[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9383-9399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5397]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AP-FRL-5437-6]
RIN 2060-AE04


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of availability of supplemental information, 
proposed rule, and opening of the public comment period for these 
actions.

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

SUMMARY: This action presents an assessment of supplemental information 
on 1993 proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Pulp and Paper Production Source Category 
and announces proposed additional sources in that source category not 
covered by the 1993 proposed standards. These additional sources 
include mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, nonwood fiber mills, 
and paper machines. This action also announces availability of data for 
public review that is in addition to data previously announced in a 
February 22, 1995 Notice of Data Availability (60 FR 9813). In 
addition, this action announces the availability and requests comments 
on new emission factors developed using that data.
    This action sets forth the most significant changes EPA is 
considering, but is not inclusive of all changes likely 

[[Page 9384]]
to be made on the 1993 proposed NESHAP. EPA is still considering other 
comments submitted on the 1993 proposed NESHAP and will combine them 
along with comments and data received on this action to form the basis 
for the promulgation of a final NESHAP later this year. Proposed NESHAP 
for the chemical recovery area combustion sources at mills are not 
contained in this action, but will follow in a separate action later 
this year.

DATES: Comments are requested only on information presented in this 
action. Comments must be received on or before April 8, 1996, unless a 
public hearing is requested by March 18, 1996. If a hearing is 
requested, written comments must be received by April 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the chemical wood pulping mills (kraft, 
sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical) should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air Docket Section (6102), Attn: Docket No. A-92-40, U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and Ms. Penny Lassiter, 
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section. Comments 
related to mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, nonwood mills, and 
paper machines should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to Air 
Docket Section (6102), Attn: Docket No. A-95-31 (MACT III), U.S. EPA, 
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 and Ms. Elaine Manning, address 
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or 
regulations applicable to chemical wood pulping mills, contact Ms. 
Penny Lassiter or Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality, Planning, 
and Standards (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711: telephone Ms. Lassiter at (919) 541-5396 or Mr. Shedd at (919) 
541-5397. For further information on the regulatory development for 
mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, nonwood mills, and paper 
machines, contact Ms. Elaine Manning at the address in Research 
Triangle Park listed above, telephone (919) 541-5499, facsimile for the 
address in Research Triangle Park listed above is (919) 541-3470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public 
hearing must contact EPA no later than March 18, 1996. If a hearing is 
held, it will take place on March 25, 1996, beginning at 9 a.m. at the 
EPA Administration Bldg., Main Auditorium, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
(near intersection of NC54), Research Triangle Park, NC. Persons 
interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral 
testimony should notify Ms. Jolynn Collins, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671.
    Docket. Air Docket No. A-92-40, contains supporting information 
used in developing the proposed standards and this action for the 
chemical wood pulping mills. All docket cites in this action are from 
Air Docket No. A-92-40, unless specified differently. Air Docket No. A-
95-31 contains information that supports the proposed standards for the 
rule development for the mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, 
nonwood mills and paper machines. These air dockets are located at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). All comments 
received during the public comment period on the 1993 proposed NESHAP 
are contained in the Pulp and Paper Water Docket located in the 
basement of Waterside Mall, room L102. These dockets may be inspected 
from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
    Documents. An electronic version of this action as well as ``Review 
Draft: Chemical Pulping Emission Factor Development Document,'' 
``Presumptive MACT for Non-Chemical and Other Pulp and Paper (MACT III) 
Mills,'' and previous Federal Register notices pertinent to the pulp 
and paper NESHAP are available for download from EPA's Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), which is a network of electronic bulletin 
boards developed and operated by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for 
the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for data transfer of up 
to 14,400 bits per second. The TTN is also available on the Internet 
(access: TELENET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov). For more information on the 
operation of the TTN, contact the systems operator at (919) 541-5384.
    The information in this action is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. History
    B. Summary of Action
    C. New Data
    D. Public Participation
II. Source Category and Pollutants for Control
III. Emission Factors
IV. Definition of Source
V. Subcategorization
VI. Level of Standards
    A. Kraft
    B. Sulfite
    C. Semi-Chemical
    D. Soda
    E. Bleaching
VII. Compliance Extension for Kraft Mills
VIII. Emission Averaging
IX. Relationship with Other Rules
    A. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability
    B. Boiler/Industrial Furnace/Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act Applicability
    C. Kraft New Source Performance Standards
X. Standard for Nonchemical Pulp Mills
    A. Presumptive MACT Process
    B. Summary of the Presumptive MACT for MACT II Sources
    C. Area/Major Source Discussion
    D. Proposed MACT III
    E. Request for Information

I. Background

A. History

    The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires EPA to develop NESHAP for the 
pulp and paper source category by November 1997. Under section 112 (d) 
of the Act, the goal of NESHAP is to require the implementation of 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to reduce emissions and, 
therefore, reduce the public health hazard of pollutants emitted from 
stationary sources.
    On December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078), EPA published proposed NESHAP 
and effluent guidelines for the pulp and paper industry. These 
integrated regulations are referred to as the cluster rule. The purpose 
of this action is to announce the availability of additional data and 
to reopen the public comment period only for items identified in this 
action. EPA's Office of Water (OW) plans to issue a Federal Register 
notice similar to this action for the effluent guidelines portion of 
the cluster rule. Publication of OW's action is anticipated to be in 
approximately four weeks.
    The 1993 proposed air standards would regulate all HAP's emitted 
from new and existing pulp and paper mills that chemically pulp wood 
fiber using kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical methods (MACT I). 
These proposed MACT I standards address air emission points in the 
pulping and bleaching processes and in the associated process 
wastewater collection and treatment systems. Information was not 
available at that time to evaluate controls on other emission points 
within the source category. The standards for the pulp and paper source 
category, therefore, are being developed in phases. Standards for 
combustion sources (MACT II) are under development and will be proposed 
later this year. Proposed standards for the remaining sources 

[[Page 9385]]
(MACT III) are addressed in Section X of this notice. The MACT III 
standards apply to the following operations located at all mills: 
mechanical pulping (e.g., groundwood, thermomechanical, pressurized); 
pulping of secondary fibers (deinked and nondeinked) by nonchemical 
means; nonwood pulping; and paper machine additives. Coating and 
converting operations will be addressed later under a separate source 
category.
    Available data shows that pulp and paper facilities emit 
significant quantities of HAP's that would be controlled by the 
proposed standards. Some of these pollutants are considered to be 
carcinogenic, and all can cause toxic health effects following 
exposure, including nausea, headaches, respiratory distress, and 
possible reproductive effects. Most of the organic HAP's emitted from 
this industry also are classified as volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
which participate in photochemical reactions in the atmosphere to 
produce ozone, a contributor to photochemical smog. The proposed 
emission controls for HAP's will reduce VOC emissions as well. The 
proposed HAP control technologies will similarly reduce emissions of 
total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds that are of concern because they 
produce some odor and they include some HAP.
    The public comment period on the proposed NESHAP ended on April 18, 
1994; however, EPA recognized in the preamble to the proposed rule that 
various industry groups were collecting air emissions data that would 
not be available until after the comment period and further stated that 
EPA would still consider those data before the promulgation of the 
NESHAP. Some of the data were received and were noticed in a February 
22, 1995 Notice of Data Availability (60 FR 9813).
    This action announces the availability of new data and solicits 
comments on the use of the data for emission factor development and on 
changes to the proposed rule. These data and analyses are included in 
Air Docket A-92-40. This action does not reopen the public comment 
period for all issues related to the proposed rule. Comments should 
address only those technical and regulatory changes specifically 
mentioned in this action.
    On September 29, 1995, a Presumptive MACT report was issued for the 
MACT III source category. A brief description of the Presumptive MACT 
process and the outcome of the process is provided in Section X. 
Comments are also solicited on the MACT III tentative conclusions. EPA 
currently plans to take final action on the MACT III NESHAP for the 
sources discussed in this action at the same time as the MACT I final 
action. EPA also plans to propose NESHAP for recovery area combustion 
sources (MACT II) at the same time.

B. Summary of Action

    As noted earlier, EPA has proposed NESHAP for mills that chemically 
pulp wood fiber. EPA is considering revisions to this proposed NESHAP 
based on comments from the public as well as test data that has been 
given to EPA since proposal. The changes to the proposed rule under 
consideration include: revisions to emission factors; broadening of the 
source definition; development of subcategories for pulping; revisions 
to MACT requirements and how they are applied; and revisions to MACT 
compliance schedule for certain kraft mill emission points. This action 
also identifies how EPA currently plans to address concerns raised by 
commentors regarding interaction between the NESHAP, currently under 
development and other rules, such as Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act/Boiler Industrial Furnace (RCRA/BIF) and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/NSR). EPA is also soliciting 
comments on the industry's alternative compliance concept that includes 
some degree of emissions averaging. A brief overview of these changes 
is described below. The data and information to support these changes 
under consideration can be found in the Air Docket No. A-92-40. 
Additionally, EPA is announcing a proposed decision for standards for 
other mills and paper machines.
    The emission factors were evaluated using additional emission test 
data submitted by the industry. Also, the approach to emission factor 
development has changed since proposal as more information has become 
available. The new approach involves developing emission factors for 
functional mill systems, as opposed to the individual emission points 
used at proposal. This emission factor evaluation is contained in a 
development document and is being announced in this notice for public 
review and comment.
    At proposal, EPA chose a single source definition to include 
pulping processes, bleaching processes, and pulping and bleaching 
wastewater streams at a pulp and paper mill. EPA currently intends to 
expand this definition to include paper machines and the causticizing 
area due to the interrelated nature of these processes with the pulping 
and bleaching areas.
    At this time, EPA plans to subcategorize the pulping and associated 
wastewater components to develop different MACT requirements. This 
subcategorization is necessary to reflect important differences between 
the different pulping process emissions, emission controls, and control 
cost. The pulping (and associated wastewater) subcategories being 
considered are kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical.
    At proposal, all vents and pulping wastewater streams in pulping 
and bleaching areas were subject as a group to the MACT requirements 
with the exception of certain small vents and wastewater streams 
defined by numerical cutoffs. For existing source MACT applicable to 
the pulping component at kraft mills, EPA is considering specifically 
defining the following systems as requiring enclosure and venting to a 
control device: the low volume-high concentration (LVHC) vent system 
(i.e., the digester, turpentine recovery, and evaporator systems); weak 
black liquor storage tanks; the pre-washer knotting and screening 
system; the brownstock washing system; and the oxygen delignification 
system. Enclosure and vent control requirements would not change from 
proposal. Only these enumerated systems would be subject to the rule.
    EPA currently intends to define new source MACT for the pulping 
area at kraft mills to be the same as existing source MACT with the 
addition of control of post-washer deckers and screens. EPA currently 
intends to define new and existing source MACT for kraft mill 
wastewater to be collection and treatment of certain named pulping 
condensate streams instead of all pulping wastewater above 500 parts 
per million by weight (ppmw). EPA is considering changing the proposed 
treatment requirements for steam strippers at kraft mills to allow 
compliance with one of the following: (1) Removal of 92 percent of the 
HAP or methanol content, (2) removal of 9.2 pounds of methanol per air-
dried ton of pulp (lb/ADTP), or (3) treat to a steam stripper outlet 
HAP concentration below 330 ppmw measured as methanol. For unbleached 
kraft mills, the following treatment requirements would be applicable: 
(1) Removal of 92 percent of the HAP or methanol content; (2) removal 
of 5.9 lb/ADTP of methanol; or (3) treatment to a steam stripper outlet 
HAP concentration below 210 ppmw measured as methanol. As at proposal, 
methanol is being used here as a surrogate for tracking total HAP 
reduced. Mills still have the option of achieving these removals with 
an 

