6.3), a larger sample volume must be used. 12.1 Batch Adsorption Method: Calculate sample and reanalyze, maintaining at least a 11.4 Combustion and titration. the blank-subtracted concentration of factor of 2 difference in the dilution levels of 11.4.1 Polycarbonate filter and GAC from adsorbable organic halide detected in each the two portions of the sample used. batch adsorption. sample (in micrograms of chloride per liter) 12.6 Low concentrations of AOX: The 11.4.1.1 Place the folded polycarbonate using the following equation: blank-subtracted final result from the batch filter containing the GAC in a quartz procedure or the sum of the blank-subtracted combustion boat, close the airlock, and ()CB− results from the two carbon columns should proceed with the automated sequence. AOX(/)µ g L = V be significantly above the level of the blank. 11.4.1.2 Record the signal from the micro- 12.6.1 If the instrument response for a coulometer for a minimum integration time Where: sample exceeds the instrument response for of 10 minutes and determine the C=µg Cl¥ from micro-coulometer for the the blank by a factor of at least 3, the result ¥ concentration of Cl from calibration data, sample is acceptable. µ ¥ per Section 12. B= g Cl from micro-coulometer for the 12.6.2 If the instrument response for a 11.4.2 Columns from column adsorption. reagent water blank (Section 9.4.1) sample is less than three times the 11.4.2.1 Using the push rod, push the V = volume of sample in liters instrument response for the blank, and the carbon and the Cerafelt plug(s) from the first This calculation is performed for each of sample has been diluted, analyze a less dilute column into a combustion boat. Proceed with the two dilution levels analyzed for each aliquot of sample. the automated sequence. sample. 12.6.3 If the instrument response of an 11.4.2.2 Record the signal from the micro- 12.2 Column Adsorption Method: undiluted sample containing AOX above the coulometer for a minimum integration time Calculate the blank-subtracted concentration minimum level is less than three times the of 10 minutes and determine the of adsorbable organic halide detected in each concentration of Cl¥ for the first column instrument response for the blank, the result sample (in micrograms of chloride per liter) is suspect and may not be used for regulatory from calibration data, per Section 12. using the following equation: 11.4.2.3 Repeat the automated sequence compliance purposes. In this case, find the with the second column. cause of contamination, correct the problem, []()CCBB+ −() + and reanalyze the sample under the corrected 11.4.2.4 Determine the extent of µ = 1 2 1 2 breakthrough of organic halides from the first AOX(/) g L conditions. column to the second column, as described V 12.7 Report results that meet all of the in Section 12. Where: specifications in this method as the mean of ¥ 11.4.3 The two columns that are used for C1=µg C1 from micro-coulometer for first the blank-subtracted values from Section 12.1 the method blank must be combusted column from the sample or 12.2 for the two analyses at different ¥ µ ¥ separately, as is done for samples. 11.5 C2=µg C1 from micro-coulometer for second dilution levels, in g/L of Cl (not as 2,4,6- Duplicate sample analysis: All samples to be column from the sample trichlorophenol), to three significant figures. reported for regulatory compliance purposes B1=µg from micro-coulometer for first Report the RPD of the two analyses. For must be analyzed in duplicate. This column from the reagent water blank samples analyzed by the column procedure, requirement applies to both the batch and (Section 9.4.1) also report the percent breakthrough. 18730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

13.0 Method Performance 15.3 For further information on waste Committee, Box 5604, S–11486, Stockholm, The specifications contained in this management, consult ‘‘The Waste Sweden (1989). Management Manual for Laboratory method are based on data from a single 16.6 Method 5320, ‘‘Dissolved Organic Personnel,’’ and ‘‘Less is Better: Laboratory laboratory and from a large-scale study of the Halogen,’’ from ‘‘Standard Methods for the Chemical Management for Waste Reduction,’’ Examination of Water and Wastewater,’’ pulp and paper industry. both available from the American Chemical 5320, American Public Health Association, 14.0 Pollution Prevention Society’s Department of Government 1015 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005 Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th (1989). 14.1 The solvents used in this method Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. pose little threat to the environment when 16.7 ‘‘Canadian Standard Method for the recycled and managed properly. 16.0 References Determination of Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX) in Waters and Wastewaters,’’ 14.2 Standards should be prepared in 16.1 ‘‘Total Organic Halide, Methods Environment Canada and The Canadian Pulp volumes consistent with laboratory use to 450.1—Interim,’’ Prepared by Stephen Billets and Paper Association (1990). minimize the volume of expired standards to and James J. Lichtenberg, USEPA, Office of 16.8 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. be disposed. Research and Development, Physical and Chemical Methods Branch, EMSL-Cincinnati, 16.9 ‘‘Working with Carcinogens,’’ 15.0 Waste Management Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4–81–056 DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, Publication 77– 15.1 It is the laboratory’s responsibility to (1981). 206, (Aug 1977). 16.10 ‘‘OSHA Safety and Health comply with all federal, state, and local 16.2 Method 9020, USEPA Office of Solid Standards, General Industry’’ OSHA 2206, 29 regulations governing waste management, Waste, ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid CFR 1910 (Jan 1976). particularly the hazardous waste Waste, SW–846,’’ Third Edition, 1987. 16.11 ‘‘Safety in Academic Chemistry identification rules and land disposal 16.3 ‘‘Determination of Adsorbable Laboratories,’’ ACS Committee on Chemical restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and Organic Halogens (AOX),’’ ‘‘German Safety (1979). land by minimizing and controlling all Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water, Waste Water and Sludge—General 16.12 ‘‘Methods 330.4 and 330.5 for Total releases from fume hoods and bench Parameters of Effects and Substances,’’ Residual Chlorine,’’ USEPA, EMSL- operations. Compliance with all sewage Deutsche Industrie Norm (DIN) Method 38 Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA–4– discharge permits and regulations is also 409, Part 14, DIN German Standards Institute, 79–020 (March 1979). required. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1987). 16.13 ‘‘Validation of Method 1650: 15.2 Samples preserved with HCl or 16.4 ‘‘Water Quality: Determination of Determination of Organic Halide,’’ Analytical H2SO4 to pH <2 are hazardous and must be Adsorbable Organic Halogens (AOX),’’ Technologies Inc., ERCE Contract 87–3410, neutralized before being disposed, or must be International Organization for Standard/Draft November 15, 1990. Available from the EPA handled as hazardous waste. Acetic acid and International Standardization (ISO/DIS) Sample Control Center, DynCorp, 300 N. Lee silver acetate solutions resulting from cell Method 9562 (1988). St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (703–519–1140). flushing must be disposed of in accordance 16.5 ‘‘Organically Bound Chlorine by the with all applicable federal, state, and local AOX Method,’’ SCAN–W 9:89, Secretariat, 17.0 Figures regulations. Scandinavian Pulp, Paper and Board Testing BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18731 18732 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18733 18734 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560±50±C Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18735

18.0 Glossary of Definitions and Purposes exposure to all glassware, equipment, (GCMS). This method is based on existing These definitions and purposes are specific solvents, reagents, internal standards, and methods for determination of to this method but have been conformed to surrogates that are used with samples. The chlorophenolics in pulp and paper industry common usage as much as possible. method blank is used to determine if analytes wastewaters (References 1 and 2). 18.1 Units of weight and measure and or interferences are present in the laboratory 1.2 The chemical compounds listed in their abbreviations. environment, the reagents, or the apparatus. Table 1 may be determined in waters and, 18.1.1 Symbols. Minimum level (ML): The level at which specifically, in in-process streams and the entire analytical system must give a °C degrees Celsius wastewaters associated with the pulp and µ recognizable signal and acceptable paper industry. The method is designed to g microgram calibration point for the analyte. It is µL microliter meet the survey and monitoring requirements equivalent to the concentration of the lowest of the Environmental Protection Agency < less than calibration standard, assuming that all > greater than (EPA). method-specified sample weights, volumes, 1.3 The detection limit of this method is % percent and cleanup procedures have been 18.1.2 Alphabetical characters. usually dependent on the level of employed. interferences rather than instrumental cm centimeter Must: This action, activity, or procedural limitations. The method detection limits g gram step is required. (MDLs) in Table 2 typify the minimum h hour OPR: Ongoing precision and recovery quantity that can be detected with no ID inside diameter standard; a laboratory blank spiked with a interferences present. in inch known quantity of analyte. The OPR is 1.4 The GCMS portions of this method L liter analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose is are for use only by persons experienced with m meter to assure that the results produced by the GCMS or under the close supervision of such mg milligram laboratory remain within the limits specified min minute in this method for precision and recovery. qualified persons. Laboratories unfamiliar mL milliliter PAR: Precision and recovery standard; with analyses of environmental samples by mm millimeter secondary standard that is diluted and spiked GCMS should run the performance tests in N normal; gram molecular weight of solute to form the IPR and OPR. Reference 3 before beginning. divided by hydrogen equivalent of solute, Preparation blank: See Method blank. 1.5 Any modification of the method per liter of solution Primary dilution standard: A solution beyond those expressly permitted is subject OD outside diameter containing the specified analytes that is to the application and approval of alternative ppb part-per-billion purchased or prepared from stock solutions test procedures under 40 CFR Parts 136.4 and ppm part-per-million and diluted as needed to prepare calibration 136.5. ppt part-per-trillion solutions and other solutions. 2.0 Summary of Method psig pounds-per-square inch gauge Quality control check sample (QCS): A v/v volume per unit volume sample containing all or a subset of the 2.1 A 1000-mL aliquot of water is spiked w/v weight per unit volume analytes at known concentrations. The QCS with stable isotopically labeled analogs of the compounds of interest and an internal 18.2 Definitions and acronyms (in is obtained from a source external to the standard. The solution is adjusted to neutral alphabetical order). laboratory or is prepared from a source of Analyte: AOX tested for by this method. standards different from the source of pH, potassium carbonate buffer is added, and Calibration standard (CAL): A solution calibration standards. It is used to check the pH is raised to 9–11.5. The prepared from a secondary standard and/or laboratory performance with test materials chlorophenolics are converted in situ to stock solution which is used to calibrate the prepared external to the normal preparation acetates by the addition of acetic anhydride. response of the instrument with respect to process. After acetylation, the solution is extracted analyte concentration. Reagent water: Water demonstrated to be with hexane. The hexane is concentrated to Calibration verification standard (VER): free from the analyte of interest and a final volume of 0.5 mL, an instrument The mid-point calibration standard (CS3) that potentially interfering substances at the internal standard is added, and an aliquot of is used to verify calibration. method detection limit for the analyte. the concentrated extract is injected into the Field blank: An aliquot of reagent water or Relative standard deviation (RSD): The gas chromatograph (GC). The compounds are other reference matrix that is placed in a standard deviation multiplied by 100, separated by GC and detected by a mass sample container in the laboratory or the divided by the mean. spectrometer (MS). The labeled compounds field, and treated as a sample in all respects, RSD: See Relative standard deviation. and internal standard serve to correct the including exposure to sampling site Should: This action, activity, or procedural variability of the analytical technique. conditions, storage, preservation, and all step is suggested but not required. 2.2 Identification of a pollutant analytical procedures. The purpose of the Stock solution: A solution containing an (qualitative analysis) is performed by field blank is to determine if the field or analyte that is prepared using a reference comparing the relative retention time and sample transporting procedures and material traceable to EPA, the National mass spectrum to that of an authentic environments have contaminated the sample. Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), standard. A compound is identified when its IPR: Initial precision and recovery; four or a source that will attest to the purity and relative retention time and mass spectrum aliquots of the diluted PAR standard authenticity of the reference material. agree. analyzed to establish the ability to generate VER: See Calibration verification standard. 2.3 Quantitative analysis is performed in acceptable precision and accuracy. An IPR is Method 1653—Chlorinated Phenolics in one of two ways by GCMS using extracted performed prior to the first time this method Wastewater by In Situ Acetylation and ion-current profile (EICP) areas: (1) For those is used and any time the method or GCMS compounds listed in Table 1 for which instrumentation is modified. standards and labeled analogs are available, Laboratory blank: See Method blank. 1.0 Scope and Application the GCMS system is calibrated and the Laboratory control sample (LCS): See 1.1 This method is for determination of compound concentration is determined using Ongoing precision and recovery sample chlorinated phenolics (chlorinated phenols, an isotope dilution technique; (2) for those (OPR). guaiacols, catechols, vanillins, compounds listed in Table 1 for which Laboratory reagent blank: See Method syringaldehydes) and other compounds authentic standards but no labeled blank. associated with the Clean Water Act; the compounds are available, the GCMS system May: This action, activity, or procedural Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; is calibrated and the compound step is neither required nor prohibited. and the Comprehensive Environmental concentration is determined using an internal May not: This action, activity, or Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; standard technique. procedural step is prohibited. and that are amenable to in situ acetylation, 2.4 Quality is assured through Method blank: An aliquot of reagent water extraction, and analysis by capillary column reproducible calibration and testing of the that is treated exactly as a sample including gas chromatography/mass spectrometry extraction and GCMS systems. 18736 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