[[Page 9386]]
alternative control device, recycling to a controlled system, or 
hardpiping these condensate streams directly to the biological 
wastewater treatment plant instead of steam stripping.
    EPA is considering extending the compliance time for controlling 
brownstock washers and oxygen delignification units for kraft pulping 
mills by an additional 5 years. The additional period would be provided 
to allow industry sufficient time to plan, coordinate, and implement 
the best combination of control technologies that facilitate pollution 
prevention and emphasize the multimedia nature of pollution control.
    EPA is considering the following standards for the newly-created 
sulfite, semi-chemical, and soda mill subcategories. Based on an 
analysis of current controls, EPA is considering requiring certain 
sulfite mill vents in the pulping component at existing sources (i.e., 
digester, evaporator, and red stock washers) to be vented to recovery 
systems to reduce HAP emissions. Affected vents at new sources include 
the same vents as at existing sources, with the addition of knotter and 
screening systems, and weak and strong liquor and acid condensate 
storage tank vents. Air emissions from these selected vents and 
connected recovery systems would be limited to certain mass emission 
rates or percent reductions across the complete connected system. This 
systems approach would allow many mills to use the various 
configurations of current recovery systems to meet either of these 
limits. Compliance would be demonstrated by an initial performance test 
to confirm compliance with one of the mass limits, followed by 
monitoring of control and process equipment operating parameters to 
demonstrate long-term compliance. EPA has determined from an evaluation 
of the current mill emission data that the following emission values 
represent the best performing existing and new mills: (1) Mass emission 
rates of 0.65 and 1.10 lb methanol/ODTP, or (2) a mass HAP or methanol 
emission reduction of 92 and 87 percent, for calcium-based and ammonium 
and magnesium-based mills, respectively. The new and existing MACT for 
pulping wastewater streams at sulfite mills would be no additional 
control.
    EPA currently plans to define existing source MACT for semi-
chemical mills and soda mills to be enclosure and venting of LVHC vents 
to a control device. Enclosure and control device requirements would be 
the same as at proposal. New source MACT for semi-chemical and soda 
mills would be the same as existing source MACT plus the control of the 
washer system vents. The new and existing MACT for pulping wastewater 
streams at semi-chemical and soda mills is no additional control.
    For bleaching processes at all mills, EPA is still considering 
requiring all vents from the bleaching stages which utilize chlorine 
and/or chlorine dioxide to control emissions of chlorinated HAP's by 99 
percent from the tower, seal tank, and washer vents as in the proposed 
NESHAP. A new limit of 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of 
chlorinated HAP from the outlet of the scrubber is also now being 
considered as an alternative to the 99 percent removal limit. A mill 
would still be allowed to measure the chlorinated HAP's as chlorine. 
Additionally paper-grade bleaching processes would be required to 
control chloroform air emissions by complying with the Best Available 
Technology (BAT) economically achievable currently under development by 
EPA's OW. EPA is still re-considering the level of control for 
chloroform from bleach plants at dissolving-grade mills. MACT for new 
sources would be the same as MACT for existing sources. The proposed 
requirements for controlling methanol and other organic HAP emissions 
for bleaching stages will likely no longer be considered. As at 
proposal, MACT for bleaching wastewater would be no additional control.
    EPA has responded to requests for guidance on the interaction and 
applicability of the proposed air regulation with RCRA/BIF and NSR/PSD. 
With regard to the possible interaction of the regulation with RCRA/BIF 
that could result from the combustion of concentrated condensates 
derived from steam stripper overhead vents, EPA has initially 
determined that regulation of combustion of these condensates under 
RCRA is unnecessary because the MACT controls would be protective. With 
regard to the possible interaction of the regulation with NSR/PSD that 
could come as a result of secondary emissions from combustion control 
devices used to comply with this NESHAP, EPA is considering 
recommending to State permitting agencies that mills complying with the 
cluster rule be granted the ``pollution control project'' (PCP) 
exclusion and be allowed to conduct minor NSR only.
    These are the most significant changes to the 1993 proposal that 
EPA may implement in the final NESHAP, but they do not include all 
changes likely to be made. More detailed information on changes 
discussed in this action and supporting documentation can be found in 
later sections.
    In this action, EPA is also announcing a proposed decision for 
standards for mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, nonwood mills, 
and additives and solvents applied to paper machines (MACT III). The 
proposal is based on Presumptive MACT that was issued in September 
1995.

C. New Data

    In the February 22, 1995 Notice of Data Availability (60 FR 9813), 
EPA announced data that had been received through February 16, 1995. 
These data included three separate multi-volume test reports, several 
test report and testing program summaries, and a draft condensate 
study. This action announces the availability of new data and solicits 
comments on the use of the data for emission factor development and on 
changes to the proposed rule.
    Data added to Air Docket A-92-40 since the 1993 proposal are 
located in Section IV of this docket. Major groups of data of 
particular note (but not inclusive of all data in Section IV under 
consideration by EPA) are as follows: (1) Items IV-A-4, IV-D1-30, IV-
D1-32, IV-D1-36, IV-J-17, and IV-J-28, supplemental information and 
corrections to the data noticed at 60 FR 9813; (2) IV-D1-84 and IV-J-
31, compilation of emissions data noticed at 60 FR 9813; (3) items IV-
D1-27, IV-D1-46, IV-D1-66, IV-D1-75, and IV-D1-79, wastewater system 
components, emissions, methanol biodegradability in wastewater 
treatment systems, and soluble biological oxygen demand (BOD) as a 
parameter to track methanol biodegradability; (4) IV-D1-72, IV-D1-76, 
IV-D1-77, IV-D1-80, IV-D1-81, IV-D1-86, IV-D1-89, IV-D1-90, IV-D1-92, 
IV-E-64, and IV-E-68, control of air emissions at semi-chemical pulp 
mills; (5) IV-D1-87, IV-D1-88, IV-D-93, IV-D1-94, IV-E-31b, IV-E-60, 
IV-E-66, and IV-E-67, control of air emissions at sulfite pulp mills; 
(6) IV-D1-43, IV-D1-58, IV-D1-62, IV-E-15, IV-E-25, IV-E-28, IV-E-38, 
IV-E-45, and IV-J-9, control design and costs; (7) IV-J-29 and IV-J-32, 
characterization of pulping condensates; (8) IV-D1-59 and IV-D1-95, 
industry's Clean Water Alternative (see Section VIII of this notice); 
(9) IV-D1-83, knotter emissions data; and (10) IV-D1-51, IV-D1-56, and 
IV-E-63, characterization and control of concentrated steam stripper 
condensates.
    EPA also requests comments on EPA studies and memoranda completed 
since the 1993 proposal and contained in the docket (docket categories 
IV-A EPA Studies or Contractor Reports and IV-B EPA Factual Memoranda). 
These EPA studies and memoranda include 

[[Page 9387]]
the emission factor development document and provide support material 
for the Level of the Standards Section VI in this notice.

D. Public Participation

    A public comment period was open from December 17, 1993 to April 
18, 1994 and a public hearing was held on February 10, 1994 to receive 
comments on the 1993 proposal. Comments and data received at the 
hearing and during the comment period are included in the docket (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section). EPA has also held numerous meetings 
on the 1993 proposed integrated rules and the Presumptive MACT with 
many of the stakeholders from the pulp and paper industry, including a 
trade association (American Forest and Paper Association - AF&PA), 
numerous individual companies, consultants and vendors, environmental 
groups, labor unions, and other interested parties. Materials have been 
added to the docket to document these meetings and to make available 
for public review new information received at those meetings.

II. Source Category and Pollutants for Control

    EPA proposed in 1993 to regulate total HAP emissions from mills 
that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-
chemical methods. At that time, EPA did not propose to regulate the HAP 
emissions from other types of mills. EPA is now inclined to include 
into this standard additional types of mills in the pulp and paper 
industry as well as the paper machines at all the mills (MACT III). 
These new mills include mechanical mills, secondary fiber mills, and 
nonwood mills. EPA's current position on these mills and on paper 
machines is described in Section X.
    The 1993 proposed NESHAP regulates total HAP emissions from 
pulping, bleaching, and process wastewater at facilities covered by the 
proposal, as opposed to individual HAP's. The proposed standards allow 
the use of methanol (or methanol and chlorine from bleaching emissions) 
as surrogate compounds because EPA initially concluded that use of 
surrogates is technically viable and is a less costly way to track HAP 
emission reductions.
    For pulping processes and wastewater, EPA's position on pollutants 
to be covered has not changed since proposal, and EPA is still inclined 
to regulate total HAP emissions, allowing the use of methanol as a 
surrogate measurement parameter. At proposal, EPA determined that the 
bleach plant emissions were comprised of various chlorinated and 
nonchlorinated HAP's. Therefore, a total HAP standard was proposed. 
Data at proposal indicated that methanol and chlorine could be used as 
surrogates for the nonchlorinated and chlorinated portions of total 
HAP, respectively. As a result of comments and data received since 
proposal, EPA now knows that only chlorinated HAP's, primarily 
chlorine, chloroform, and hydrochloric acid, are being controlled by 
the MACT control technologies for bleach plant emissions. Therefore, 
EPA currently plans to regulate only the emissions of chlorinated HAP's 
from bleaching processes. A more detailed discussion on this topic is 
presented in Section VI.

III. Emission Factors

    Based on comments and data received, EPA has re-evaluated the 
emission factor development approach used to characterize emission 
sources and developed new emission factors. EPA developed emission 
factors at proposal based on all available data. These data included a 
field test program of air and liquid samples from four kraft mills and 
one sulfite mill (EPA 5-mill study) and some limited additional 
industry data that was used to supplement EPA 5-mill study (see the 
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Background Information for 
Promulgated Standards, Volume 2). Industry representatives commented 
that these data were insufficient to accurately characterize emissions 
and have since supplied EPA with additional test data from kraft, 
sulfite, semi-chemical, and soda mills. EPA analyzed and incorporated 
these data into the existing database.
    At proposal, EPA developed emission factors for each type of 
individual emission point typically found at the mills. Based on the 
additional test data, EPA is considering changing that approach. The 
new approach involves developing emission factors based on mill systems 
rather than on individual emission points. The mill systems are defined 
in Section VI, Level of Standards.
    EPA now considers this mill system approach the best approach for 
several reasons. First, this approach provides a more objective 
comparison of the mills. Mills often utilize different configurations 
of equipment within a system, making point by point comparisons 
misleading. Averaging such pieces of equipment together can provide an 
inaccurate estimate of the total system. For example, comparing one 
mill's oxygen delignification system as a whole to another mill's 
system was more meaningful than establishing separate emission factors 
for each piece in the system (e.g., blow tanks, washer units, 
interstage storage chests, and filtrate tanks); not all mills have the 
same types of equipment in their oxygen delignification system, and 
some mills label their oxygen delignification equipment differently.
    Next, one mill may have a single screen and another mill may have 
multiple screens, but both mills have one screening system with 
emissions that can be compared. The mill system approach makes these 
kinds of comparisons between mills possible.
    Finally, the mill system approach lessens the problems associated 
with the nomenclature assigned to each of the components. Variability 
exists between the names that different mills assign to similar pieces 
of equipment in the same locations. By combining individual emission 
points into complete systems, the problem was lessened.
    The results and the grouping procedures and approach followed for 
each mill system at the various mill types are detailed in the ``Review 
Draft: Chemical Pulping Emission Factor Development Document.'' The 
report is available in the docket and may be downloaded from the TTN 
(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section). This report also discusses the 
specific issues and all assumptions that were made in the emission 
factor development, including the specific data points tested by 
industry that were included in each mill system. EPA is specifically 
asking for comments on the results and the approach used in developing 
the emission factors before issuing the final report.

IV. Definition of Source

    In the December 17, 1993 proposal, three definitions of ``source'' 
were proposed and considered by EPA. The one chosen by EPA at the time 
of proposal was a single source to include the pulping processes, the 
bleaching processes, and the pulping and bleaching process wastewater 
streams at a pulp and paper mill. EPA is still inclined to use the 
single source definition. EPA considers the broad source definition to 
be the best interpretation for the pulp and paper industry. This broad 
source definition would alleviate concerns that a small change to an 
existing mill that creates a small increase in emissions would trigger 
new source requirements in the NESHAP. The single source definition is 
also the most appropriate interpretation for the industry due to the 
interrelated nature of equipment in pulp and paper mills. For example, 
wastewater recycling from process to process is an 

[[Page 9388]]
integral part of a mill in order to reduce fresh water intake. 
Emissions from a piece of process equipment are a function of 
pollutants released during the processing of the pulp as well as 
pollutants volatilized from water recycled to the process equipment.
    EPA is inclined to include paper machines and causticizing 
equipment in the source definition above. The term paper machine being 
used here does not include paper machine additives and solvents, and 
their associated air emissions being addressed in the proposed MACT III 
standards set forth in Section X of this notice. Paper machine 
emissions discussed here for inclusion in the above source definition 
are from the HAP's remaining on the pulp from the pulping and bleaching 
process and released when processed through the paper machine. EPA 
would include paper machines and causticizing equipment since the 
emissions from these sources are, like the emission points discussed 
above, interrelated with other process emissions. For example, water is 
often reused or recycled from pulping processes to the causticizing 
processes, and HAP's in the pulp and water slurry from the pulping and 
bleaching processes are carried over into the paper machine where they 
are emitted. While the causticizing area and the paper machines were 
not defined as part of the source at proposal, they were still being 
controlled through the wastewater MACT requirements. Treatment of 
condensate streams to remove HAP's prior to recycling them would result 
in reduced emissions from the equipment to which they are recycled and 
from subsequent pieces of equipment due to reductions in HAP carried 
over with the pulp and process waters. EPA recognizes the wastewater 
contribution to emissions from these processes and as such currently 
intends to include these processes in the source definition. A mill 
could then take credit for emission reductions from these processes if 
it chose to implement the Clean Water Alternative. The Clean Water 
Alternative is discussed further in Section VIII (Emissions Averaging).
    EPA considered regulating emissions from woodpiles, but did not 
find evidence to suggest that woodpiles are sources of HAP emissions. 
Therefore, they are excluded from the definition of source.

V. Subcategorization

    In the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on the need for 
subcategories. Many commentors responded to this solicitation with 
information on why certain mills should be treated differently than 
kraft mills. Separate subcategories for kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-
chemical pulping processes were suggested. Issues raised by commentors 
in support of subcategories included the difference in process 
emissions and emission control technologies for sulfite, soda, and 
semi-chemical mills. Others indicated that the lack of air and 
wastewater emissions data on these types of mills prevented a balanced 
assessment of the need for subcategories.
    Based on comments received, review of the industry data submitted 
after proposal, and meetings with industry groups, EPA solicits comment 
on establishing four separate subcategories for the pulping processes 
at mills based on the type of pulping process (kraft, sulfite, semi-
chemical, and soda) used.
    As a result of the differences in digestion methods, the mills 
produce different emissions that have resulted in different degrees of 
control at baseline and different applicable control technologies. At 
proposal, EPA understood that the four types of mills differ in the way 
they digest wood to make pulp, but did not have the data to determine 
the extent to which these differences influence potential emission 
control strategies. Information received after proposal indicated the 
significant extent of these differences.
    Kraft mills generate significant quantities of TRS compounds. 
Emissions of TRS compounds are regulated under the New Source 
Performance Standards for Kraft Mills (kraft NSPS). The vent streams 
subject to control also contain HAP's. Therefore, a number of kraft 
mills already have a control system in place for the LVHC vent streams. 
Also, most kraft mills contain the means of combusting other HAP 
containing streams, such as high volume-low concentration (HVLC) vent 
streams.
    While the HAP-containing vents at kraft mills are laden with TRS 
compounds, the HAP containing vents at sulfite mills contain sulfur 
dioxide (SO2). Sulfite mills collect the emissions from these 
vents to recover the SO2, which is necessary to the production of 
the cooking liquor. The collection and burning of these vent streams, 
as is typically done at kraft mills, would not be practical. Therefore, 
a MACT standard with a different technology basis is needed for these 
mills, and a separate subcategory warranted.
    Emissions data indicate that soda and semi-chemical mills have HAP 
emissions in the same range as for kraft mills, although semi-chemical 
mill emissions tend to be at the lower end of the kraft range. However, 
these mills do not generate significant quantities of TRS compounds. 
Therefore, these mills lack the LVHC equipment already installed at 
kraft mills, as well as lacking the benefit of controlled odor from 
these vent streams. The digestion process in semi-chemical pulping 
differs from soda pulping resulting in different emission points and 
characteristics. However, EPA intends to set MACT for the semi-chemical 
and soda mills as control of the LVHC vent streams. The MACT 
requirements are discussed in Section VI (Level of Standards).
    Where two or more subcategories are located at the same mill site 
and share a piece of equipment, that piece of equipment would be 
considered a part of the subcategory with the more stringent MACT 
requirements for that piece of equipment. For example, the foul 
condensates from an evaporation set processing both kraft weak black 
liquor and spent liquor from a semi-chemical process would have to 
comply with the kraft subcategory requirements for foul condensate. 
This more stringent requirement is appropriate because there is no 
viable way to isolate the emissions for each pulping source to 
determine compliance separately.

VI. Level of Standards

    Changes from the 1993 proposal now being considered by EPA on the 
level of the standard (emission limits and points to be controlled) are 
presented in this section. At proposal, sulfite, semi-chemical, and 
soda mills were not differentiated from kraft pulping mills and 
therefore were subject to the same control requirements as kraft mills. 
As discussed earlier, EPA is considering subcategorizing kraft, 
sulfite, semi-chemical, and soda pulping and associated wastewater 
components for the purpose of setting MACT standards. While EPA does 
not currently contemplate subcategorizing among bleaching processes, 
EPA may distinguish between papergrade and dissolving grade bleaching 
processes for purposes of setting chloroform MACT requirements for 
bleach plants. The rationale for this distinction is set forth later in 
this section.
    EPA is also considering naming specific vents and streams subject 
to the standard instead of determining affected emission points and 
wastewater streams based on broad groups of equipment with exclusions 
for small streams currently not being controlled, as was done at 
proposal. This change in approach will more accurately specify the 
units that should be controlled.
    Requirements for enclosures, closed-vent systems, and control 
devices for 

[[Page 9389]]
those closed vent systems in the pulping process, as set forth in the 
proposed NESHAP, would be the same for the pieces of equipment being 
named in this action for kraft, semi-chemical, and soda mills. Public 
comments received on these 1993 proposed NESHAP requirements are under 
review. EPA will consider these comments prior to promulgation of this 
rule and will assess whether changes are warranted; however, such 
potential changes are not discussed in this notice. Those same 
requirements for enclosures and closed-vent systems, as set forth in 
the proposed NESHAP, would also apply to the pieces of equipment being 
named in this action for sulfite mills; however, EPA is considering 
changing the control device requirements for those closed vent systems 
at sulfite mills. Requirements for control of emissions from kraft 
pulping wastewater prior to treatment, as set forth in the 1993 
proposal, would still apply to the kraft pulping condensate streams 
being named in this action; however, EPA is considering changing the 
treatment limits for these pulping condensates. No control requirements 
are now being considered for non-kraft wastewater streams. Requirements 
for enclosures, closed-vent systems, and control devices for those 
closed vent systems in the bleaching process, as set forth in the 1993 
proposed NESHAP, would be the same for the stages using chlorinated 
bleaching agents; however, EPA is considering adding some requirements 
for the control of chloroform emissions and is considering adding 
additional ways to meet the treatment requirements on the closed vent 
systems from the chlorinated bleaching stages. Additionally, EPA is 
considering dropping the requirement for control of non-chlorinated 
HAP's (methanol, etc.) in the bleaching area.

A. Kraft

    This section describes the changes to the level of the standard for 
kraft mills from the 1993 proposal. These changes include naming the 
streams to be controlled; changing and adding additional performance 
levels for steam strippers; and re-evaluating controls for pre-washer 
knotter and screen systems, and weak black liquor storage tanks.
    The proposed standards required owners or operators of new or 
existing sources to enclose and vent all pulping component emission 
points into a closed vent system routed to a control device. Deckers 
and screens at existing mills and small vents or enclosed process 
equipment below certain specified volumetric flow rates, mass flow 
rates, and mass loadings were not subject to control. Similarly, 
pulping wastewater streams with concentrations below 500 ppmw of HAP's 
or flow rates below 1.0 liter per minute (lpm) did not require control.
    At proposal, EPA had limited data to characterize some of the 
smaller emission points and condensate streams within the pulping 
component. However, based upon experience and engineering assumptions, 
these small vents and condensate streams were assumed to be 
uncontrolled at the floor and not reasonable to control beyond the 
floor. Therefore, EPA proposed these low volumetric flow rates and 
condensate HAP concentrations to differentiate between points currently 
being controlled and those that are not controlled. EPA solicited 
comments on whether this was a viable approach for identifying emission 
points and condensate streams that should be controlled under the MACT 
standard.
    Based on comments and data received, EPA re-evaluated the method 
for establishing control applicability for pulping process equipment 
and associated wastewater streams. Using this new information, EPA is 
now tentatively intending to establish control applicability for kraft 
pulping process equipment systems and associated wastewater streams by 
specifically defining the equipment systems and associated wastewater 
streams subject to the MACT standard (i.e., only the equipment systems 
and wastewater streams specifically enumerated would be subject to the 
standard). EPA believes this change will result in the same level of 
control at the MACT floor for both wastewater and process equipment 
contemplated in the proposal, yet will reduce or eliminate the cost of 
testing that would have been required by the 1993 proposal to determine 
applicability. The requirements for enclosures, closed vent systems, 
and control devices set forth in the 1993 proposal would still apply.
    The named pulping process systems that EPA is considering for 
control are: the LVHC vent system, pre-washer knotter and screening 
system, the brownstock washing system, weak black liquor storage tanks, 
and the oxygen delignification system. The following new definitions 
are now under consideration:
    1. The LVHC vent system includes batch the digester blow heat 
recovery vents, batch digester relief steam condenser vents, continuous 
digester relief steam vents, turpentine condenser(s) vents, continuous 
digest blow tank vent, evaporator vacuum system vents, liquor 
concentrator vacuum system vents, pre-evaporator vacuum system vents, 
steam stripper feed tank vents, and steam stripper off gas vents.
    2. The brownstock washing system includes rotary vacuum drum 
washers, pressure washers, diffusion washers, horizontal belt washers, 
all filtrate tanks, and intermediate stock chests. The washing system 
does not include deckers, screens, stock chests or pulp storage tanks 
following the last stage of brownstock washing.
    3. The oxygen delignification system includes the blow tank, the 
post oxygen washers, filtrate tanks, and any interstage pulp storage 
tanks.
    4. The pre-washing screening system includes knotters, knotter 
drain tanks, screens, and reject tanks prior to brownstock washing.
    At proposal, EPA concluded that a sufficient number of weak black 
liquor storage tanks are controlled in the industry to constitute a 
floor-level of control. However, several commentors stated that weak 
black liquor storage tanks could not feasibly be controlled by simply 
venting the tanks to a header system and combustion device (the basis 
for the 1993 proposal). The commentors stated that a more complex 
system involving sweeping air across the tank would be necessary due to 
the potential for an older tank to collapse if a vacuum were pulled on 
the tank. A sweep air system would generate a larger volumetric flow 
rate from these tanks and thus increase the size of the header and the 
combustion capacity required of the control device. An alternative 
would be to replace the older tanks with newer tanks which could 
withstand the vacuum.
    Based on the data available regarding current control technology 
levels in the industry and the range of emission potential for these 
tanks, EPA believes the 1993 proposed MACT requirements for these tanks 
should be retained. However, industry has raised concerns that the 
information submitted in the NCASI voluntary survey prior to proposal 
is providing a misleading picture of current industry control 
practices. The industry has also indicated that the emissions data from 
the NCASI test program for these tanks is suspect. The industry is 
collecting additional information on current operation, age, emissions, 
and control practices for these tanks to supplement information already 
provided to EPA.
    EPA is considering whether distinguishing between types of weak 
black liquor storage tanks is appropriate. Specifically, EPA is 
considering the appropriateness of a distinction in age since newer 
tanks may be structurally able to withstand a vacuum. EPA is 