3.0 Definitions current awareness file of OSHA regulations 6.5 Centrifuge: Capable of accepting 50- 3.1 Chlorinated phenolics are the regarding the safe handling of the chemicals mL centrifuge tubes and achieving 3000 chlorinated phenols, guaiacols, catechols, specified in this method. A reference file of RPM. vanillins, syringaldehydes and other materials safety data sheets (MSDSs) should 6.5.1 Centrifuge tubes. compounds amenable to in situ acetylation, be made available to all personnel involved 6.5.1.1 35-mL nominal, with PTFE-lined extraction, and determination by GCMS in these analyses. Additional information on screw-cap. using this method. laboratory safety can be found in References 6.5.1.2 15-mL nominal, conical 3.2 Definitions for other terms used in 4 through 6. graduated, with ground-glass stopper. this method are given in the glossary at the 5.2 Samples may contain high 6.6 Concentration apparatus. end of the method (Section 20.0). concentrations of toxic compounds, and 6.6.1 Kuderna-Danish (K–D) should be handled with gloves and a hood concentrator tube: 10-mL, graduated (Kontes 4.0 Interferences opened to prevent exposure. K–570050–1025, or equivalent) with 4.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and calibration verified. Ground-glass stopper other sample processing hardware may yield 6.0 Equipment and Supplies (size 19/22 joint) is used to prevent artifacts and/or elevated baselines, causing Note: Brand names, suppliers, and part evaporation of extracts. misinterpretation of chromatograms and numbers are for illustrative purposes only. 6.6.2 Kuderna-Danish (K–D) evaporation spectra. All materials used in the analysis No endorsement is implied. Equivalent flask: 1000-mL (Kontes K–570001–1000, or shall be demonstrated to be free from performance may be achieved using equivalent), attached to concentrator tube interferences under the conditions of analysis apparatus and materials other than those with springs (Kontes K–662750–0012). by running method blanks initially and with specified here, but demonstration of 6.6.3 Snyder column: Three-ball macro each sample batch (samples started through equivalent performance that meets the (Kontes K–503000–0232, or equivalent). the extraction process on a given eight-hour requirements of this method is the 6.6.4 Snyder column: Two-ball micro shift, to a maximum of 20). Specific selection responsibility of the laboratory. (Kontes K–469002–0219, or equivalent). 6.6.5 Boiling chips: Approximately 10/40 of reagents and purification of solvents by 6.1 Sampling equipment for discrete or distillation in all-glass systems may be mesh, extracted with methylene chloride and composite sampling. baked at 450 °C for a minimum of one hour. required. Glassware and, where possible, 6.1.1 Sample bottles and caps. reagents are cleaned by using solvent rinse 6.6.6 Nitrogen evaporation apparatus: 6.1.1.1 Sample bottle: Amber glass, 1000- and baking at 450 °C for a minimum of one Equipped with a water bath controlled at 35 mL minimum, with screw-cap. If amber hour. to 40 °C (N-Evap, Organomation Associates, bottles are not available, samples shall be 4.2 Interferences co-extracted from Inc., South Berlin, MA, or equivalent), protected from light. samples will vary considerably from source installed in a fume hood. This device may be 6.1.1.2 Bottle caps: Threaded to fit to source, depending on the diversity of the used in place of the micro-Snyder column site being sampled. Industry experience sample bottles. Caps shall be lined with concentrator in Section 6.6.4 above. suggests that high levels of non-chlorinated PTFE. 6.7 Water bath: Heated, with concentric phenols may cause poor recovery of the 6.1.1.3 Cleaning bottles: Detergent water ring cover, capable of temperature control wash, cap with aluminum foil, and bake at (± 2 °C), installed in a fume hood. compounds of interest, particularly in ° samples collected in the vicinity of a source 450 C for a minimum of one hour before use. 6.8 Sample vials: Amber glass, 1- to 3-mL, of creosote, such as a wood-preserving plant 6.1.1.4 Cleaning liners: Detergent water with PTFE-lined screw-cap. wash, reagent water (Section 7.4) and solvent 6.9 Balances. (Reference 1). ° 4.3 The internal standard, 3,4,5- rinse, and bake at approximately 200 C for a 6.9.1 Analytical: Capable of weighing 0.1 trichlorophenol, has been reported to be an minimum of 1 hour prior to use. mg. anaerobic degradation product of 2,3,4,5- 6.1.1.5 Bottles and liners must be lot- 6.9.2 Top loading: Capable of weighing tetrachlorophenol and/or pentachlorophenol certified to be free of chlorophenolics by 10 mg. (Reference 1). When an interference with this running blanks according to this method. If 6.10 pH meter. or another compound occurs, labeled blanks from bottles and/or liners without 6.11 Gas chromatograph: Shall have pentachlorophenol or another labeled cleaning or with fewer cleaning steps show splitless or on-column injection port for compound may be used as an alternative no detectable chlorophenolics, the bottle and capillary column, temperature program with internal standard; otherwise, the internal liner cleaning steps that do not eliminate 50°C hold, and shall meet all of the standards and reference compounds must be chlorophenolics may be omitted. performance specifications in Section 9. used as specified in this method. 6.1.2 Compositing equipment: Automatic 6.12 Gas chromatographic column: 30 m 4.4 Blank contamination by or manual compositing system incorporating (±5 m) × 0.25 mm (±0.02 mm) I.D. × 0.25 pentachlorophenol has been reported glass containers cleaned per bottle cleaning micron, 5% phenyl, 94% methyl, 1% vinyl (Reference 1) to be traceable to potassium procedure above. Sample containers are kept silicone bonded-phase fused-silica capillary carbonate; it has also been reported that this at 0 to 4 °C during sampling. Glass or PTFE column (J & W DB–5, or equivalent). contamination may be removed by baking tubing only shall be used. If the sampler uses 6.13 Mass spectrometer: 70 eV electron overnight at 400 to 500 °C. a peristaltic pump, a minimum length of impact ionization, shall repetitively scan 4.5 Catechols are susceptible to compressible silicone rubber tubing may be from 42 to 450 amu in 0.95 to 1.00 second, degradation by active sites on injection port used in the pump only. Before use, the tubing and shall produce a unit resolution (valleys liners and columns, and are subject to shall be thoroughly rinsed with methanol, between m/z 441–442 less than 10% of the oxidation to the corresponding chloro-o- followed by repeated rinsing with reagent height of the 441 peak), background- benzoquinones (Reference 2). A small water (Section 7.4) to minimize sample corrected mass spectrum from 50 ng amount of ascorbic acid may be added to contamination. An integrating flow meter is decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) samples to prevent auto-oxidation (Reference used to collect proportional composite introduced through the GC inlet. The 2; also see Section 11.1.6). For pulp and samples. spectrum shall meet the mass-intensity paper industry samples, ascorbic acid may be 6.2 Extraction apparatus. criteria in Table 3 (Reference 7). The mass added to treated effluent samples only. 6.2.1 Bottle or beaker: 1500-to 2000-mL spectrometer shall be interfaced to the GC capacity. such that the end of the capillary column 5.0 Safety 6.2.2 Separatory funnel: 500-to 2000-mL, terminates within 1 cm of the ion source, but 5.1 The toxicity or carcinogenicity of glass, with PTFE stopcock. does not intercept the electron or ion beams. each compound or reagent used in this 6.2.3 Magnetic stirrer: Corning Model All portions of the column which connect the method has not been precisely determined; 320, or equivalent, with stirring bar. GC to the ion source shall remain at or above however, each chemical compound should 6.3 Polyethylene gloves: For handling the column temperature during analysis to be treated as a potential health hazard. samples and extraction equipment (Fisher preclude condensation of less volatile Exposure to these compounds should be 11–394–110–B, or equivalent). compounds. reduced to the lowest possible level. The 6.4 Graduated cylinders: 1000-mL, 100- 6.14 Data system: Shall collect and record laboratory is responsible for maintaining a mL, and 10-mL nominal. MS data, store mass-intensity data in spectral Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18737 libraries, process GCMS data, generate extraction procedure that is applied to the 7.11 DFTPP solution: Prepare a solution reports, and compute and record response field samples. of DFTPP at 50 µg/mL in acetone. factors. 7.6.2 Standard solutions: Purchased as 7.12 Solutions for obtaining authentic 6.14.1 Data acquisition: Mass spectra solutions or mixtures with certification to mass spectra (Section 10.2): Prepare mixtures shall be collected continuously throughout their purity, concentration, and authenticity, of compounds at concentrations which will the analysis and stored on a mass storage or prepared from materials of known purity assure authentic spectra are obtained for device. and composition. If chemical purity of a storage in libraries. 6.14.2 Mass spectral libraries: User- compound is 98% or greater, the weight may 7.13 Preparation of calibration solutions. created libraries containing mass spectra be used without correction to compute the 7.13.1 Into five 1000-mL aliquots of obtained from analysis of authentic standards concentration of the standard. When not reagent water, spike 50, 100, 200, 500 and shall be employed to reverse search GCMS being used, standards are stored in the dark 1000 µL of each of the two solutions in runs for the compounds of interest (Section at ¥20 to ¥10 °C in screw-capped vials with Section 7.9. Spike 1.00 mL of each of the two 10.2). PTFE-lined lids. A mark is placed on the vial labeled compound spiking solutions (Section 6.14.3 Data processing: The data system at the level of the solution so that solvent 7.8) into each of the five aliquots. shall be used to search, locate, identify, and evaporation loss can be detected. The vials 7.13.2 Using the procedure in Section 11, quantify the compounds of interest in each are brought to room temperature prior to use. derivatize and extract each solution, and GCMS analysis. Software routines shall be 7.6.3 If the chemical purity of any concentrate the extract to a final volume of employed to compute retention times, and to standard does not meet the 98% requirement 0.50 mL. This will produce calibration compute peak areas at the m/z’s specified above, the laboratory must correct all solutions of nominal 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 (Table 4). Displays of spectra, mass calculations, calibrations, etc., for the µg/mL of the native chlorophenolics and a chromatograms, and library comparisons are difference in purity. constant concentration of 25 µg/mL of each required to verify results. 7.7 Preparation of stock solutions: labeled compound and the SMIS (assuming 6.14.4 Response factors and multi-point Prepare chlorovanillins and 100% derivatization and recovery). As noted calibrations: The data system shall be used to chlorosyringaldehydes in acetone, as these in Section 11.1.6, ascorbic acid is added to record and maintain lists of response factors compounds are subject to degradation in all samples of final effluents to stabilize (response ratios for isotope dilution) and methanol. Prepare the remaining chlorocatechols, but is not added to samples multi-point calibration curves (Section 10). chlorophenolics in methanol. Prepare all of pulp and paper in-process wastewaters. Computations of relative standard deviation standards per the steps below. Observe the Therefore, it is necessary to prepare separate (coefficient of variation) are used for testing safety precautions in Section 5. sets of five initial calibration standards with calibration linearity. Statistics on initial 7.7.1 Dissolve an appropriate amount of and without the addition of ascorbic acid. (Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section 9.6) assayed reference material in a suitable Also, in the event that the laboratory is performance shall be computed and solvent. For example, weigh 50 mg (±0.1 mg) extracting final effluent samples by both the maintained. of pentachlorophenol in a 10-mL ground- stir-bar and separatory funnel procedures glass-stoppered volumetric flask and fill to (see Section 11.3), initial calibration 7.0 Reagents and Standards the mark with methanol. After the standards should be prepared by both 7.1 Reagents for adjusting sample pH. pentachlorophenol is completely dissolved, methods. 7.1.1 Sodium hydroxide: Reagent grade, 6 transfer the solution to a 15-mL vial with 7.13.3 These solutions permit the relative N in reagent water. PTFE-lined cap. response (labeled to unlabeled) and the 7.1.2 Sulfuric acid: Reagent grade, 6 N in 7.7.2 Stock solutions should be checked response factor to be measured as a function reagent water. for signs of degradation prior to the of concentration (Sections 10.4 and 10.5). 7.2 Reagents for sample preservation. preparation of calibration or performance test 7.13.4 The nominal 50 µg/mL standard 7.2.1 Sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) standards and shall be replaced after six may also be used as a calibration verification solution (1 N): Weigh 79 g Na2S2O3 in a 1– months, or sooner if comparison with quality standard (see Section 9.6). L volumetric flask and dilute to the mark control check standards indicates a change in 7.14 Ongoing precision and recovery with reagent water. concentration. (OPR) standard: Used for determination of 7.2.2 Ascorbic acid solution: Prepare a 7.8 Labeled compound spiking solution: initial (Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section solution of ascorbic acid in reagent water at From stock solutions prepared as above, or 9.6) precision and recovery. This solution is a concentration of 0.1 g/mL. This solution from mixtures, prepare one spiking solution prepared by spiking 500 µL of each the two must be prepared fresh on each day when to contain the labeled chlorovanillin in solutions of the secondary calibration derivatizations will be performed. Therefore, acetone and a second spiking solution to standards (Section 7.9) and 1 mL of each of do not prepare more than will be used that contain the remaining chlorophenolics, the two labeled compound spiking solutions day. (A 50-mL volume is sufficient for ten including the 3,4,5-trichlorophenol sample (Section 7.8) into 1000 mL of reagent water. analyses). matrix internal standard (SMIS), in methanol. 7.15 Stability of solutions: All standard 7.3 Solvents: Hexane, acetone, and The labeled compounds and SMIS are each solutions (Sections 7.7 through 7.14) shall be methanol. Distilled in glass (Burdick and at a concentration of 12.5 µg/mL. analyzed within 48 hours of preparation and Jackson, or equivalent). 7.9 Secondary standards for calibration: on a monthly basis thereafter for signs of 7.4 Reagent water: Water in which the Using stock solutions (Section 7.7), prepare degradation. Standards will remain compounds of interest and interfering one secondary standard containing the acceptable if the peak area at the quantitation compounds are not detected by this method. chlorovanillins and chlorsyringaldehydes m/z relative to the DFB internal standard 7.5 Reagents for derivatization. listed in Table 1 in acetone and a second remains within ±15% of the area obtained in 7.5.1 Potassium carbonate (K2CO3). secondary standard containing the remaining the initial analysis of the standard. 7.5.1.1 Purification: Spread in a shallow chlorophenolics in methanol. The baking dish, heat overnight at 400 to 500°C. monochlorinated phenol, guaiacol, and 8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and 7.5.1.2 Solution: Dissolve 150 g purified catechol are included at a concentration of 25 Storage K2CO3 in 250 mL reagent water. µg/mL; the trichlorinated catechols, 8.1 Collect samples in glass containers 7.5.2 Acetic anhydride: Redistilled tetrachlorinated guaiacol and catechol, (Section 6.1) following conventional reagent grade. pentachlorophenol, 5,6-dichlorovanillin, and sampling practices (Reference 9). Aqueous 7.6 Analytical standards. 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde are included at a samples are collected in refrigerated bottles 7.6.1 Derivatization: Because the concentration of 100 µg/mL; and the using automatic sampling equipment. chlorinated phenolics are determined as their remaining compounds are included at a 8.2 Sample preservation. acetate derivatives after in situ acetylation, concentration of 50 µg/mL, each in their 8.2.1 Residual chlorine: If the sample the method requires that the calibration respective solutions. contains residual chlorine, the chlorine must standards be prepared by spiking the 7.10 Instrument internal standard (IIS): be reduced to eliminate positive interference underivatized materials into reagent water Prepare a solution of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl resulting from continued chlorination and carrying the spiked reagent water aliquot (DFB) at a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL in reactions. Immediately after sampling, test through the entire derivatization and hexane. for residual chlorine using the following 18738 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations method or an alternative EPA method sample matrix internal standard (SMIS) to internal standard (SMIS) to assess method (Reference 10). monitor method performance. This test is performance on the sample matrix. 