[[Page 9390]]
interested in any data on the age of the controlled tanks and the types 
of controls in use. EPA is also interested in comments on whether age 
is an appropriate parameter to consider for determining control 
applicability.
    Questions remain as to what level of control represents the MACT 
floor for these different types of tanks. EPA will continue to discuss 
these issues with industry and consider all available information to 
resolve the MACT floor questions prior to promulgation.
    Several commentors also stated that pre-washer knotter and 
screening systems should not be controlled. Based on the data available 
regarding current control technology levels in the industry and the 
range of emission potential for these systems, EPA believes the control 
of pre-washer knotter and screening systems represents a floor-level of 
control. However, industry has raised concerns about the information 
submitted in the NCASI voluntary survey prior to proposal because the 
survey respondents were not clear as to their meaning when they 
reported knotter systems as controlled, not controlled, or not vented. 
The survey responses also did not indicate if the screening systems 
were located before or after washing. Therefore, as with black liquor 
tanks, questions remain concerning what level of control represents the 
MACT floor for these equipment systems. Industry is collecting 
additional information concerning the current operation, emissions, 
equipment, and control levels in these systems to supplement the 
information already provided. EPA is interested in any additional data 
or information concerning the type of and control of emission points in 
the knotter and screening systems, both pre and post-washer. EPA will 
re-evaluate the MACT floor level of control for these sources prior to 
promulgation.
    At proposal, EPA characterized pulping wastewater and condensate 
streams to be controlled as those with HAP concentrations above 500 
ppmw. However, commentors said that the 500 ppmw level was an 
inappropriate determinant for wastewater streams controlled at the MACT 
floor and provided data to name each stream to be treated. Based on 
review of these stream definitions and data submitted by the industry 
to characterize these streams, EPA is inclined to agree that the 500 
ppmv is inappropriate level and that naming the streams better 
identifies the streams to be controlled at the MACT floor. EPA now 
considers the subject wastewater streams to be foul condensates and is 
inclined to adopt the following definitions of foul condensates and 
ancillary equipment:
    1. Foul condensates--any liquid streams originating from the 
following process areas or equipment: batch digester relief and blow 
gas system condensates; batch digester blow heat recovery system 
condensates; continuous digester system flash steam condensates; 
continuous digester chip steaming vessel condensates; turpentine 
decanter underflow; non-condensible gas (NCG) system condensates; NCG 
system low point drains; and condensates from the weak liquor feed 
stage(s) in the evaporator system. Where vapors or gases from the 
digester, turpentine recovery, NCG, and/or evaporator systems are 
segregated into low-HAP and high-HAP concentration fractions through 
multistage, differential, or selective condensation, only the high-HAP 
fraction stream is considered foul condensate. If condensate 
segregation is not performed on the process areas or equipment 
identified above, the entire volume of condensate generated, produced, 
or associated with the process area or equipment shall be considered 
foul condensate.
    2. Evaporator system--any and all equipment associated with 
increasing the solids content of spent cooking liquor including, but 
not limited to, pre-evaporators, evaporators (direct and indirect 
contact), and concentrators.
    3. Condensate segregation--the practice of generating, producing, 
or isolating a high-HAP concentration-low flow rate condensate stream 
from process vent vapors or gases in order to maximize the HAP mass and 
minimize the condensate volume sent to subsequent treatment.
    4. Segregated condensate stream (high-HAP fraction)--any condensate 
stream that contains at least 65 percent by weight of the total HAP 
mass (measured as methanol) that is present in the vapor stream prior 
to condensation or isolation.
    EPA is requesting comment on this named stream approach and on 
whether the definitions shown above and on the pulping process 
equipment systems discussed earlier, accurately represent the sources 
of emissions to be controlled at the MACT floor and clearly define them 
for purposes of compliance determinations.
    EPA also re-evaluated control requirements for steam stripping--the 
technology on which MACT for these wastewater streams is based. The 
proposed standards required that the pulping wastewater streams subject 
to control must meet one of the following: Recycle to a controlled 
piece of process equipment, reduce the HAP concentration to below 500 
ppmw, reduce total HAP or methanol by 90 percent, use the proposed 
design steam stripper, or hardpipe the stream to biological treatment. 
New performance data on all the currently operated steam strippers were 
submitted after proposal (Pulp and Paper Water Docket item 20,027 
attachment 3). The new data indicates that the best performing steam 
strippers representing the floor level of control achieve a combination 
of high percent methanol removal, high methanol mass removal, and low 
outlet methanol concentration. Because methanol is a good indicator of 
total HAP removal for pulping processes and associated wastewater, any 
one of these parameters demonstrates that total HAP are being removed 
from the condensate streams and therefore are not emitted to the 
atmosphere. Based on that data, EPA now considers that mass removal and 
outlet concentration are valid parameters to set control limits in 
addition to percent removal as at proposal. The rule would allow mills 
to: (1) Choose any wastewater treatment device as long as the device 
achieves one of the three parameters and as long as the wastewater is 
conveyed to the treatment device in an enclosed conveyance system; or 
(2) recycle the wastewater streams to a piece of equipment meeting the 
control requirements presented below.
    EPA has evaluated the data in the NCASI condensate study (docket 
item IV-J-32) and agrees with industry that bleached kraft mills 
generate more HAP in pulping wastewaters than unbleached kraft mills 
primarily because bleached kraft mills tend to digest the pulp longer. 
While unbleached kraft mills can achieve the same percent methanol 
removed as bleached kraft mills, unbleached kraft mills cannot attain 
the same mass removed or outlet concentration as bleached mills. 
Therefore, EPA currently intends to distinguish between bleached and 
unbleached mills for the purpose of setting MACT level of control for 
pulping wastewater.
    The new industry data on steam stripping technologies indicates 
that the MACT floor level of control for pulping wastewater at both 
bleached and unbleached kraft mills is treating the foul condensate 
wastewater streams to remove 92 percent of the HAP content (measured as 
methanol). The data indicates that steam strippers achieving the 92 
percent control also achieve an equivalent outlet concentration of less 
than 330 and 210 ppmw measured as methanol, or remove 9.2 and 5.9 
pounds of methanol/ADTP across the treatment 

[[Page 9391]]
device, respectively for bleached and unbleached wastewater streams. 
Mills would be allowed to use one of three equivalent limits to show 
compliance.
    EPA still intends to keep the provisions for recycling to enclosed 
equipment and hardpiping foul condensates to a mill's biological 
wastewater treatment plant. EPA is considering soluble BOD as a 
compliance parameter alternative for biological treatment compliance 
(docket items IV-D1-27, IV-D1-75, IV-D1-79, and IV-E-44). EPA is 
interested in any comments concerning this compliance approach. EPA is 
also re-considering the need for a design steam stripper.
    New source MACT requirements have not changed since proposal. MACT 
for new sources is based on the best level of control achieved from 
similar sources. In other words, this technology was selected because 
it is used by the best controlled similar source, as required by 
section 112 (d) (3). The best controlled similar sources have the same 
level of control as existing sources. In addition, the best controlled 
source also controls deckers and post washer screen systems by not 
venting or enclosing and routing vents to a control device.

B. Sulfite

    The level of control for the sulfite industry in the December 17, 
1993 proposal was the same as for all mill types (see previous 
discussion on kraft mills). This section explains the level of the 
standard under consideration for the projected sulfite subcategory. In 
summary, EPA has reviewed what sources are being controlled, the 
performance of the control technologies, and options for implementation 
and setting emission standards for the sulfite industry.
    EPA has reviewed public comments and industry data to evaluate the 
emission sources controlled at the best performing mills for HAP 
reductions. Pulping area sources controlled at the best performing 
existing mills are the digesters, evaporators, and red stock washer 
system vents (later referred to as the ``selected vents''). These 
sources are the same vents as proposed except that knotters or deckers 
which follow washers in the sulfite mills are now excluded from control 
for existing sources because they are not part of the MACT floor. 
Additionally, control of pulping wastewater with steam strippers has 
been dropped from consideration since sulfite mills do not employ 
stream strippers.
    Many public comments stated that the control technology basis of 
the standard for sulfite mills should not be combustion as proposed, 
since very few mills combust emissions from the selected vents. The 
data clearly indicate which emission sources are being collected and 
vented to reduce or capture and recover SO2 emissions, which in 
turn reduces HAP emissions by some degree. Sulfite mills use a 
combination of the acid plant and separate scrubbing systems (e.g., 
nuisance scrubbers) to control and capture SO2 emissions. EPA and 
industry have been meeting, collecting, and analyzing data to determine 
the degree of HAP emission reduction achieved in these control devices 
or systems designed to collect SO2 emissions. Recently, NCASI 
provided a summary of the available industry emissions data and 
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) made recommendations to 
EPA on the MACT standards for sulfite mills (docket items IV-D1-87, IV-
D1-88, and IV-D1-94). In summary, AF&PA recommended that certain named 
air emission sources be vented to existing SO2 recovery systems 
and that ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite mills could not recycle 
condensates with annual average methanol concentrations exceeding 500 
ppmw to pulping and chemical recovery equipment unless the equipment 
was being vented to an SO2 recovery device or unless the total 
emissions from the all pulping and chemical recovery equipment do not 
exceed 2.5 pounds methanol per ton of oven-dried pulp (lb/ODTP).
    EPA has used the concept of naming both the sources to be 
controlled and the control device on all the other pulping 
subcategories. However, for those other subcategories, the named 
controls are well understood and emission reduction performance was 
well documented. Named control devices for the other subcategories were 
specified to meet either a known percent reduction standard, equipment 
design standard (e.g., 98 percent control or operate at 1600 degrees 
Fahrenheit and 0.75 second residence time for incinerators), or the 
named control device is known to operate in a manner to destroy the 
emissions to a certain level (i.e., venting to lime kilns or recovery 
boilers reduces emissions by at least 98 percent due to very high 
operating temperatures). However, for SO2 recovery devices or 
systems at sulfite mills there are many combinations of systems used 
with various desired SO2 capture efficiencies. Some of these 
systems have been shown to be better than others in reducing HAP 
emissions. Therefore, simply naming existing SO2 control systems 
as the HAP control device does not set a known HAP level of performance 
for sulfite mills. EPA must evaluate and set the HAP emission limits 
achieved by the best performing existing sources (in this case, the 
best performing five mills since there are less than 30 sources 
(section 112(d)(3))).
    For this evaluation, EPA considered various types of performance 
measurement standards for the sulfite industry. Options include 
equipment and work practice standards, percent reduction standards, 
and/or emission limit (concentration or mass) standards for each or a 
combination of streams. As discussed earlier an equipment and work 
practice standard is not appropriate. Also, EPA considers that using a 
standard that combines emission streams instead of setting individual 
stream limits provides the best fit, least expensive, and most flexible 
standard since existing mills already use various combinations of 
SO2 control technologies for different and varying types of 
emission streams. Thus, a mill could use any combination of controls 
plus add-on controls or process changes that best fit the existing 
facility to get the same emission reduction. EPA evaluated percent 
reduction and emission limit standards and found that limits could be 
set, based on the best available information. The discussion on how 
those limits were determined is found later in this section.
    Based on EPA's review of the quantity and quality of data and the 
variability in the industry, EPA does not intend to set these limits as 
continuous emission limits. Rather, EPA intends that several initial 
performance tests be performed using the average of three one-hour 
tests when the mill is operating under normal operating conditions to 
determine if the control system meets the emission standard. During the 
performance test, process and control equipment parameters will be 
required to be monitored and matched with the emission limits to 
determine the operating and monitoring conditions to be monitored for 
long-term compliance with the standard. EPA has used this approach on 
other standards to provide flexibility in process operation while 
assuring compliance.
    Under this program, the owner or operator of the source will 
recommend and demonstrate to the permitting authority the appropriate 
equipment parameters to be monitored, and the allowable range for those 
parameters to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard. This 
recommendation would include the data collected during the performance 
test supplemented by engineering 

[[Page 9392]]
assessments and equipment manufacturer's recommendations. The source 
would not be out of compliance with the standard when the source 
operates outside those operating conditions if the source reports 
(prior to any EPA compliance or enforcement action) and documents that 
the episode is during a start-up, shut down, or malfunction as defined 
in section 63.2 of the General Provisions. And, the source must 
demonstrate that conditions have changed and a retest of the initial 
performance test shows compliance with the emission standard.
    EPA is considering establishing two emission limit strategies to 
demonstrate compliance: mass balance and percent reduction of the 
selected vents. Since only methanol data was available for determining 
either standard, methanol would be used in this case as a surrogate for 
total or individual HAP emission standards. From the recent NCASI 
summary of sulfite data, it is clear that calcium-based sulfite mills 
have lower emissions because they do not have the extensive recovery 
system that ammonium and magnesium-based mills require. Therefore, 
emission standards for calcium-based mills will be considered 
separately from ammonium and magnesium-based mills.
    Section 112 of the Act requires EPA to establish limits based on at 
least the average of the five best controlled mills when there are less 
than 30 mills. The data set available to EPA to set a mass limit and 
percent reduction limit is limited; however the available data 
indicates that the average of the three existing calcium-based mills 
emit a total of 0.02 lb methanol/ODTP from vents where the selected 
sulfite vent emissions are collected and processed. The data set 
indicates that the average emissions from the top five ammonium-based 
and magnesium-based mills are a total of 0.45 lb methanol/ODTP from the 
vents where the selected sulfite vents are collected and processed. 
Additionally, the total of the selected vent emissions does not account 
for the total air emissions from these systems since scrubbers are used 
in the SO2 recovery systems. The scrubbers transfer some of the 
HAP from the vents to wastewater that is subsequently sewered. Air 
emissions from the sewered recovery system wastewater occur in the 
mill's open wastewater collection and processing equipment due to 
volatilization. These air emissions from wastewater can be calculated 
using EPA's WATER8 Emission Model available on the TTN (under Chief 
BBS, Emission Estimation Software, file: water8.zip).
    EPA reviewed all the sulfite wastewater data available and the 
amount volatilized from an average wastewater system (calculated to be 
6 percent lost for methanol using WATER8) and estimates that an average 
sulfite mill emits 0.63 lb methanol/ODTP. Estimates from industry 
provided earlier in the year also indicated similar results. Industry 
has agreed to provide details on sulfite mill wastewater collection and 
treatment systems to better estimate the emissions from those systems 
since wastewater emissions may be a significant portion of the total 
HAP mass emission rate. The total average mass emissions from the 
selected sulfite mill vent control systems at the best performing mills 
(including vents and wastewater air emissions) are estimated to be 0.65 
and 1.10 lb methanol/ODTP for calcium-based and ammonium and magnesium-
based mills, respectively. Using the appropriate value, a mill could 
then achieve the emissions reduction under this total mass emission 
standard across the selected vents, and the connected recovery system 
vent and wastewater emissions.
    As noted earlier, industry recommended a much higher vent mass 
emission limit of 2.5 lb methanol/ODTP in the industry's sulfite mill 
recommendation on limits for recycling wastewater. Industry 
representatives stated that the 2.5 lb methanol/ODTP estimate was 
derived from the same data set and they derived a similar estimate as 
the 0.45 lb methanol/ODTP value discussed above. However, the industry 
representatives increased the value (from 0.45 to 2.5) to take into 
account variability of testing procedures, mill operating conditions, 
and the types of products produced. Industry is currently documenting 
their variability calculations and rationale and providing it to EPA 
and the rulemaking docket. EPA currently believes that the approach 
discussed earlier for implementing these emission limits will 
adequately account for variability. However, EPA will consider the 
industry rationale and data.
    EPA does not have data to support or deny the industry's 500 ppmw 
recommendation. Industry is recommending condensate streams exceeding 
500 ppmw of methanol should not be allowed to be used/recycled in the 
pulping or chemical recovery area to process equipment vented directly 
to the atmosphere unless it meets 2.5 lb methanol/ODTP. EPA requests 
data and comments on this approach.
    The second emission limit approach under consideration for sulfite 
mills is setting a mass reduction of HAP emissions from the applicable 
emission points. Industry tested two SO2 nuisance scrubbers and 
found that while one reduced vent emissions of methanol by 95 percent 
and emissions of total HAP by 94 percent, the other SO2 scrubber 
increased HAP emissions. Since nuisance scrubbers are only one part of 
the recovery system for most mills, the scrubber efficiency alone does 
not represent what the total system is controlling. A second approach 
was developed that used the mass emission limit derived above and data 
on the amount of methanol generated. An industry engineering estimate 
indicates that between 15 and 20 lb methanol/ODTP generated in the 
sulfite process. Of the amount generated, as much as 8 lbs methanol/
ODTP may be emitted from the selected vents as shown in the recent 
NCASI summary of sulfite data. Comparing this amount to the mass 
emission rates (0.65 and 1.1 lbs methanol/ODTP) discussed above at the 
best performing mills, 92 and 87 percent of the methanol is removed 
across the total selected sulfite mill vent control system for calcium-
based and ammonium and magnesium-based mills, respectively. In 
conclusion, mills would have to meet either the mass emission or the 
mass percent reduction standard across their control system to be in 
compliance.
    Industry has indicated concern over the numerical mass limits and 
percent reductions discussed in this notice because they are based on a 
limited data set and because HAP reductions resulting from control 
devices installed originally for SO2 control is not well 
understood. EPA will review and consider additional data being 
collected by this industry and other public commentors to set a HAP 
level of performance for sulfite mills prior to promulgation and will 
adjust these numerical values as necessary. EPA solicits comments on 
the two emission limit strategies for sulfite mills discussed above and 
solicits comments on the appropriate numerical values for these 
strategies.
    New source MACT is based on the best level of control achieved at 
baseline. The data shows the best controlled sulfite mills control the 
same emission sources as the requirements for existing sources and also 
control weak or spent liquor tanks, strong liquor storage tanks, and 
acid condensate storage tanks. The best sulfite mills also have non-
venting knotter and screening systems. Therefore, new source MACT is 
the same as existing source MACT, as well as, the control of the 
aforementioned storage tanks and the 

[[Page 9393]]
installation of non-venting knotter and screening systems. EPA 
currently plans to require new sources to meet the same mass emission 
limit or percent reduction as discussed for existing sources.

C. Semi-chemical

    The proposed standards did not differentiate between pulping types; 
therefore, the owners or operators of new or existing semi-chemical 
mill sources were required to comply with the same standards as kraft 
pulping. EPA is considering changing the MACT requirements for semi-
chemical mills to be the control of LVHC vents only (as defined in 
section VI.A). Data show that the MACT floor level of control at semi-
chemical mills is collecting LVHC vent emissions and reducing emissions 
to the same level as previously proposed in 1993 and discussed earlier 
in this notice for kraft mills.
    EPA considered whether it would be appropriate to go beyond the 
MACT floor at semi-chemical mills to control some of the additional 
larger emitting process systems, such as pulp washer systems, that 
would be controlled at kraft mills. However, data indicates that 
emissions from semi-chemical mills are generally much less than at 
kraft mills. Therefore, considering the smaller emission reduction and 
the costs to control units beyond the floor, EPA is inclined to set 
MACT for semi-chemical mills at the floor (controlling LVHC vent 
emissions).
    In evaluating the information and through discussions with 
representatives from semi-chemical mills, EPA is aware that the best 
controlled mills collecting and controlling LVHC vents tend to be 
collocated with kraft mills. EPA considered whether a distinction 
between collocated and stand-alone semi-chemical mills should be made 
for the purpose of setting MACT requirements. EPA determined that there 
is no difference in the nature of the vents being collected, and the 
level of control is technically feasible and can be achieved at a 
reasonable cost; therefore, there is no need to distinguish between 
these types of mills. EPA estimates that the control of the LVHC vents 
at a typical semi-chemical mill will reduce emissions by 160 Mg of HAP 
per year and 1,700 Mg of VOC per year; the cost-effectiveness for a 
typical stand-alone semi-chemical mill will range from $1,000 to 
$3,000/Mg of HAP. Industry cost estimates fall within that range 
(docket item IV-D1-62, IV-D1-86, IV-D1-89, IV-D1-90, and IV-D1-92). 
Semi-chemical mill representatives also believe the control of LVHC 
vents is a reasonable level of control for stand-alone mills as well 
(docket item IV-D1-72 and IV-E-68). Therefore, EPA now considers the 
control of the LVHC vents at both types of mills to be MACT and a 
distinction is not warranted.
    The MACT level of control for HAP emissions from semi-chemical mill 
wastewater is no control. EPA is not aware of any semi-chemical mills 
treating process wastewaters with steam strippers as is found in the 
kraft industry. Since semi-chemical mills generate less HAP than the 
kraft process, and therefore, lower HAP-containing streams, EPA does 
not consider going beyond the floor to control semi-chemical wastewater 
streams to be appropriate.
    New source MACT is based on the best level of control at similar 
sources. Data indicate the best controlled semi-chemical mills combust 
the same LVHC emissions plus the pulp washing system emissions. EPA 
anticipates the trend in industry will be to install washer systems 
with lower flow rates. This in turn allows for less expensive control 
systems. The costs are also reduced at new sources since the controls 
can be considered and planned into new equipment installation as 
opposed to retrofitted.
    Therefore, new source MACT would be the same as existing source 
MACT plus the control of the pulp washing systems. EPA has not had a 
recent opportunity to discuss this contemplated new source control 
level with the affected mills and public and solicits comments and data 
on the appropriate levels of control for new sources at these mills.

D. Soda

    As discussed previously in section V, subcategorization, EPA 
currently plans to establish separate MACT standards for soda mills. 
Based on information and data obtained since proposal, EPA now 
considers the control of LVHC vents (as defined in section VI. A) at 
these mills to be MACT.
    Data available to EPA indicate that soda mills do not currently 
control any of the equipment that is subject to the MACT requirements 
for kraft mills. However, EPA has determined that the emissions from 
soda mills are similar to kraft mills and the control costs are similar 
to stand-alone semi-chemical mills. Therefore, EPA considers going 
beyond the floor to control LVHC vent emissions at soda mills to be an 
appropriate level of control for MACT for these mills, taking into 
consideration the costs of achieving the controls as well as the other 
factors enumerated in section 112(d)(2). EPA estimates that control of 
the soda mill LVHC system vents, at a typical mill, will reduce 
emissions by 130 Mg of HAP per year and 1,500 Mg of VOC per year.
    Data show that no soda mills currently practice steam stripping to 
control HAP's in wastewater. EPA initially does not believe the costs 
of control of these streams to be warranted, within the meaning of 
section 112(d)(2). Therefore, the MACT for the control of HAP in 
wastewater would be no control.
    The new source requirements are based on the best level of control 
at similar sources. Data show that no soda mills are currently 
practicing any level of HAP control. However, the control of washing 
systems is demonstrated at similar sources (i.e., semi-chemical and 
kraft washing systems). Therefore, as discussed in section VI.C for 
semi-chemical mills, EPA now considers the control of washing systems 
for new sources to be part of MACT. Therefore, new source MACT for soda 
mills would be the same as new source MACT for semi-chemical mills 
(LVHC and washing system controls). EPA has not had a recent 
opportunity to discuss these contemplated new and existing source 
control levels with the affected mills and public, and solicits 
comments and data on the appropriate levels of control at these mills.