8.2.1.1 Dissolve a few crystals of described in Section 9.4. When results of 9.4.1 Analyze each sample according to potassium iodide in the sample and add these spikes indicate atypical method the method beginning in Section 11. three to five drops of a 1% starch solution. performance for samples, the samples are 9.4.2 Compute the percent recovery (P) of A blue color indicates the presence of diluted to bring method performance within the labeled compounds and the SMIS using residual chlorine. acceptable limits (Section 13). the internal standard method (Section 14.3) 8.2.1.2 If residual chlorine is found, add 9.1.5 Analyses of blanks are required to with 2,2’-difluorobiphenyl as the reference 1 mL of sodium thiosulfate solution (Section demonstrate freedom from contamination. compound. 7.2.1) for each 2.5 ppm of free chlorine or The procedures and criteria for analysis of a 9.4.3 Compare the labeled compound and until the blue color disappears. blank are described in Section 9.5. SMIS recovery for each compound with the 8.2.2 Acidification: Adjust pH of all 9.1.6 The laboratory shall, on an ongoing corresponding limits in Table 5. If the aqueous samples to <2 with sulfuric acid basis, demonstrate through analysis of the recovery of any compound falls outside its (Section 7.1.2). Failure to acidify samples ongoing precision and recovery standard warning limit, method performance is may result in positive interferences from (Section 7.14) that the analysis system is in unacceptable for that compound in that continued chlorination reactions. control. These procedures are described in sample. Therefore, the sample is complex. 8.2.3 Refrigeration: Maintain sample Section 9.6. The sample is diluted and reanalyzed per temperature at 0 to 4 °C from time of 9.1.7 The laboratory shall maintain Section 13. collection until extraction, and maintain records to define the quality of data that is 9.4.4 As part of the QA program for the extracts at a temperature of 0 to 4° C from generated. Development of accuracy laboratory, it is suggested, but not required, time of extraction until analysis. statements is described in Section 9.4.4 and that method accuracy for samples be assessed 8.3 Collect a minimum of 2000 mL of 9.6.3. and records maintained. After the analysis of sample. This will provide a sufficient amount 9.2 DFTPP spectrum validity: Inject 1 µL five samples for which the labeled for all testing. Smaller amounts may be of the DFTPP solution (Section 7.11) either compounds pass the tests in Section 9.4.3, collected if the stream is known to contain separately or within a few seconds of compute the average percent recovery (P) and high levels of chlorophenolics. injection of the OPR standard (Section 9.6) the standard deviation of the percent 8.4 All samples must be acetylated and analyzed at the beginning of each shift. The recovery (sp) for the labeled compounds extracted within 30 days of collection, and criteria in Table 3 shall be met. only. Express the accuracy assessment as a must be analyzed within 30 days of 9.3 Initial demonstration of laboratory percent recovery interval from P¥2sp to P + acetylation. If labeled compound recoveries capability. 2sp for each matrix. For example, if P = 90% for a sample do not meet the acceptance 9.3.1 Method Detection Limit (MDL): To and sp = 10%, the accuracy interval is criteria in Table 5 and the 30-day holding establish the ability to detect the analytes in expressed as 70 to 110%. Update the time is not met, a new sample must be this method, the laboratory should determine accuracy assessment for each compound on collected. the MDL per the procedure in 40 CFR 136, a regular basis (e.g., after each 20 to 30 new Appendix B using the apparatus, reagents, accuracy measurements). 9.0 Quality Control and standards that will be used in the 9.5 Blanks: Reagent water blanks are 9.1 Each laboratory that uses this method practice of this method. MDLs less than or analyzed to demonstrate freedom from is required to operate a formal quality equal to the MDLs in Table 2 should be contamination. assurance program (Reference 8). The achieved prior to the practice of this method. 9.5.1 Extract and concentrate a 1000-mL minimum requirements of this program 9.3.2 Initial precision and recovery (IPR): reagent water blank with each sample batch consist of an initial demonstration of To establish the ability to demonstrate (samples started through the extraction laboratory capability, analysis of samples control over the analysis system and to process on the same eight-hour shift, to a spiked with labeled compounds to evaluate generate acceptable precision and accuracy, maximum of 20 samples). Blanks associated and document data quality, and analysis of the laboratory shall perform the following with samples to which ascorbic acid is added standards and blanks as tests of continued operations: must be prepared with ascorbic acid, and performance. Laboratory performance is 9.3.2.1 Derivatize, extract, concentrate, blanks associated with samples to which compared to established performance criteria and analyze four 1000-mL aliquots of the ascorbic acid is not added must be prepared to determine if the results of analyses meet ongoing precision and recovery standard without ascorbic acid. Analyze the blank the performance characteristics of the (OPR; Section 7.14), according to the immediately after analysis of the OPR method. procedure in Section 11. Separate sets of IPR (Section 7.14) to demonstrate freedom from 9.1.1 DFTPP spectrum validity shall be aliquots must be prepared with the addition contamination. checked at the beginning of each eight-hour of ascorbic acid and without. 9.5.2 If any of the compounds of interest shift during which analyses are performed. 9.3.2.2 Using results of the four analyses, (Table 1) or any potentially interfering This test is described in Section 9.2. compute the average percent recovery (X) compound is found in an aqueous blank at 9.1.2 The laboratory shall make an initial and the relative standard deviation of the greater than 5µg/L (assuming a response demonstration of the ability to generate recovery (s) for each compound, by isotope factor of one relative to the sample matrix acceptable results with this method. This dilution for pollutants with a labeled analog, internal standard for compounds not listed in ability is established as described in Section and by internal standard for pollutants with Table 1), analysis of samples is halted until 9.3. no labeled analog and for the labeled the source of contamination is eliminated 9.1.3 The laboratory is permitted to compounds and the SMIS. and a blank shows no evidence of modify this method to improve separations 9.3.2.3 For each compound, compare s contamination at this level. or lower the costs of measurements, provided and X with the corresponding limits for 9.6 Calibration verification and ongoing all performance specifications are met. Each initial precision and recovery in Table 5. If precision and recovery: At the beginning of time a modification is made to the method, s and X for all compounds meet the each eight-hour shift during which analyses the laboratory is required to repeat the acceptance criteria, system performance is are performed, analytical system performance procedures in Sections 10.3 and 9.3.2 to acceptable and analysis of blanks and is verified for all compounds. Analysis of demonstrate method performance. If the samples may begin. If, however, any DFTPP (Section 9.2) and the nominal 50µg/ detection limits for the analytes in this individual s exceeds the precision limit or mL OPR (Section 11.1.5) is used to verify all method will be affected by the modification, any individual X falls outside the range for performance criteria. Adjustment and/or the laboratory should demonstrate that each recovery, system performance is recalibration, per Section 10, shall be MDL (40 CFR 136, Appendix B) is less than unacceptable for that compound. In this performed until all performance criteria are or equal to the MDL in this method or one- event, correct the problem and repeat the test met. Only after all performance criteria are third the regulatory compliance level, (Section 9.3.2). met may samples and blanks be analyzed. whichever is higher. 9.4 Labeled compound recovery: The 9.6.1 Analyze the extract of the OPR 9.1.4 The laboratory shall spike all laboratory shall spike all samples with (Section 11.1.5) at the beginning of each samples with labeled compounds and the labeled compounds and the sample matrix eight-hour shift and prior to analysis of Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18739 samples from the same batch. Alternatively, 9.6.3 Add results that pass the distortion, but may also eliminate authentic a separate calibration verification may be specifications in Section 9.6.2.1 to initial and m/z’s or introduce other distortion. performed using an aliquot of the midpoint previous ongoing data for each compound. 10.2.3 The authentic reference spectrum calibration standard from Section 7.13 (with Update QC charts to form a graphic is obtained under DFTPP tuning conditions a nominal concentration of 50µ g/mL). This representation of continued laboratory (Section 10.1 and Table 3) to normalize it to alternative may be used to check instrument performance. Develop a statement of spectra from other instruments. performance on failure of an OPR, or when laboratory accuracy for each pollutant and 10.2.4 The spectrum is edited by samples extracted with an OPR aliquot are labeled compound in each matrix type removing all peaks in the m/z 42 to 45 range, not analyzed within the same eight-hour (reagent water, C-stage filtrate, E-stage and saving the five most intense mass analysis shift. filtrate, final effluent, etc.) by calculating the spectral peaks and all other mass spectral 9.6.1.1 Retention times: The absolute average percent recovery (R) and the standard peaks greater than 10% of the base peak retention time of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl shall deviation of percent recovery (sr). Express (excluding the peaks in the m/z 42 to 45 be within the range of 765 to 885 seconds, the accuracy as a recovery interval from R¥ range). The spectrum may be further edited and the relative retention times of all 2sr to R + 2sr. For example, if R = 95% and to remove common interfering m/z’s. The pollutants and labeled compounds shall fall sr = 5%, the accuracy is 85 to 105%. within the limits given in Table 2. spectrum obtained is stored for reverse 9.7 The specifications contained in this 9.6.1.2 GC resolution: The valley height search and for compound confirmation. 10.3 method can be met if the apparatus used is between 4,6-dichloroguaiacol and 3,4- Minimum level: Demonstrate that the calibrated properly, then maintained in a dichloroguaiacol at m/z 192 shall not exceed chlorophenolics are detectable at the 10% of the height of the taller of the two calibrated state. The standards used for minimum level (per all criteria in Section µ peaks. calibration (Section 10) and for initial 14). The nominal 5 g/mL calibration 9.6.1.3 Multiple peaks: Each compound (Section 9.3.2) and ongoing (Section 9.6) standard (Section 7.13) can be used to injected shall give a single, distinct GC peak. precision and recovery should be identical, demonstrate this performance. 9.6.2 Compute the percent recovery of so that the most precise results will be 10.4 Calibration with isotope dilution: each pollutant (Table 1) by isotope dilution obtained. The GCMS instrument in particular Isotope dilution is used when (1) labeled (Section 10.4) for those compounds that have will provide the most reproducible results if compounds are available, (2) interferences do labeled analogs. Compute the percent dedicated to the settings and conditions not preclude its use, and (3) the quantitation recovery of each pollutant that has no labeled required for the analyses of chlorophenolics m/z (Table 4) extracted ion-current profile analog by the internal standard method by this method. (EICP) area for the compound is in the (Section 10.5), using the 3,4,5- 9.8 Depending on specific program calibration range. Alternative labeled trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal requirements, field replicates may be compounds and quantitation m/z’s may be standard. Compute the percent recovery of collected to determine the precision of the used based on availability. If any of the above the labeled compounds and the SMIS by the sampling technique, and spiked samples may conditions preclude isotope dilution, the internal standard method, using the 2,2′- be required to determine the accuracy of the internal standard calibration method (Section difluorobiphenyl as the internal standard. analysis when the internal standard method 10.5) is used. 9.6.2.1 For each compound, compare the is used. 10.4.1 A calibration curve encompassing recovery with the limits for ongoing 10.0 Calibration and Standardization the concentration range is prepared for each precision and recovery in Table 5. If all compound to be determined. The relative 10.1 Assemble the GCMS and establish compounds meet the acceptance criteria, response (pollutant to labeled) vs. the operating conditions in Section 12. system performance is acceptable and concentration in standard solutions is plotted Analyze standards per the procedure in analysis of blanks and samples may proceed. or computed using a linear regression. The Section 12 to demonstrate that the analytical If, however, any individual recovery falls example in Figure 1 shows a calibration system meets the minimum levels in Table 2, outside of the range given, system curve for phenol using phenol-d5 as the and the mass-intensity criteria in Table 3 for performance is unacceptable for that isotopic diluent. Also shown are the ±10% 50 ng DFTPP. compound. In this event, there may be a error limits (dotted lines). Relative response 10.2 Mass-spectral libraries: Detection problem with the GCMS or with the (RR) is determined according to the and identification of compounds of interest derivatization/extraction/concentration procedures described below. A minimum of are dependent upon spectra stored in user- systems. five data points are employed for calibration. 9.6.2.2 GCMS system: To determine if the created libraries. 10.2.1 Obtain a mass spectrum of the 10.4.2 The relative response of a failure of the OPR test (Section 9.6.2.1) is due pollutant to its labeled analog is determined to instrument drift, analyze the current acetyl derivative of each chlorophenolic compound (pollutant, labeled compound, from isotope ratio values computed from calibration verification extract (Section acquired data. Three isotope ratios are used 7.13.4), calculate the percent recoveries of all and the sample matrix internal standard) by in this process: compounds, and compare with the OPR derivatizing and analyzing an authentic recovery limits in Table 5. If all compounds standard either singly or as part of a mixture Rx = the isotope ratio measured for the pure meet these criteria, GCMS performance/ in which there is no interference between pollutant. stability is verified, and the failure of the closely eluting components. That only a Ry = the isotope ratio measured for the OPR analysis is attributed to problems in the single compound is present is determined by labeled compound. derivatization/extraction/concentration of the examination of the spectrum. Fragments not Rm = the isotope ratio of an analytical OPR. In this case, analysis of the sample attributable to the compound under study mixture of pollutant and labeled extracts may proceed. However, failure of indicate the presence of an interfering compounds. any of the recovery criteria in the analysis of compound. The m/z’s are selected such that Rx>Ry. If a sample extract requires rederivatization of 10.2.2 Adjust the analytical conditions Rm is not between 2Ry and 0.5Rx, the method that sample (Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2). If, and scan rate (for this test only) to produce does not apply and the sample is analyzed however, the performance/stability of the an undistorted spectrum at the GC peak by the internal standard method. GCMS is not verified by analysis of the maximum. An undistorted spectrum will 10.4.3 Capillary columns sometimes calibration verification extract, the GCMS usually be obtained if five complete spectra separate the pollutant-labeled pair when requires recalibration and all extracts are collected across the upper half of the GC deuterium labeled compounds are used, with associated with the failed OPR must be peak. Software algorithms designed to the labeled compound eluted first (Figure 2). reanalyzed. ‘‘enhance’’ the spectrum may eliminate For this case, 18740 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