E. Bleaching

    EPA is considering changing the proposed MACT requirements for 
bleach plants. EPA is also considering making a distinction between 
requirements for papergrade versus dissolving grade mills. Changes to 
the proposed MACT standard would include only requiring controls for 
chlorinated HAP's. The control requirements to achieve chloroform 
reductions would be based on a combination of compliance with the 
future BAT requirements imposed under the Clean Water Act (only for 
papergrade bleach mills) and the enclosure of all bleaching equipment 
and routing the vents to a scrubber for all bleach stages where 
chlorinated bleaching agents are introduced to control the other 
chlorinated HAP's (at all bleach mills). As at proposal, a mill would 
be allowed to use chlorine as a surrogate for compliance with these 
other chlorinated HAP's around the scrubber. Control of non-chlorinated 
HAP's (with methanol as a surrogate), as required at proposal, would be 
dropped because data indicate that the best controlled mills do not, in 
fact, achieve control of these pollutants. The rationale for these 
changes under consideration is set forth below. 

[[Page 9394]]

    The proposed standards require owners or operators of new or 
existing sources to enclose and vent all bleaching component emission 
points into a closed vent system routed to a control device. The 
proposed MACT was based on caustic scrubbing as the control device. 
Vents or enclosed process equipment with volumetric flow rates or total 
HAP concentration below certain specified limits were not subject to 
control. EPA requested comment on whether MACT should also include 
process changes and if a separate MACT standard for chloroform is 
appropriate. Based on data received, EPA now considers the chlorinated 
HAP limit to be based on the emissions reduction achieved using a 
combination of scrubbing and process modifications. Therefore, EPA is 
considering setting a MACT standard for both chloroform and other 
chlorinated HAP's (chlorine as a surrogate).
    Industry provided data for existing bleach plant emission estimates 
and scrubber efficiencies. The data clearly indicates that mills 
practice significant control of chlorine and chlorine dioxide through 
the use of caustic scrubbing (docket item II-I-24). However, existing 
bleach plant scrubbers are operated with high recirculation rates which 
result in no removal for methanol and other organic HAP compounds 
(docket item IV-D1-34). The data also shows reduced chloroform and 
other chlorinated HAP emissions with process changes (docket item II-I-
10); however, the data indicate that there are no significant increases 
in non-chlorinated HAP emissions. Therefore, EPA currently plans to 
drop the total HAP percent reduction limit for methanol and other 
nonclorinated organic HAP's.
    As discussed earlier, EPA is evaluating two types of bleaching 
processes; the distinction is necessary for the purpose of setting 
standards for chloroform. These two types of processes are papergrade 
bleaching and dissolving grade bleaching, to be defined the effluent 
guidelines portion of the cluster rule. The average emission limitation 
of the best controlled papergrade bleaching processes result from 
control of chloroform and the other chlorinated HAP emissions through a 
combination of caustic scrubbing, high levels of chorine dioxide 
substitution, and eliminating the use of hypochlorite. The average 
emission limitation of the best controlled dissolving grade bleaching 
processes also control emissions of the other chlorinated HAP through 
caustic scrubbing but tend to use hypochlorite and lower levels of 
chlorine dioxide substitution. Therefore at this time, EPA has been 
unable to identify the appropriate process modifications for which to 
base the chloroform emission control level.
    EPA's Office of Water (OW) is currently planning to revise its 
technology basis for limits based on results of ongoing studies by 
dissolving mills of alternative process technologies different from 
those which served as the proposed effluent guidelines. Significant 
objectives of these studies include the extent to which hypochlorite 
use can be reduced and chlorine dioxide substitution increased in order 
to reduce generation and release of chlorinated organic pollutants, 
such as chloroform, while maintaining dissolving pulp properties 
acceptable to end users of these pulps. When data for these studies 
become available, EPA will revise its proposed effluent limitations and 
BAT technology option as appropriate, and evaluate data to set 
chloroform MACT standards for dissolving grade mills. EPA is interested 
in any data concerning chloroform emissions from dissolving grade 
bleaching processes and requests comment on an appropriate chloroform 
MACT for new or existing dissolving-grade bleach plants.
    As proposed, emissions of the other chlorinated HAP (or chlorine as 
a surrogate) are to be reduced by 99 percent. EPA is considering also 
allowing mills to meet an outlet concentration below 10 parts per 
million by volume (ppmv) of HAP from the scrubber exhaust as an 
alternative to the 99 percent reduction standard. Commentors asked for 
an alternative level to the 99 percent reduction standard because high 
substitution rates reduce the bleach vent emissions to the extent that 
99 percent reduction across the scrubber is not attainable. Based on 
the review of data, the 10 ppmv standard is considered equivalent to 
the outlet of scrubbers achieving 99 percent removal (docket item II-I-
24). EPA also is considering whether a mass limit on the scrubber 
exhaust would be an appropriate equivalent alternative, and solicits 
comment and data on the need and appropriate level for a mass limit.
    For papergrade bleaching processes, compliance with OW's BAT option 
for papergrade bleaching (anticipated to be based on at least 100 
percent chlorine dioxide substitution and no hypochlorite use) is at 
least as stringent as the MACT floor (high chlorine dioxide 
substitution). Therefore, EPA plans to specify papergrade BAT as 
compliance for chloroform at paper grade bleach plants. EPA requests 
comments on whether an alternative equivalent numerical limit for 
chloroform is needed for papergrade bleaching processes.
    EPA's intent for bleaching wastewater is unchanged from proposal 
(i.e., no control). New source MACT for bleach plants would be the same 
as existing source MACT for both papergrade and dissolving grade bleach 
plants. The installation and operation of the totally chlorine free 
(TCF) bleaching process meets all the bleaching process MACT standards 
for papergrade bleaching and would constitute compliance.

VII. Compliance Extension for Kraft Mills

    EPA is committed to the goals of the cluster rule, and believes 
that the cluster rule will ultimately result in lower overall 
compliance costs, while still providing environmental and human health 
protection. However, EPA recognizes the unique compliance and timing 
issues that the cluster rule may create. EPA has identified one 
situation that may warrant additional compliance time to fully realize 
the goals of this rule. EPA is inclined to agree with industry 
representatives who have stated that additional time is warranted for 
brownstock washers and oxygen delignification units at kraft mills. EPA 
believes the additional time would ensure that the maximum degree of 
overall multi-media pollution reduction is achieved, without requiring 
unnecessary compliance costs.
    Many kraft mills are currently considering the addition of oxygen 
delignification (OD) to their pulping process lines by the year 2000. 
The addition of OD has been shown to have significant environmental 
benefit. An OD unit reduces the need for chlorinated chemical 
application in the bleaching process, which results in reduced loadings 
of chlorinated pollutants to the air and into the bleach plant 
effluent. Less water is required in the bleaching process which, in 
turn, brings a mill closer to the ``closed mill'' design, with zero 
water discharge. EPA is strongly committed to pollution prevention 
efforts such as these. There is also a cost savings for the industry by 
using OD in the form of reduced chemical usage and less net energy 
usage.
    To gain the maximum benefit from adding OD units, the brownstock 
washers typically need to be redesigned to improve pulp washing. The 
trend in the industry is toward newer washing technologies that are 
more efficient, require smaller space in the mill, are less polluting 
and easier to control. EPA encourages the use of these pollution 
prevention technologies, but recognizes the evaluation and 
implementation of 

[[Page 9395]]
these technologies would add time and expense to the compliance 
activities for these sources.
    EPA is particularly concerned that if mills had to control vents on 
brownstock washers within the 3-year compliance period, time 
constraints would dictate that they retrofit their current washers with 
a vent gas collection system. Once such a collection system is 
installed, mills would likely postpone installation of OD or choose not 
to install it at all; as discussed earlier, installation of OD 
generally requires brownstock washer upgrades. The upgraded washers 
plus the new OD system would require a differently designed gas 
collection system. Once mills commit capital to retrofit their current 
equipment, they would be very unlikely to entertain technologies such 
as OD that would require tearing out and rebuilding or replacing the 
gas collection system within a few years. (In such a case, there is a 
serious question whether imposition of a standard that results in 
foregoing substantial cross-media environmental benefits could be MACT. 
Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 385-86 at 
n.42 (DC Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 
439 (DC Cir. 1973), EPA must consider non-air environmental impacts in 
determining what constitutes a ``best'' technology.)
    EPA considers the installation of improved washers and OD to be an 
important step toward totally chlorine free bleaching. Total chlorine 
free bleaching, while still evolving, provides significant benefits 
such as elimination of chlorinated pollutants to the environment and 
allows bleach plant effluents to be recycled to the mill. These 
benefits result in a large reduction in mill water intake and moves a 
mill further toward the closed mill concept.
    This additional design and mill modification can be a lengthy 
process. EPA wants to allow sufficient time for each mill to fully 
consider all pollution control options. EPA also recognizes that the 
pulp and paper industry will be implementing both water and air rules 
essentially at the same time; many of the changes a mill will need to 
implement to comply with the water requirements must be considered 
before control of air emissions from the washer and OD systems can be 
enacted. Given the engineering requirements, capital expenditures, 
permitting requirements, and the time necessary to implement the water 
standards, EPA questions whether it is even possible to install 
controls for air emissions from OD and washers currently in place 
within 3 years.
    Much of the discussion in this section is centered around OD. It 
must be pointed out that while OD may not be included in the control 
basis for BAT at kraft mills, EPA is considering taking a number of 
steps, this compliance extension being one, to encourage mills to adopt 
the technology. EPA's Office of Water, in a separate Federal Register 
notice to follow shortly, will address the process technologies that 
are likely to be considered as the underlying basis for BAT effluent 
limitations. EPA also will present a plan for incentives being 
considered for mills that have installed or will install technologies 
that achieve more stringent removal of pollutants from wastewater than 
is likely to be required based on BAT.
    EPA is thus considering providing an additional 5 years beyond the 
3-year compliance time for the remaining units for a total compliance 
time of 8 years from the date of promulgation. EPA believes this would 
allow sufficient time for a complete evaluation of all pollution 
control options. Some limited information on the status of their 
compliance activities for these sources would likely be required in 
their annual compliance report.
    EPA is, of course, aware that section 112 (i) (3) (A) states that 
compliance with a MACT standard shall be no later than 3 years from the 
standard's effective date. EPA notes, however, that there are special 
circumstances present in this instance. First, as described above, a 
three year compliance period raises the likelihood of mills which might 
otherwise choose to install OD foregoing water quality and pollution 
prevention benefits if they are forced to retain their existing 
brownstock washing system in order to justify the capital cost of vent 
controls on that system. Second, as a legal matter, EPA could develop a 
rule with the same contemplated compliance date (i.e. of 2004) by 
simply rescheduling this part of the pulp and paper air rule into the 
so-called 10-year bin under section 112 (e) (1) (E), and rescheduling a 
10-year rule. (Section 112 (c) (1) contemplates revisions in EPA's 
initial schedule, and EPA has been held to have continuing discretion 
to reschedule under a similar scheduling scheme in the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 869 F. 
2d 1526 at n. 2 (D.C. Cir. 1989).) Because of the benefits of the 
cluster rulemaking process, which allows EPA to develop and affected 
companies and members of the public to gauge the multi-media effect of 
contemplated rules at one time, EPA prefers to promulgate the standards 
at the same (or close to the same) time. EPA does not believe the 
cluster process needs to be abandoned to provide a compliance date it 
could achieve by other means.
    Much of the rationale for the compliance extension is to encourage 
kraft mills to install superior water pollution-control technology, yet 
the extended compliance time line contemplated in this notice would be 
available to all kraft mills, whether or not they choose to adopt that 
superior technology. EPA solicits comments on whether such a compliance 
extension should only be available to mills that commit to install 
technologies that achieve more stringent removal of pollutants from 
wastewater than is likely to be required based on BAT.