  = area m1 z Rx  , at the retention time of the pollutant (RT2 ).  1    = 1 Ry  , at the retention time of the labeled compound (RT1 ). area m2 z  area at m z ()at RT  as measured in the mixture of the pollutant and = 1 2 R m  , area at m2 z ()at RT1  labeled compounds (Figure 2), and RR = R m .

10.4.4 When the pollutant-labeled pair is factors (RF) for both the pollutants with no 11.0 Sample Derivatization, Extraction, and not separated (as occurs with carbon-13- labeled analog and for the labeled Concentration labeled compounds), or when another compounds and the SMIS. The response The procedure described in this section labeled compound with interfering spectral factor is defined by the following equation: uses a stir-bar in a beaker for the masses overlaps the pollutant (a case which derivatization. The extraction procedures can occur with isomeric compounds), it is × applied to samples depend on the type of ()ACs is necessary to determine the contributions of RF = sample being analyzed. Extraction of samples the pollutant and labeled compound to the × ()ACis s from in-process wastewaters is performed respective EICP areas. If the peaks are using a separatory funnel procedure. All separated well enough to permit the data Where: calibrations, IPR, OPR, and blank analyses system or operator to remove the As=the area of the characteristic mass for the associated with in-process wastewater contributions of the compounds to each compound in the daily standard. samples must be performed by the separatory other, the equations in Section 10.4.3 apply. Ais=the area of the characteristic mass for the funnel procedure. This usually occurs when the height of the internal standard. Extraction of samples of final effluents and valley between the two GC peaks at the same Cis=the concentration of the internal standard raw water may be performed using either the m/z is less than 70 to 90% of the height of µ stir-bar procedure or the separatory funnel the shorter of the two peaks. If significant GC ( g/mL). procedure. However, all calibrations, IPR, and spectral overlap occur, RR is computed Cs=is the concentration of the compound in µ OPR, blank, and sample analyses must be using the following equation: the calibration standard ( g/mL). performed using the same procedure. Both When this equation is used to determine procedures are described below. − + the response factors for pollutant compounds ()RRRy m() x 1 11.1 Preparation of all sample types for RR = without labeled analogs, use the area (Ais) stir-bar derivatization. − + and concentration (Cis) of 3,4,5- ()RRRm x() y 1 11.1.1 Allow sample to warm to room trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal temperature. Where: standard. When this equation is used to 11.1.2 Immediately prior to measuring, Rx is measured as shown in figure 3A, determine the response factors for the labeled shake sample vigorously to insure Ry is measured as shown in figure 3B, analogs and the SMIS, use the area (Ais) and homogeneity. Rm is measured as shown in figure 3C. concentration (Cis) of 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl as 11.1.3 Measure 1000 mL (±10 mL) of

For example, Rx = 46100/4780 = 9.644; Ry the internal standard. sample into a clean 2000-mL beaker. Label = 2650/43600 = 0.0608; Rm = 49200/48300 = 10.5.2 The response factor is determined the beaker with the sample number. 1.1019; thus, RR = 1.114. 10.4.5 To calibrate for at least five concentrations appropriate to 11.1.4 Dilute aliquot(s). the analytical system by isotope dilution, the response of each compound (Section 11.1.4.1 Complex samples: For samples analyze a 1-µL aliquot of each of the 7.13); nominally, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 µg/ that are expected to be difficult to derivatize, calibration standards (Section 7.13) using the mL. The amount of SMIS added to each concentrate, or are expected to overload the GC column or mass spectrometer, measure an procedure in Section 12. Compute the RR at solution is the same (25 µg/mL) so that Cis additional 100 mL (±1 mL) into a clean 2000- each concentration. remains constant. Likewise, the 10.4.6 Linearity: If the ratio of relative mL beaker and dilute to a final volume of concentration of IIS is constant in each ± response to concentration for any compound 1000-mL ( 50 mL) with reagent water. Label solution. The area ratio (As/Ais) is plotted is constant (less than 20% coefficient of with the sample number and as the dilute versus the concentration ratio (Cs/Cis) for variation) over the five-point calibration aliquot. However, to ensure adequate range, an averaged relative response/ each compound in the standard to produce sensitivity, a 1000-mL aliquot must always be concentration ratio may be used for that a calibration curve. prepared and analyzed. compound; otherwise, the complete 10.5.3 Linearity: If the response factor 11.1.4.2 Pulp and paper industry calibration curve for that compound shall be (RF) for any compound is constant (less than samples: For in-process streams such as E- used over the five-point calibration range. 35% coefficient of variation) over the five- stage and C-stage filtrates and other in- 10.5 Calibration by internal standard: The point calibration range, an averaged response process wastewaters, it may be necessary to method contains two types of internal factor may be used for that compound; prepare an aliquot at an additional level of ± standards, the sample matrix internal otherwise, the complete calibration curve for dilution. In this case, dilute 10 mL ( 0.1 mL) ± standard (SMIS) and the instrument internal that compound shall be used over the five- of sample to 1000-mL ( 50 mL). standard (IIS), and they are used for different point range. 11.1.5 QC aliquots: For a batch of samples quantitative purposes. The 3,4,5- 10.6 Combined calibration: By using of the same type to be extracted at the same time (to a maximum of 20), place two 1000- trichlorophenol sample matrix internal calibration solutions (Section 7.13) mL (±10 mL) aliquots of reagent water in standard (SMIS) is used for measurement of containing the pollutants, labeled all pollutants with no labeled analog and clean 2000-mL beakers. Label one beaker as compounds, and the internal standards, a when the criteria for isotope dilution the blank and the other as the ongoing single set of analyses can be used to produce (Section 10.4) cannot be met. The 2,2′- precision and recovery (OPR) aliquot. difluorobiphenyl instrument internal calibration curves for the isotope dilution Because final effluent samples are treated standard (IIS) is used for determination of the and internal standard methods. These curves with ascorbic acid and in-process wastewater labeled compounds and the SMIS. The are verified each shift (Section 9) by samples are not (see Section 11.1.6), prepare results are used for intralaboratory statistics analyzing the OPR standard, or an optional an OPR aliquot and a blank for the final (Sections 9.4.4 and 9.6.3). calibration verification (VER) standard. effluent and a separate pair for the in-process 10.5.1 Response factors: Calibration Recalibration is required only if OPR criteria samples. Treat these QC aliquots in the same requires the determination of response (Section 9.6 and Table 5) cannot be met. fashion as the associated samples, adding Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18741 ascorbic acid to the pair associated with the minutes, drawing the vortex to the bottom of emulsions that resist these techniques, final effluents, and not adding ascorbic acid the beaker. centrifugation may be required. to the pair associated with the in-process 11.3.1.2 Stop the stirring and drain the If centrifugation is employed to break the samples. hexane and a portion of the water into a 500- emulsion, drain the organic layer into a 11.1.6 Ascorbic acid: Added to stabilize to 1000-mL separatory funnel. Allow the centrifuge tube, cap the tube, and centrifuge chlorocatechols. However, for pulp and layers to separate. for two to three minutes or until the phases paper industry in-process streams and other 11.3.1.3 Drain the aqueous layer back into separate. If the emulsion cannot be in-process wastewaters, the addition of the beaker. completely broken, collect as much of the ascorbic acid may convert chloro-o-quinones 11.3.1.4 The formation of emulsions can organic phase as possible, and measure and to catechols if these quinones are present. be expected in any solvent extraction record the volume of the organic phase Separate calibration curves must be prepared procedure. If an emulsion forms, the collected. If all efforts to break the emulsion, with and without the addition of ascorbic laboratory must take steps to break the including centrifugation, fail and none of the acid (Section 7.13.2). emulsion before proceeding. Mechanical organic phase can be collected, proceed with 11.1.6.1 Spike 5 to 6 mL of the ascorbic means of breaking the emulsion include the the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4.2). acid solution (Section 7.2.2) into each final use of a glass stirring rod, filtration through However, use of the dilute aliquot will effluent sample, and the associated glass wool, and other techniques. For sacrifice the sensitivity of the method, and calibration standards, IPR and OPR aliquots, emulsions that resist these techniques, may not be appropriate in all cases. and blank. centrifugation is nearly 100% effective. 11.3.2.6 If drained into a beaker, transfer 11.1.6.2 For pulp and paper industry C- If centrifugation is employed to break the the aqueous layer to the 2-L separatory stage filtrates, E-stage filtrates, and untreated emulsion, drain the organic layer into a funnel (Section 11.3.2.1). Perform a second effluents, omit the ascorbic acid to prevent centrifuge tube, cap the tube, and centrifuge extraction using another 200 mL of fresh the conversion of chloro-o-quinones to for two to three minutes or until the phases solvent. catechols. Prepare calibration standards, IPR separate. If the emulsion cannot be 11.3.2.7 Transfer the extract to the 1000- and OPR aliquots, and blanks associated with completely broken, collect as much of the mL K–D flask in Section 11.3.2.4. these samples without ascorbic acid as well. 11.3.2.8 Perform a third extraction in the µ organic phase as possible, and measure and 11.1.7 Spike 1000 L of the labeled record the volume of the organic phase same fashion as above. compound spiking solution (Section 7.8) into collected. 11.3.2.9 Proceed with concentration of the sample and QC aliquots. the extract, as described in Section 11.4. µ µ If all efforts to break the emulsion fail, 11.1.8 Spike 500 L of the nominal 50 g/ including centrifugation, and none of the 11.4 Macro concentration: Concentrate mL calibration solution (Section 7.13.4) into organic phase can be collected, proceed with the extracts in separate 1000-mL K–D flasks the OPR aliquot. the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4.2). equipped with 10-mL concentrator tubes. 11.1.9 Adjust the pH of the sample Add one to two clean boiling chips to the However, use of the dilute aliquot will aliquots to between 7.0 and 7.1. For flask and attach a three-ball macro-Snyder sacrifice the sensitivity of the method, and calibration standards, IPR and OPR aliquots, column. Prewet the column by adding may not be appropriate in all cases. and blanks, pH adjustment is not required. approximately 1 mL of hexane through the 11.3.1.5 Drain the organic layer into a 11.1.10 Equilibrate all sample and QC top. Place the K–D apparatus in a hot water Kuderna-Danish (K–D) apparatus equipped solutions for approximately 15 minutes, with bath so that the entire lower rounded surface occasional stirring. with a 10-mL concentrator tube. Label the K– of the flask is bathed with steam. Adjust the 11.2 Derivatization: Because D apparatus. It may be necessary to pour the vertical position of the apparatus and the derivatization must proceed rapidly, organic layer through a funnel containing water temperature as required to complete anhydrous sodium sulfate to remove any particularly upon the addition of the K2CO3 the concentration in 15 to 20 minutes. At the buffer, it is necessary to work with one traces of water from the extract. proper rate of distillation, the balls of the sample at a time until the derivatization step 11.3.1.6 Repeat the extraction (Section column will actively chatter but the (Section 11.2.3) is complete. 11.3.1.1 through 11.3.1.5) two more times chambers will not flood. When the liquid has 11.2.1 Place a beaker containing a sample using another 200-mL of hexane for each reached an apparent volume of 1 mL, remove or QC aliquot on the magnetic stirrer in a extraction, combining the extracts in the K– the K–D apparatus from the bath and allow fume hood, drop a clean stirring bar into the D apparatus. the solvent to drain and cool for at least 10 beaker, and increase the speed of the stirring 11.3.1.7 Proceed with concentration of minutes. Remove the Snyder column and bar until the vortex is drawn to the bottom the extract, as described in Section 11.4. rinse the flask and its lower joint into the of the beaker. 11.3.2 Separatory funnel extraction of concentrator tube with 1 to 2 mL of hexane. 11.2.2 Measure 25 to 26 mL of K2CO3 either final effluents or in-process A 5-mL syringe is recommended for this buffer into a graduated cylinder or other wastewaters. operation. container and 25 to 26 mL of acetic acid into 11.3.2.1 Transfer the derivatized sample 11.5 Micro-concentration: Final another. or QC aliquot to a 2-L separatory funnel. concentration of the extracts may be ± 11.2.3 Add the K2CO3 buffer to the 11.3.2.2 Add 200 mL ( 20 mL) of hexane accomplished using either a micro-Snyder sample or QC aliquot, immediately (within to the separatory funnel. Cap the funnel and column or nitrogen evaporation. one to three seconds) add the acetic extract the sample by shaking the funnel for 11.5.1 Micro-Snyder column: Add a clean anhydride, and stir for three to five minutes two to three minutes with periodic venting. boiling chip and attach a two-ball micro- to complete the derivatization. 