VIII. Emissions Averaging

    The proposed regulations did not contain provisions for emissions 
averaging; however EPA requested comments on the subject. EPA is 
interested in emissions averaging because it is equally protective, 
adds flexibility, and can also reduce the costs of compliance and 
testing. At proposal, EPA did not include an emissions averaging 
approach because of data limitations and concerns over how to implement 
an averaging approach due to concerns about process variability. 
Several commentors indicated support for emissions averaging on the 
basis of providing compliance flexibility for the industry, but stated 
that an individual approach to emissions averaging, such as 
contemplated at proposal, would be too burdensome and inappropriate for 
this industry. Conversely, some commentors indicated that emissions 
averaging would be difficult to enforce.
    After proposal, the industry submitted a concept for compliance 
with the proposed NESHAP regulations that is an alternative type of 
emissions averaging that is unique and potentially more appropriate for 
this industry. While the proposed NESHAP regulations focus primarily on 
combustion of specific process vents, the industry provided preliminary 
information detailing an alternative compliance plan designed to reduce 
the amount of HAP's present in pulping condensate streams that are 
recycled to other process areas in the mill (docket item IV-D1-95). 
Recent industry data has indicated that a significant portion of 
emissions from process areas such as brownstock washing and 
causticizing area could be attributed to volatilization of compounds 
present in the recycled condensates. Reducing the pollutant 
concentration in the recycled condensates would, in turn, lower the 
amount of pollutants volatilized from process areas that receive 
recycled 

[[Page 9396]]
condensates and reduce emissions from bleach plants and paper machines 
associated with HAP carry over from pulp washing processes.
    The industry's compliance alternative, referred to as the ``Clean 
Water Alternative,'' consists of routing pulping area condensates to a 
biological reactor to remove the HAP's. The effluent from the reactor 
could then be used in other process areas in the mill (e.g., brownstock 
washing, causticizing area, etc.). The emission reduction achieved by 
the alternative would be associated with using condensates with lowered 
HAP concentrations throughout the mill.
    The industry believes that significantly reducing the HAP 
concentration in recycle process waters using the biological reactor 
would achieve greater HAP emissions reduction across the whole source 
than the proposed NESHAP. EPA is currently evaluating whether the 
industry's clean water alternative would achieve or exceed the HAP 
emissions reduction achievable using the control techniques on which 
the proposed regulations are based. In addition, EPA will be evaluating 
secondary impacts associated with using the clean water alternative.
    Conceptually, the industry's proposal would reduce emissions from 
process units that receive recycled condensates. Biodegradation of HAP 
compounds has been widely documented; however, this approach to 
emissions reduction has not been demonstrated in the pulp and paper 
industry.
    While the industry's clean water alternative is innovative, 
additional information must be provided in order to make this proposal 
a viable compliance option. Industry supplied additional data to 
improve the emission factors (docket item IV-D1-59), but the data was 
not sufficient to address EPA's concerns about process variability. The 
types of information EPA is interested in obtaining to address these 
concerns are: (1) Detailed information, such as: emission calculations; 
assumptions used; references; typical process/condensate flow diagrams 
(if needed); data supporting relationship between stream concentration 
and air emissions; any other data/information necessary to support an 
independent evaluation of the industry's claims of performance; (2) 
strategies for demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP regulations, 
such as the specific reactor performance parameters to be monitored 
(e.g., inlet and outlet HAP concentration, hot water tank outlet HAP 
concentration, temperature of recycled water; identification of process 
equipment receiving treated condensates); and (3) methods for enforcing 
compliance with the NESHAP regulations using the industry's 
alternative, such as sufficient recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with reactor operation.

IX. Relationship to Other Rules

A. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability

    To comply with the MACT portion of the pulp and paper cluster rule 
under development, mills will route vent gases from specified pulping 
emission points to a combustion control device for destruction. Mills 
may use steam strippers to reduce emissions from pulping wastewater. 
The incineration of sulfur-laden gases from pulping vents and/or steam 
stripper overheads has the potential to generate sulfur dioxide 
(SO2). To a lesser degree, the use of supplemental fuels to 
support vent gas combustion and the generation of additional steam for 
steam strippers may increase emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, 
particulate matter (PM and PM10), and carbon monoxide.1 For 
these reasons, commentors have indicated that compliance with the 
proposed cluster rule could trigger major NSR or PSD review.

    \1\ Commentors raised similar concerns with respect to the 
technologies that would be installed to meet the proposed effluent 
limitations in the cluster rule. These issues will be addressed in 
the forthcoming water notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry and some States have commented extensively on the 
potential problems resulting from the interaction of the cluster rule 
under development and NSR. They have indicated that in developing the 
rule, EPA did not take into account the impacts that would be incurred 
in triggering NSR. Commentors indicated that PSD or NSR review 
processes would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper industry significantly 
more for permitting and implementation of NSR and PSD requirements than 
predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large permitting review burden on State 
air quality offices; and (3) present difficulties for mills to meet the 
proposed NESHAP compliance schedule of three years due to the time 
required to obtain a pre-construction permit. Commentors indicated that 
compliance with the proposed rule would make permitting extremely 
complex, pointing out that in some cases, sources would be required by 
one set of regulations to install emissions controls and constrained 
from beginning construction on those controls in the absence of a 
permit by another set of regulations. The commentors also suggested 
that EPA provide an exemption from major source NSR and PSD review, 
preferably using the pollution control project exclusion.2

    \2\  A similar issue was resolved in the 1992 WEPCO rulemaking, 
where EPA amended its PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations as they 
pertain to electric utilities, by adding certain pollution control 
projects to the list of activities excluded from the definition of 
physical or operational changes, subject to certain safeguards. 
Pollution control projects were defined as ``any activity or project 
undertaken [at an existing electric utility steam generating unit] 
for purposes of reducing emissions from such a unit.''
    In a July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum issued by EPA (available 
on the TTN Bulletin Board), EPA extended a limited pollution control 
project exclusion for source categories other than electric 
utilities. The guidance indicated that unless information regarding 
a specific case indicates otherwise, add-on controls and fuel 
switches to less polluting fuels can be presumed, by their nature, 
to be environmentally beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on evaluation of pollutant reductions, environmental, and 
energy impacts, EPA considers projects implemented to comply with the 
MACT portion of the cluster rule to be environmentally beneficial. EPA 
therefore considers these projects to be pollution control projects 
under current policy guidance issued in an EPA memorandum dated July 1, 
1994. As discussed in the guidance, the exclusion does not affect any 
minor NSR permitting requirements in a State implementation plan, which 
also facilitates the safeguards outlined in the policy guidance. 
Further, EPA expects that projects undertaken to meet the MACT portion 
of the cluster rule will also qualify as PCP's under forthcoming NSR 
reform regulations.
    EPA solicits public comment on its determination that control 
device projects installed to comply with the MACT portion of the 
cluster rule are environmentally beneficial and eligible for exemption 
from major NSR as PCP's under current policy guidance. EPA also 
solicits public comments on providing a specific exclusion in the major 
NSR rules for these types of controls installed to comply with the MACT 
portion of the cluster rule.

B. Boiler/Industrial Furnace/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
Applicability

    The proposed pulp and paper NESHAP requires the use of steam 
stripping to remove HAP's, primarily methanol, from wastewater. After 
removal, the NESHAP would require the HAP-laden vent gases from the 
steam stripper to be sent to a combustion device for destruction. 
Several commentors indicated that sending the steam stripper overheads 
to a combustion device was not the most efficient and cost effective 
way to destroy vent gases due to the high 

[[Page 9397]]
moisture content and variable heat value of these vent gases. The 
commentors recommended sending the stripper vent gases to a 
rectification column followed by condensation to obtain a concentrated 
condensate (primarily methanol). The concentrated condensate could then 
be burned in an on-site combustion device as fuel.
    This approach to condense and burn the concentrated condensate 
takes advantage of the condensate's energy value and should assure 
substantial destruction of HAP's due to the MACT standard. However, as 
explained below, under current rules, condensing the steam stripper 
vent gases could result in RCRA regulation of the condensate, including 
regulation of the combustion unit.
    As proposed, the combustion of steam stripper vent gas does not 
trigger the BIF regulations because the methanol-laden vent gas is not 
a RCRA hazardous waste--it is not listed as a hazardous waste, nor does 
it exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. However, if the methanol 
from the steam stripper overheads is condensed before burning, the 
flash point of the liquid drops to below 140 degrees Fahrenheit, and 
the liquid may therefore be identified as hazardous waste because it 
exhibits the ignitability characteristic (set out in 40 CFR 
Sec. 261.21). To avoid the imposition of RCRA BIF regulations, 
commentors recommended incorporating a ``clean fuels'' exemption into 
the pulp and paper NESHAP so that the condensate can be burned for 
energy recovery without the combustion unit also being subject to the 
RCRA rules.
    The ``clean fuels'' exemption is a recommendation from EPA's Solid 
Waste Task Force (SWTF) to allow recovery of energy from ``clean'' 
waste-derived fuels such as ethanol, methanol, and hexane. The 
recommendation is contained in ``Re-engineering RCRA for Recycling'' 
(EPA 530-R-94-016, November 1994). The ``clean fuels'' exemption was 
developed by the SWTF to promote burning for energy recovery hazardous 
waste fuels that are considered hazardous only because they exhibit the 
ignitability characteristic (i.e., have a flash point below 140 degrees 
Fahrenheit).
    The industry submitted information detailing the composition of 
condensates derived from steam stripper overhead gases (docket items 
IV-D1-51 and IV-D1-56). However, the determination if the condensates 
meet the requirements for the clean fuels exemption has not yet been 
conducted by EPA's Office of Solid Waste. Indeed, the soon-to-be 
proposed standard for hazardous waste combustion units proposes 
exclusions based on a comparable fuel test (rather than a risk-based 
test of how ``clean'' the fuel is) involving a comparison with fossil 
fuels.
    EPA does not believe as an initial matter that RCRA regulation of 
combustion of the condensate is needed. Although the clean fuel and 
comparable fuel approaches are too nascent for immediate national 
application, it still appears that this condensate could be combusted 
pursuant to the MACT standard without presenting risks warranting 
immediate RCRA control. The condensate does not appear to contain metal 
or chlorinated organic HAP's; a volatile HAP (methyl ethyl ketone at 
1638 milligrams per liter (mg/l)) and a volatile compound (acetone at 
2364 mg/l) were the maximum concentrations detected, and they would be 
substantially destroyed under the MACT standard. In addition, EPA 
believes that allowing the burning of this condensate does not produce 
any additional HAP's due to the high temperatures and residence times 
found in pulp and paper combustion devices that would be used to comply 
with the proposed MACT standard. Moreover, burning condensate will not 
increase the potential environmental risk over the burning of the steam 
stripper vent gases prior to condensation. Additionally, the use of the 
condensate as a fuel could reduce or eliminate the need for 
supplemental firing of fossil fuels in such combustion devices, thereby 
decreasing the emission of criteria pollutants (NOX, PM, SO2, 
CO). Consequently, EPA believes that regulation under RCRA is not 
necessary since the practice would not increase environmental risk, 
reduces secondary impacts, and would provide a cost savings. Further 
considerations of risk can appropriately be handled as part of the 
section 112(f) residual risk determination. For these reasons, EPA is 
proposing to exempt specific sources at kraft mills that burn 
condensates derived from steam stripper overheads from the BIF 
requirements of RCRA.
    This decision is consistent with RCRA section 1006, which requires 
EPA to ``integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for purposes of 
administration and enforcement and * * * avoid duplication, to the 
extent practicable, with the appropriate provisions of the Clean Air 
Act * * *.'' EPA believes that the imposition of RCRA regulations in 
this instance could result in the types of unnecessary duplication that 
section 1006 is intended to prevent. EPA now considers that steam 
stripping with rectification followed by combustion of the concentrated 
condensate is MACT considering energy, economics, and air environmental 
impacts. Additional regulation under RCRA is redundant and not likely 
to result in any additional emission or risk reduction. Any further 
concerns on this issue would more properly be addressed through the 
section 112(f) residual risk process which requires EPA to assess the 
risk to public health remaining after implementation of the NESHAP 
under section 112(d). See generally 60 FR 32587, 32593 (June 23, 1995), 
and 59 FR 29570, 29776 (June 9, 1994) where EPA similarly found that 
RCRA regulation of secondary lead smelter emissions was unnecessary, at 
least until completion of the residual risk process.
    EPA believes the potential cost savings produced by allowing the 
burning of condensed steam stripper vent gases would be significant. 
Industry estimates that annual cost savings would be approximately 
$850,000 per mill, or $100 million for the entire kraft industry. Cost 
savings would come primarily through the reduction in fossil fuel 
purchases.