11.3.2.3 Allow the organic layer to Snyder column to the concentrator tube. 11.3 Extraction: Two procedures are separate from the water phase for a minimum Prewet the column by adding approximately described below for the extraction of of 10 minutes. 0.5 mL hexane through the top. Place the derivatized samples. The choice of extraction 11.3.2.4 Drain the lower aqueous layer apparatus in the hot water bath. Adjust the procedure will depend on the sample type. into the beaker used for derivatization vertical position and the water temperature For final effluent samples, either of two (Section 11.2), or into a second clean 2-L as required to complete the concentration in procedures may be utilized for extraction of separatory funnel. Transfer the solvent to a 5 to 10 minutes. At the proper rate of derivatized samples. For samples of in- 1000-mL K–D flask. It may be necessary to distillation, the balls of the column will process wastewaters, the separatory funnel pour the organic layer through a funnel actively chatter but the chambers will not extraction procedure must be used. containing anhydrous sodium sulfate to flood. When the liquid reaches an apparent Note: Whichever procedure is employed, remove any traces of water from the extract. volume of approximately 0.2 mL, remove the the same extraction procedure must be used 11.3.2.5 The formation of emulsions can apparatus from the water bath and allow to for calibration standards, IPR aliquots, OPR be expected in any solvent extraction drain and cool for at least 10 minutes. aliquots, blanks, and the associated field procedure. If an emulsion forms, the Remove the micro-Snyder column and rinse samples. laboratory must take steps to break the its lower joint into the concentrator tube with 11.3.1 Stir-bar extraction of final emulsion before proceeding. Mechanical approximately 0.2 mL of hexane. Adjust to a effluents. means of breaking the emulsion include the final volume of 0.5 mL. 11.3.1.1 Add 200 mL (±20 mL) of hexane use of a glass stirring rod, filtration through 11.5.2 Nitrogen evaporation: Transfer the to the beaker and stir for three to five glass wool, and other techniques. For concentrator tube to a nitrogen evaporation 18742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations device and direct a gentle stream of clean dry the area in the OPR or VER standard (Section (Section 10.4.1), RR would be equal to 1.114. nitrogen into the concentrator. Rinse the 9.6). If the absolute areas of the labeled For this RR value, the phenol calibration sides of the concentrator tube with small compounds and the SMIS are within a factor curve given in Figure 1 indicates a volumes of hexane, and concentrate the of two of the respective areas in the OPR or concentration of 27 µg/mL in the sample extract to a final volume of 0.5 mL. VER standard, and the DFB internal standard extract (Cex). µ 11.6 Spike each extract with 10 L of the area is less than one-half of its respective 14.2.1 Compute the concentration in the ′ 2,2 -difluorobiphenyl IIS (Section 7.10) and area, then internal standard loss in the extract using the response ratio determined transfer the concentrated extract to a clean extract has occurred. In this case, analyze the from calibration data (Section 10.4) and the screw-cap vial using hexane to rinse the extract from the dilute aliquot (Section following equation: concentrator tube. Seal the vial with a PTFE- 11.1.4). lined lid, and mark the level on the vial. 13.3 Recovery of labeled compounds and µ =() × ()× Label with the sample number and store in the sample matrix internal standard (SMIS): Cex()/ g mL A n C l A l RR the dark at ¥20 to ¥10 °C until ready for SMIS and labeled compound recovery Where: analysis. specifications have been developed for Cex = concentration of the pollutant in the samples with and without the addition of 12.0 GCMS Analysis extract. ascorbic acid. Compare the recoveries to the An = area of the characteristic m/z for the 12.1 Establish the following operating appropriate limits in Table 5. pollutant. conditions: 13.3.1 If SMIS or labeled compound Cl = concentration of the labeled compound Carrier gas flow: Helium at 30 cm/sec at 50 °C recoveries are outside the limits given in in the extract. Injector temperature: 300 °C Table 5 and the associated OPR analysis Al = area of the characteristic m/z for the Initial temperature: 50 °C meets the recovery criteria, the extract from labeled compound. Temperature program: 8 °C/min to 270 °C the dilute aliquot (Section 11.1.4) is analyzed Final hold: Until after 2,6- as in Section 14.7. RR = response ratio from the initial dichlorosyringaldehyde elutes 13.3.2 If labeled compound or SMIS calibration. Adjust the GC conditions to meet the recovery is outside the limits given in Table 14.2.2 For the IPR (Section 9.3.2) and requirements in Section 9.6.1.1 and Table 2 5 and the associated OPR analysis did not OPR (Section 9.6), compute the percent for analyte separation and sensitivity. Once meet recovery criteria, a problem in the recovery of each pollutant using the equation optimized, the same GC conditions must be derivatization/extraction/concentration of the in Section 14.6. The percent recovery is used used for the analysis of all standards, blanks, sample is indicated, and the sample must be for the evaluation of method and laboratory IPR and OPR aliquots, and samples. rederivatized and reanalyzed. performance, in the form of IPR (Section 12.2 Bring the concentrated extract 14.0 Data Analysis and Calculations 9.3.2) and OPR (Section 9.6). (Section 11.6) or standard (Sections 7.13 and 14.3 Quantitative determination by 7.14) to room temperature and verify that any 14.1 Qualitative determination: internal standard: Compute the concentration precipitate has redissolved. Verify the level Identification is accomplished by comparison using the response factor determined from on the extract (Sections 7.13, 7.14, and 11.6) of data from analysis of a sample or blank calibration data (Section 10.5) and the and bring to the mark with solvent if with data stored in the mass spectral following equation: required. libraries. Identification of a compound is µ confirmed when the following criteria are 12.3 Inject a 1- L volume of the standard C()/µ g mL=() A × C() A× RF solution or extract using on-column or met: ex s is is splitless injection. For 0.5 mL extracts, this 14.1.1 The signals for m/z 43 (to indicate Where: 1-µL injection volume will contain 50 ng of the presence of the acetyl derivative) and all Cex = concentration of the pollutant in the characteristic m/z’s stored in the spectral the DFB internal standard. If an injection extract. volume other than 1 µL is used, that volume library (Section 10.2.4) shall be present and As = area of the characteristic m/z for the shall maximize within the same two must contain 50 ng of DFB. pollutant. 12.4 Start the GC column temperature consecutive scans. Cis = concentration of the internal standard 14.1.2 Either (1) the background corrected ramp upon injection. Start MS data collection in the extract (see note below). after the solvent peak elutes. Stop data EICP areas, or (2) the corrected relative Ais = area of the characteristic m/z for the intensities of the mass spectral peaks at the collection after the 2,6- internal standard. dichlorosyringaldehyde peak elutes. Return GC peak maximum shall agree within a factor RF = response factor from the initial the column to the initial temperature for of two (0.5 to 2 times) for all m/z’s stored in calibration. analysis of the next sample. the library. 14.1.3 The relative retention time shall be Note: When this equation is used to 13.0 Analysis of Complex Samples within the window specified in Table 2. compute the extract concentrations of native Some samples may contain high levels 14.1.4 The m/z’s present in the mass compounds without labeled analogs, use the (>1000 µg/L) of the compounds of interest, spectrum from the component in the sample area (Ais) and concentration (Cis) of 3,4,5- interfering compounds, and/or other that are not present in the reference mass trichlorophenol (SMIS) as the internal phenolic materials. Some samples will not spectrum shall be accounted for by standard. concentrate to 0.5 mL (Section 11.5); others contaminant or background ions. If the mass For the IPR (Section 9.3.2) and OPR will overload the GC column and/or mass spectrum is contaminated, an experienced (Section 9.6), compute the percent recovery spectrometer; others may contain amounts of spectrometrist (Section 1.4) shall determine using the equation in Section 14.6. phenols that may exceed the capacity of the the presence or absence of the compound. Note: Separate calibration curves will be derivatizing agent. 14.2 Quantitative determination by required for samples with and without the 13.1 Analyze the dilute aliquot (Section isotope dilution: By adding a known amount addition of ascorbic acid, and also for both 11.1.4) when the sample will not concentrate of a labeled compound to every sample prior extraction procedures (stir-bar and separatory to 0.5 mL. If a dilute aliquot was not to derivatization and extraction, correction funnel) where applicable. extracted, and the sample holding time for recovery of the pollutant can be made (Section 8.4) has not been exceeded, dilute because the pollutant and its labeled analog 14.4 Compute the concentration of the an aliquot of sample with reagent water, and exhibit the same effects upon derivatization, labeled compounds and the SMIS using the derivatize and extract it (Section 11.1.4). extraction, concentration, and gas equation in Section 14.3, but using the area Otherwise, dilute the extract (Section 14.7.3) chromatography. Relative response (RR) and concentration of the 2,2′- and quantitate it by the internal standard values for sample mixtures are used in difluorobiphenyl as the internal standard, method (Section 14.3). conjunction with calibration curves and the area of the labeled compound or 13.2 Recovery of the 2,2′- described in Section 10.4 to determine SMIS as As. difluorobiphenyl instrument internal concentrations directly, so long as labeled 14.5 Compute the concentration of each standard: The EICP area of the internal compound spiking levels are constant. For pollutant compound in the sample using the standard should be within a factor of two of the phenol example given in Figure 1 following equation: Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18743

()CV× Cex = Concentration of the pollutant in the 14.6 Compute the recovery of each =µ = ex ex extract. Cs () g L labeled compound and the SMIS as the ratio Vo Vex = Volume of the concentrated extract of concentration (or amount) found to the (typically 0.5 mL). Where: concentration (or amount) spiked, using the Vo = Volume of the original sample in liters. following equation: Cs = Concentration of the pollutant in the sample.

Concentration found Percent recovery = ×100 Concentration spiked

These percent recoveries are used to assess within the normal range for the method 18.2 ‘‘6240-Chlorinated Phenolics method performance according to Sections 9 (Section 13.3). (Interim Standard),’’ Draft Version, U.S. and 13. Environmental Protection Agency, 15.0 Method Performance 14.7 If the EICP area at the quantitation Manchester Laboratory, Manchester, m/z for any compound exceeds the 15.1 Single laboratory performance for Washington. calibration range of the system, three this method is detailed in References 1, 2, 18.3 ‘‘Performance Tests for the approaches are used to obtain results within and 11. Acceptance criteria were established Evaluation of Computerized Gas from multiple laboratory use of the draft the calibration range. Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 14.7.1 If the recoveries of all the labeled method. Equipment and Laboratories,’’ USEPA, EMSL compounds in the original sample aliquot 15.2 A chromatogram of the ongoing Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA–600/4–80–025 meet the limits in Table 5, then the extract precision and recovery standard (Section (April 1980). of the sample may be diluted by a maximum 7.14) is shown in Figure 4. of a factor of 10, and the diluted extract 18.4 ‘‘Working with Carcinogens,’’ 16.0 Pollution Prevention reanalyzed. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, Publication 77– 14.7.2 If the recovery of any labeled 16.1 The solvents used in this method 206 (August 1977). compound is outside its limits in Table 5, or pose little threat to the environment when 18.5 ‘‘OSHA Safety and Health if a tenfold dilution of the extract will not recycled and managed properly. Standards, General Industry,’’ OSHA 2206, bring the pollutant within the calibration 16.2 Standards should be prepared in 29 CFR 1910 (January 1976). range, then extract and analyze a dilute volumes consistent with laboratory use to 18.6 ‘‘Safety in Academic Chemistry aliquot of the sample (Section 11). Dilute 100 minimize the volume of expired standards to Laboratories,’’ ACS Committee on Chemical mL, 10 mL, or an appropriate volume of be disposed. Safety (1979). sample to 1000 mL with reagent water and 17.0 Waste Management 18.7 ‘‘Interlaboratory Validation of U. S. extract per Section 11. Environmental Protection Agency Method 14.7.3 If the recoveries of all labeled 17.1 It is the laboratory’s responsibility to 1625A, Addendum Report,’’ SRI compounds in the original sample aliquot comply with all federal, state, and local International, Prepared for Analysis and regulations governing waste management, (Section 14.7.1) meet the limits in Table 5, Evaluation Division (WH–557), USEPA, 401 particularly the hazardous waste and if the sample holding time has been M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 (January identification rules and land disposal exceeded, then the original sample extract is 1985). diluted by successive factors of 10, the DFB restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and 18.8 ‘‘Handbook of Analytical Quality internal standard is added to give a land by minimizing and controlling all Control in Water and Wastewater concentration of 50 µg/mL in the diluted releases from fume hoods and bench extract, and the diluted extract is analyzed. operations. Compliance with all sewage Laboratories,’’ USEPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH Quantitation of all analytes is performed discharge permits and regulations is also 45268, EPA–600/4–79–019 (March 1979). using the DFB internal standard. required. 18.9 ‘‘Standard Practice for Sampling 14.7.4 If the recoveries of all labeled 17.2 Samples preserved with HCl or Water,’’ ASTM Annual Book of Standards, compounds in the original sample aliquot H2SO4 to pH < 2 are hazardous and must be ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 76 (1980). (Section 14.7.1) or in the dilute aliquot neutralized before being disposed, or must be 18.10 ‘‘Methods 330.4 and 330.5 for Total (Section 14.7.2) (if a dilute aliquot was handled as hazardous waste. Residual Chlorine,’’ USEPA, EMSL, analyzed) do not meet the limits in Table 5, 17.3 For further information on waste Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4–70–020 and if the holding time has been exceeded, management, consult ‘‘The Waste (March 1979). re-sampling is required. Management Manual for Laboratory 18.11 ‘‘Determination of Chlorophenolics, 14.8 Results are reported for all Personnel’’, and ‘‘Less is Better: Laboratory Special Analytical Services Contract 1047, pollutants, labeled compounds, and the Chemical Management for Waste Reduction’’, Episode 1886,’’ Analytical Technologies, Inc., sample matrix internal standard in standards, both available from the American Chemical Prepared for W. A. Telliard, Industrial blanks, and samples, in units of µg/L. Society’s Department of Government Technology Division (WH–552), USEPA, 401 14.8.1 Results for samples which have Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 (June been diluted are reported at the least dilute Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 1990). level at which the area at the quantitation m/ 18.0 References 18.12 ‘‘Determination of Chlorophenolics z is within the calibration range (Section by GCMS, Development of Method 1653,’’ 14.7). 18.1 ‘‘Chlorinated Phenolics in Water by Analytical Technologies, Inc., Prepared for 14.8.2 For compounds having a labeled In Situ Acetylation/GC/MS Determination,’’ W. A. Telliard, Industrial Technology Method CP–86.01, National Council of the analog, results are reported at the least dilute Division (WH–552), USEPA, 401 M St. SW, level at which the area at the quantitation m/ Paper Industry for Air and Stream Washington, DC 20460 (May 1991). z is within the calibration range (Section Improvement, Inc., 260 Madison Avenue, 14.7) and the labeled compound recovery is New York, NY 10016 (July 1986). 19.0 Tables and Figures 18744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.ÐCHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDS DETERMINED BY GCMS USING ISOTOPE DILUTION AND INTERNAL STANDARD TECHNIQUES

Pollutant Labeled compound Compound CAS registry EPA±EGD Analog CAS registry EPA±EGD

4-chlorophenol ...... 106±48±9 1001 2,4-dichlorophenol ...... 120±83±2 1002 d3 93951±74±7 1102 2,6-dichlorophenol ...... 87±65±0 1003 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 95±95±4 1004 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ...... 88±06±2 1005 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... 58±90±2 1006 13 pentachlorophenol ...... 87±86±5 1007 C6 85380±74±1 1107 13 4-chloroguaiacol ...... 16766±30±6 1008 C6 136955±39±0 1108 3,4-dichloroguaiacol ...... 77102±94±4 1009 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ...... 2460±49±3 1010 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ...... 16766±31±7 1011 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... 57057±83±7 1012 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 60712±44±9 1013 13 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 2668±24±8 1014 C6 136955±40±3 1114 13 tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 2539±17±5 1015 C6 136955±41±4 1115 4-chlorocatechol ...... 2138±22±9 1016 3,4-dichlorocatechol ...... 3978±67±4 1017 3,6-dichlorocatechol ...... 3938±16±7 1018 13 4,5-dichlorocatechol ...... 3428±24±8 1019 C6 136955±42±5 1119 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... 56961±20±7 1020 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... 32139±72±3 1021 13 tetrachlorocatechol ...... 1198±55±6 1022 C6 136955±43±6 1122 13 5-chlorovanillin ...... 19463±48±0 1023 C6 136955±44±7 1123 6-chlorovanillin ...... 18268±76±3 1024 5,6-dichlorovanillin ...... 18268±69±4 1025 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ...... 76341±69±0 1026 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ...... 76330±06±8 1027 trichlorosyringol ...... 2539±26±6 1028 Sample matrix internal standard (SMIS) 3,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 609±19±8 184 Instrument internal standard (IIS) 2,2'-difluorobiphenyl ...... 388±82±9 164

TABLE 2.ÐGAS CHROMATOGRAPHY AND METHOD DETECTION LIMITS FOR CHLOROPHENOLICS

Retention EGD RRT Minimum MDL 5 EGD No.1 Compound time mean ref No. window 3 level 4 (µg/L) (µg/L) (sec) 2

1001 ...... 4-chlorophenol ...... 691 184 0.651±0.681 1.25 1.11 1003 ...... 2,6-dichlorophenol ...... 796 184 0.757±0.779 2.5 1.39 1102 ...... 2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ...... 818 164 0.986±0.998 1202 ...... 2,4-dichlorophenol ...... 819 1102 0.997±1.006 2.5 0.15 164 ...... 2,2'-difluorobiphenyl (I.S.) ...... 825 164 1.000 13 1108 ...... 4-chloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 900 164 1.077±1.103 1208 ...... 4-chloroguaiacol ...... 900 1108 0.998±1.002 1.25 0.09 1005 ...... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ...... 920 184 0.879±0.895 2.5 0.71 1004 ...... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 979 184 0.936±0.952 2.5 0.57 1016 ...... 4-chlorocatechol ...... 1004 184 0.961±0.975 1.25 0.59 1011 ...... 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ...... 1021 184 0.979±0.991 2.5 0.45 1009 ...... 3,4-dichloroguaiacol ...... 1029 184 0.986±0.998 2.5 0.52 184 ...... 3,4,5-trichlorophenol (I.S.) ...... 1037 164 1.242±1.272 1010 ...... 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ...... 1071 184 1.026±1.040 2.5 0.52 1018 ...... 3,6-dichlorocatechol ...... 1084 184 1.037±1.053 2.5 0.57 1006 ...... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... 1103 184 1.050±1.078 2.5 0.38 13 1123 ...... 5-chlorovanillin- C6 ...... 1111 164 1.327±1.367 1223 ...... 5-chlorovanillin ...... 1111 1123 0.998±1.001 2.5 1.01 1013 ...... 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1118 184 1.066±1.090 2.5 0.46 1024 ...... 6-chlorovanillin ...... 1122 184 1.070±1.094 2.5 0.94 1017 ...... 3,4-dichlorocatechol ...... 1136 184 1.083±1.105 2.5 0.60 13 1119 ...... 4,5-dichlorocatechol- C6 ...... 1158 164 1.384±1.424 1219 ...... 4,5-dichlorocatechol ...... 1158 1119 0.998±1.001 2.5 0.24 1012 ...... 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1177 184 1.120±1.160 2.5 0.49 13 1114 ...... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 1208 164 1.444±1.484 1214 ...... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 1208 1114 0.998±1.002 2.5 0.25 1021 ...... 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... 1213 184 1.155±1.185 5.0 0.44 1025 ...... 5,6-dichlorovanillin ...... 1246 184 1.182±1.222 5.0 0.80 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18745

TABLE 2.ÐGAS CHROMATOGRAPHY AND METHOD DETECTION LIMITS FOR CHLOROPHENOLICSÐContinued

Retention EGD RRT Minimum MDL 5 EGD No.1 Compound time mean ref No. window 3 level 4 (µg/L) (µg/L) (sec) 2

1026 ...... 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ...... 1255 184 1.190±1.230 2.5 0.87 13 1107 ...... pentachlorophenol- C6 ...... 1267 164 1.511±1.561 1207 ...... pentachlorophenol ...... 1268 1107 0.998±1.002 5.0 0.28 1020 ...... 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... 1268 184 1.208±1.238 5.0 0.53 13 1115 ...... tetrachloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 1289 164 1.537±1.587 1215 ...... tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 1290 1115 0.998±1.002 5.0 0.23 1028 ...... trichlorosyringol ...... 1301 184 1.240±1.270 2.5 0.64 13 1122 ...... tetrachlorocatechol- C6 ...... 1365 164 1.630±1.690 1222 ...... tetrachlorocatechol ...... 1365 1122 0.998±1.002 5.0 0.76 1027 ...... 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ...... 1378 184 1.309±1.349 5.0 1.13 1 Four digit numbers beginning with 10 indicate a pollutant quantified by the internal standard method; four digit numbers beginning with 11 indicate a labeled compound quantified by the internal standard method; four digit numbers beginning with 12 indicate a pollutant quantified by isotope dilution. 2 The retention times in this column are based on data from a single laboratory (reference 12), utilizing the GC conditions in Section 11. 3 Relative retention time windows are estimated from EPA Method 1625. 4 The minimum level (ML) is defined as the level at which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte. It is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard, assuming that all method-specified sample weights, volumes, and cleanup procedures have been employed. 5 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B; from reference 2.