C. Kraft New Source Performance Standards

    EPA is considering whether the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for kraft mills and the proposed pulp and paper NESHAP standards 
may have some overlapping or redundant requirements. Possible areas of 
overlap in the two regulations are affected sources or emission points, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. EPA solicits 
comments on the potential overlap of the kraft NSPS and the proposed 
NESHAP standards.
    The kraft NSPS established emission limits for PM and total reduced 
sulfur TRS compounds for the following new or modified emission sources 
located at kraft mills: recovery furnaces, digesters, multiple effect 
evaporators, lime kilns, brownstock washers, black liquor oxidation 
systems, condensate stripper systems, and smelt dissolving tanks. The 
pulp and paper NESHAP will establish national limits for total HAP 
emissions from the following sources at all types of new or existing 
chemical pulping mills: digester, evaporator, turpentine recovery, 
brown stock washer, and condensate stripper systems. Total reduced 
sulfur and HAP compounds are found in the process vents affected by 
both the NSPS and NESHAP regulations.
    The kraft NSPS requires monitoring of the following parameters: 
opacity from the recovery furnace, TRS emissions from affected points, 
incinerator temperature, and process variables for any scrubber used 
for controlling 

[[Page 9398]]
emissions from a lime kiln or smelt dissolving tank. The NESHAP 
requires monitoring of the following parameters or pieces of equipment: 
closed vent system, combustion device temperature, scrubber, steam 
stripper, biological treatment, and the wastewater collection system. 
While the NSPS requires monitoring of TRS emissions for the most part, 
the NESHAP focuses on monitoring the performance of specific pieces of 
equipment.
    Recordkeeping duties specified in the NSPS include logging of daily 
opacity and TRS emissions data. For the specified collection or control 
devices used to comply with the NESHAP, the monitoring parameters 
identified in the rule must be recorded in a manner consistent with the 
General Provisions. EPA solicits data and comments on whether these 
different approaches create unnecessarily redundant or overburdensome 
monitoring or recording requirements.
    The NSPS requires semi-annual reporting detailing the periods of 
excess emissions. Quarterly reports regarding excess emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance are currently required by the 
proposed NESHAP. The NESHAP reporting frequencies are currently under 
review and will be revised to be no more stringent than the 
requirements specified in the General Provisions. Additionally, the 
NESHAP requires exceedance reports for startups, shutdowns, or 
malfunctions that are inconsistent with the source's specified 
operating procedures. One option under consideration by EPA is to allow 
the facility to comply with the NESHAP in lieu of complying with the 
NSPS for certain pieces of process equipment. EPA solicits data and 
comments on the extent to which these reporting requirements could or 
should be combined or reduced.

X. Standards for Mechanical Mills, Secondary Fiber Mills, Nonwood Mills 
and Paper Machines

A. Presumptive MACT Process

    As previously mentioned in the Background Section, a Presumptive 
MACT was issued for the MACT III (i.e. mechanical wood pulping mills, 
secondary fiber deinking and nondeinking mills, nonwood pulping mills, 
and paper machines) source category in September of 1995. Presumptive 
MACT is an estimate of MACT based on an assessment of readily available 
information and through consultation with experts in State and local 
agencies, EPA, environmental groups, and the regulated industry. A 
primary purpose for Presumptive MACT is to assist State and local 
agencies, industry, and the public in Section 112(g) case-by-case MACT 
determinations and with the Section 112(j) hammer provision standards. 
The process is useful to enhance planning in the standards development 
process. Through the Presumptive MACT process issues can be identified 
and resolved early in the standards development process; the 
``stakeholders'' can be identified; and the best method to develop MACT 
can be determined (e.g., traditional regulatory development, Adopt-A-
MACT, Share-A-MACT, or proposing the Presumptive MACT as MACT).

B. Summary of the Presumptive MACT for MACT III Sources

    For the MACT III source category, EPA contacted representatives of 
major industry, State, and environmental groups and held discussions 
with a team of State and industry representatives. The team evaluated 
the information that was available and established the Presumptive 
MACT. The pulp and paper Presumptive MACT is available on the Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
under the Clean Air Act Amendments, Title III Policy and Guidance 
Bulletin Board. The Presumptive MACT document is also available in the 
docket (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).
    Limited information on the source category was identified during 
the Presumptive MACT process. The available information identified four 
potential sources for HAP emissions: pulping, wastewater from the 
pulping process, bleaching, and paper making. Of these, chlorine 
bleaching would be a likely source of HAP emissions, assuming 
operations in use are similar to those used by bleach plants at 
chemical wood pulping mills. Paper machines were also considered an 
emission source because of the use of paper additives and solvents. 
Nonwood pulping processes and the associated wastewater are potential 
sources of HAP emissions based on similarities between these and 
chemical wood pulping operations; however, the magnitude of the 
emissions could not be determined for these or the other potential 
sources from the available information. Information indicated secondary 
fiber deinking and nondeinking mills are not a significant source of 
HAP emissions (Docket A-95-31 item II-B-1).
    Information on current control practices suggests the mills have no 
add-on controls in place for HAP emissions except on chlorine 
bleaching. There are, however, a number of control options that can be 
considered. Besides the add-on controls at bleach plants (scrubbers 
that remove chlorine and hydrogen chloride) chlorine-free bleaching may 
be in use at some mills. Methanol emissions from paper machines 
resulting from recycled water from the pulping process are to be 
addressed by the chemical wood pulping standards (see section IV 
Definition of Source); however, emissions from paper machines that 
result from the use of paper additives and solvents were addressed by 
the Presumptive MACT. The Presumptive MACT suggested these emissions 
may be reduced through substituting additives and solvent for nonHAP or 
lower-HAP alternatives. MACT III for pulping operations, low volume-
high concentration gas streams may be routed to a combustion device (as 
would be required in the MACT I discussed earlier in this notice). 
Lastly, high concentration wastewater streams may be treated through 
biological treatment or by steam stripping of the HAP and controlling 
emissions from the steam stripper.
    One of the conclusions of the Presumptive MACT was to proceed with 
MACT standard development through the traditional rulemaking process. 
EPA has since reconsidered this position, given the findings during the 
Presumptive MACT process and EPA's current budget limitations. EPA has 
now decided to propose the Presumptive MACT as MACT.

C. Area/Major Source Discussion

    No information was identified during the Presumptive MACT process 
to suggest area sources associated with the MACT III source category 
warrant listing as a category of area sources, pursuant to Section 
112(c)(3) of the Act. Consequently, only major sources were evaluated 
for this category. EPA also has no evidence that any facilities that 
are solely nonwood mills are major emission sources in and of 
themselves. Major sources are sources within a contiguous area that 
emit or have a potential to emit, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy 
or more of any combination of HAP. Industry has published information 
in an NCASI Technical Bulletin, Number 677 (Docket A-95-31 item II-D-
13), on two emission points at a thermomechanical pulping mill. The two 
emission points were the refiner condenser vent and the chip steaming 
condenser vent. Total HAP emissions estimated from the two points 
tested at this mill were approximately 8 tons per year. It is not 

[[Page 9399]]
known if remaining emission points not tested at this mill emit enough 
additional HAP to be a major source, or if a larger thermomechanical 
mill would be a major source. NCASI also published a Technical 
Bulletin, Number 649 (Docket A-95-31 item II-D-12) on emissions from 
operations that bleach and brighten secondary fibers. This bulletin was 
based on sampling conducted in 1991 and 1992. Due to an increase in the 
demand for secondary fiber, these mills have increased in size since 
the 1991/1992 sampling program. Therefore, large stand alone secondary 
fiber mills may exist that have HAP emissions large enough to be major 
sources. Where these MACT III mills are collocated at kraft, sulfite, 
semi-chemical, and soda mills that are major sources, they will be 
subject to MACT standards; however, the only emission sources that 
would be affected by the MACT III proposed standard are the MACT III 
bleach plants and possibly the paper machines (for emissions resulting 
from solvent or additive use). EPA knows of no additional bleach plants 
that would be subject to MACT standards because of their collocation at 
a MACT I mill that is a major source. Paper machines will only be 
affected if EPA decides to establish additive and/or solvent 
substitution as MACT.

D. Proposed MACT III

    The information gathered during the Presumptive MACT process 
indicates that there are no air pollution control devices in place on 
MACT III sources except for chlorine bleaching processes. Based on this 
finding, the floor for these sources is no control. Further, available 
information indicates any add-on controls would not be cost effective 
for these sources. Therefore, EPA has decided not to require controls 
beyond the floor. The MACT proposed here for the MACT III sources is no 
add-on controls for pulping and the associated wastewater, paper 
machines, and nonchlorine bleaching.
    Bleach plants at MACT III sources collocated with MACT I sources 
are presently regulated under the MACT I standard (see Section VI.E, 
Level of Standards). Based on information provided by industry, EPA 
believes traditional bleach plants using chlorinated bleaching agents, 
such as those found at Kraft mills, that are located at stand-alone 
MACT III mills are presently controlled with scrubbers that remove 
chlorine and hydrogen chloride for process or worker safety reasons. 
EPA is not aware of any better control that could be used. Therefore, 
control of air emissions from these bleach plants is already in place 
and the proposed MACT for bleach plants at stand-alone MACT III 
facilities is no additional control.
    EPA is proposing no MACT standard for chemical additives and 
solvents at paper machines at this time. EPA continues to investigate 
the use of HAP chemicals in papermaking, the magnitude of HAP 
emissions, and the viability of chemical substitution that would reduce 
HAP emissions. An example of chemical substitution is substitution of 
HAP-containing additives and solvents with lower HAP or non-HAP organic 
compounds. If information becomes available regarding the floor or 
cost-effective HAP controls beyond the floor, EPA will propose a MACT 
standard for additive and solvent usage on paper machines in the 
future.

E. Request for Information

    Additional information is being collected by industry groups, which 
began a testing program in September 1995. This program is designed to 
evaluate emissions from mechanical pulping processes, secondary fibers 
pulping processes, and paper machines. Industry plans to have the 
report on this sampling program available in January of 1997. EPA has 
also requested any available information on HAP emissions from nonwood 
mills from States with these mills; however, limited data are expected 
to be available. EPA is requesting any information on uncontrolled 
bleaching using chlorinated bleaching agents at stand-alone MACT III 
sources. To supplement the information collected during the Presumptive 
MACT and the more recent industry and EPA efforts, EPA is requesting 
data and comments on its proposal for the MACT III source category.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Hazardous air pollutants, Pulp and paper 
mills.

    Dated: March 1, 1996.
Richard S. Wilson,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-5397 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P