TABLE 3.ÐDFTPP MASS INTENSITY SPECIFICATIONS 1

Mass Intensity required

51 ...... 8 to 82% of m/z 198. 68 ...... Less than 2% of m/z 69. 69 ...... 11 to 91% of m/z 198. 70 ...... Less than 2% of m/z 69. 127 ...... 32 to 59% of m/z 198. 197 ...... Less than 1% of m/z 198. 198 ...... Base peak, 100% abundance. 199 ...... 4 to 9% of m/z 198. 275 ...... 11 to 30% of m/z 198. 441 ...... 44 to 110% of m/z 443. 442 ...... 30 to 86% of m/z 198. 443 ...... 14 to 24% of m/z 442. 1 Reference 7.

TABLE 4.ÐCHARACTERISTIC M/Z'S OF CHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDS

Compound Primary m/z

4-chlorophenol ...... 128 2,4-dichlorophenol ...... 162 2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ...... 167 2,6-dichlorophenol ...... 162 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 196 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ...... 196 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... 232 pentachlorophenol ...... 266 ¥13 pentachlorophenol C6 ...... 272 4-chloroguaiacol ...... 158 ¥13 4-chloroguaiacol C6 ...... 164 3,4-dichloroguaiacol ...... 192 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ...... 192 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ...... 192 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... 226 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 226 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 226 ¥13 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol C6 ...... 234 tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 262 ¥13 tetrachloroguaiacol C6 ...... 268 4-chlorocatechol ...... 144 3,4-dichlorocatechol ...... 178 3,6-dichlorocatechol ...... 178 4,5-dichlorocatechol ...... 178 ¥13 4,5-dichlorocatechol C6 ...... 184 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... 212 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...... 212 18746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4.ÐCHARACTERISTIC M/Z'S OF CHLOROPHENOLIC COMPOUNDSÐContinued

Compound Primary m/z tetrachlorocatechol ...... 248 ¥13 tetrachlorocatechol C6 ...... 254 5-chlorovanillin ...... 186 ¥13 5-chlorovanillin C6 ...... 192 6-chlorovanillin ...... 186 5,6-dichlorovanillin ...... 220 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ...... 216 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ...... 250 trichlorosyringol ...... 256 Sample Matrix Internal Standard (SMIS) 3,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 196 Instrument Internal Standard (IIS) 2,2′-difluorobiphenyl ...... 190

TABLE 5.ÐACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS 1

Initial precision and Labeled compound recovery sec. 9.3.2 and SMIS recovery (percent) Ongoing sec. 9.4 and 14.6 Test recovery EGD No.2 Compound conc.3 µ sec. 9.6 With Without ( g/mL) (percent) ascorbic ascorbic s X acid P acid P (%) (%)

1001 ...... 4-chlorophenol ...... 25 64 72±144 40±236 1202 ...... 2,4-dichlorophenol ...... 50 14 84±120 84±118 1102 ...... 2,4-dichlorophenol-d3 ...... 25 54 64±160 56±170 58±135 27±143 1003 ...... 2,6-dichlorophenol ...... 50 20 66±148 58±170 1004 ...... 2,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 50 14 78±140 82±128 1005 ...... 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ...... 50 20 72±142 72±146 1006 ...... 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ...... 50 14 80±132 82±132 1207 ...... pentachlorophenol ...... 100 6 90±111 84±120 13 1107 ...... pentachlorophenol- C6 ...... 25 21 58±169 61±157 8±143 27±167 1208 ...... 4-chloroguaiacol ...... 25 20 88±120 88±120 13 1108 ...... 4-chloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 25 104 68±148 64±152 59±121 43±168 1009 ...... 3,4-dichloroguaiaco 4 ...... 50 18 80±126 82±126 1010 ...... 4,5-dichloroguaiacol ...... 50 14 82±121 80±128 1011 ...... 4,6-dichloroguaiacol ...... 50 16 82±126 86±120 1012 ...... 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ...... 50 16 78±130 80±134 1013 ...... 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 50 16 64±152 74±140 1214 ...... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ...... 50 14 92±106 88±116 13 1114 ...... 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 25 48 66±146 74±140 48±131 51±139 1215 ...... tetrachloroguaiacol ...... 100 7 84±115 81±126 13 1115 ...... tetrachloroguaiacol- C6 ...... 25 22 57±173 65±161 35±120 27±161 1016 ...... 4-chlorocatechol ...... 25 48 76±140 80±124 1017 ...... 3,4-dichlorocatechol ...... 50 24 66±154 78±134 1018 ...... 3,6-dichlorocatechol ...... 50 16 78±136 84±126 1219 ...... 4,5-dichlorocatechol ...... 50 8 84±118 86±122 13 1119 ...... 4,5-dichlorocatechol- C6 ...... 25 78 68±144 66±142 33±129 0±190 1020 ...... 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ...... 100 17 60±166 72±128 1021 ...... 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol 4 ...... 100 17 74±138 64±149 1222 ...... tetrachlorocatechol ...... 100 29 46±234 81±132 13 1122 ...... tetrachlorocatechol- C6 ...... 25 39 48±227 63±152 14±118 0±184 1223 ...... 5-chlorovanillin ...... 50 20 94±208 84±118 13 1123 ...... 5-chlorovanillin- C6 ...... 25 84 68±160 70±144 51±126 32±254 1024 ...... 6-chlorovanillin ...... 50 22 82±128 80±126 1025 ...... 5,6-dichlorovanillin ...... 100 9 67±146 77±140 1026 ...... 2-chlorosyringaldehyde ...... 50 28 76±130 72±156 1027 ...... 2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde ...... 100 14 82±129 60±183 1028 ...... trichlorosyringol ...... 50 18 76±136 66±174

Sample Matrix Internal Standard

184 ...... 3,4,5-trichlorophenol ...... 100 47 62±185 68±144 56±116 24±167 1 Specifications derived from multi-laboratory testing of draft method. 2 Four-digit numbers beginning with 10 indicate a pollutant quantified by the internal standard method; four-digit numbers beginning with 11 indicate a labeled compound quantified by the internal standard method; four-digit numbers beginning with 12 indicate a pollutant quantified by isotope dilution. 3 Test concentrations are in units of µg/mL. 4 Specification derived from isomer.

BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18747 18748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18749 18750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560±50±C Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 18751

20.0 Glossary of Definitions and Purposes CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5: See Calibration MS: Mass spectrometer or mass These definitions and purposes are specific standards and Table 4. spectrometry. to this method but have been conformed to Field blank: An aliquot of reagent water or Must: This action, activity, or procedural common usage as much as possible. other reference matrix that is placed in a step is required. 20.1 Units of weight and measure and sample container in the laboratory or the OPR: Ongoing precision and recovery their abbreviations field, and treated as a sample in all respects, standard (OPR); a laboratory blank spiked 20.1.1 Symbols. including exposure to sampling site with known quantities of analytes. The OPR °C degrees Celsius conditions, storage, preservation, and all is analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose µL microliter analytical procedures. The purpose of the is to assure that the results produced by the < less than field blank is to determine if the field or laboratory remain within the limits specified > greater than sample transporting procedures and in this method for precision and recovery. % percent environments have contaminated the sample. PAR: Precision and recovery standard; 20.1.2 Alphabetical characters. GC: Gas chromatograph or gas secondary standard that is diluted and spiked chromatography. to form the IPR and OPR. cm centimeter HRGC: High resolution GC. Preparation blank: See Method blank. g gram IPR: Initial precision and recovery; four Primary dilution standard: A solution h hour aliquots of the diluted PAR standard containing the specified analytes that is ID inside diameter in. inch analyzed to establish the ability to generate purchased or prepared from stock solutions L liter acceptable precision and accuracy. An IPR is and diluted as needed to prepare calibration M Molecular ion performed prior to the first time this method solutions and other solutions. m meter is used and any time the method or Quality control check sample (QCS): A mg milligram instrumentation is modified. sample containing all or a subset of the min minute K–D: Kuderna-Danish concentrator; a analytes at known concentrations. The QCS mL milliliter device used to concentrate the analytes in a is obtained from a source external to the mm millimeter solvent. laboratory or is prepared from a source of m/z mass-to-charge ratio Laboratory blank: See Method blank. standards different from the source of N normal; gram molecular weight of solute Laboratory control sample (LCS): See calibration standards. It is used to check divided by hydrogen equivalent of solute, Ongoing precision and recovery standard laboratory performance with test materials per liter of solution (OPR). prepared external to the normal preparation OD outside diameter Laboratory reagent blank: See Method process. pg picogram blank. Reagent water: Water demonstrated to be ppb part-per-billion May: This action, activity, or procedural free from the analytes of interest and ppm part-per-million step is neither required nor prohibited. potentially interfering substances at the ppt part-per-trillion May not: This action, activity, or method detection limit for the analyte. psig pounds-per-square inch gauge procedural step is prohibited. Relative standard deviation (RSD): The v/v volume per unit volume Method blank: An aliquot of reagent water standard deviation times 100 divided by the w/v weight per unit volume that is treated exactly as a sample including mean. 20.2 Definitions and acronyms (in exposure to all glassware, equipment, RF: Response factor. See Section 10.5.1. alphabetical order). solvents, reagents, internal standards, and RR: Relative response. See Section 10.4.4. Analyte: A chlorophenolic tested for by surrogates that are used with samples. The RSD: See Relative standard deviation. this method. method blank is used to determine if analytes Should: This action, activity, or procedural The analytes are listed in Table 1. or interferences are present in the laboratory step is suggested but not required. Calibration standard (CAL): A solution environment, the reagents, or the apparatus. Stock solution: A solution containing an prepared from a secondary standard and/or Minimum level (ML): The level at which analyte that is prepared using a reference stock solutions and used to calibrate the the entire analytical system must give a material traceable to EPA, the National response of the instrument with respect to recognizable signal and acceptable Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), analyte concentration. calibration point for the analyte. It is or a source that will attest to the purity and Calibration verification standard (VER): equivalent to the concentration of the lowest authenticity of the reference material. The mid-point calibration standard (CS3) that calibration standard, assuming that all VER: See Calibration verification standard. is used to verify calibration. See Table 4. method-specified sample weights, volumes, Chlorophenolics: collectively, the analytes and cleanup procedures have been [FR Doc. 98–9613 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am] listed in Table 1. employed. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P