[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49455-49459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24837]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL--6157-1]
RIN 2060-AH74


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; interpretation and technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has 
promulgated standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S (63 FR 18504, April 
15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the 
pulp and paper production source category. This rule is known as

[[Page 49456]]

the Pulp and Paper national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) and is the air component of the integrated air and 
water rules for the pulp and paper industry, commonly known as the Pulp 
and Paper Cluster Rules.
    Today's action makes interpretive amendments to certain regulatory 
text in the NESHAP regarding the applicability of a 10 percent excess 
emissions allowance for condensate treatment systems. The EPA is making 
these amendments in response to inquiries received since publication of 
the final standards on April 15, 1998.

DATES: These amendments are effective September 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Air Docket. Docket A-92-40, containing the supporting 
information for the original NESHAP and this action, is available for 
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, 
or by calling (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above 
address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emissions Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5397. For questions 
on compliance and applicability determinations, contact Mr. Seth 
Heminway, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460, telephone number (202) 564-7017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    The entities potentially affected by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Pulp mills and integrated   
                                             mills (mills that          
                                             manufacture pulp and paper/
                                             paperboard) that chemically
                                             pulp wood fiber using the  
                                             kraft process.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the 
amendments to the regulation affected by this action. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in 63, subparts A and S of Title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Informational Contacts

    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular situation, or questions about compliance approaches, 
permitting, enforcement and rule determinations, please contact the 
appropriate regional representative below:

Region I:

Greg Roscoe, Chief, Air Pesticides & Toxics Enforcement Office, Office 
of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal Building 
(SEA), Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3221 Technical Contact for 
Applicabilty Determination, Susan Lancey, (617) 565-3587, (617) 565-
4940 Fax

Region II:

Mosey Ghaffari, Air Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3925, (212) 637-3998 Fax

Region III:

Makeba Morris, U.S. EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2187

Region IV:

Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 100 Alabama 
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9131

Region V:

Christina Prasinos (AE-17J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson 
Street, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-6819 (312) 353-8289

Region VI:

Michelle Kelly, Air Enforcement Branch (6EN-AA), U.S. EPA, Region VI, 
Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733 (214) 665-7580, 
(214) 665-7446 Fax

Region VII:

Gary Schlicht, Air Permits and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 
ARTD/APCO, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7097

Region VIII:

Tami Thomas-Burton, Air Toxics Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 
Suite 500, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466 (303) 312-6581, (303) 
312-6064 Fax

Region IX:

Ken Bigos, U.S. EPA, Region IX, A-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA (415) 744-1240

Region X:

Andrea Wallenweber, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760, (206) 553-0404 
Fax

Technology Transfer Network

    The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic 
bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange 
in various areas of air pollution control. New air regulations are now 
being posted on the TTN through the world wide web at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line 
at (919) 591-5384.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations
II. Administrative
III. Legal Authority

I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations

    In today's action, the EPA is amending Sec. 63.446(g) to make clear 
the EPA's original intent regarding the applicability of the 10 percent 
excess emissions allowance to control devices used to treat kraft pulp 
mill condensates to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.446(e)(3) 
through (e)(5). The EPA made clear in the April 15, 1998 preamble at 63 
FR 18529-30 that based on data submitted by the pulp and paper 
industry, EPA has concluded that some allowance for excess emissions is 
part of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor level of 
control. EPA did not qualify this statement by saying that only 
particular technologies would require some type of allowance for excess 
emissions.
    The EPA had previously shown (61 FR 9390-91, March 8, 1996) that 
the MACT floor level of control for pulping condensates at both 
bleached and unbleached kraft mills is treating the condensate streams 
to remove 92 percent of the HAP content (measured as methanol), or 
equivalently, to achieve an outlet concentration of less than 330 and 
210 parts per million by weight (ppmw) measured as methanol or remove 
9.2 and 5.9 pounds of methanol per air dried ton of pulp (10.2 and 6.6 
pounds of methanol per oven dried ton of pulp (ODP) basis in the final 
rule) across the control device, respectively

[[Page 49457]]

for bleached and unbleached wastewater streams. The MACT floor control 
technology basis for these treatment options is steam stripping. Since 
steam stripping is the MACT floor control technology basis for the 
treatment requirements, the EPA also based the excess emissions 
allowance on steam stripping and determined that to be 10 percent. 
Therefore, the MACT floor-level of control is a combination of 
treatment requirements and an excess emissions allowance. The 
discussion in the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice at 61 FR 9390 
further states that ``The rule would allow mills to: (1) Choose any 
wastewater treatment device as long as the device achieves one of the 
three parameters . . .'' (percent removal, ppmw outlet concentration, 
or mass per ODP removal).
    The April 15, 1998 preamble and the March 8, 1996 supplemental 
notice clearly show that the EPA's intent was to provide mills 
flexibility in what control technology is used and what treatment 
option (set out at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5)) is selected to 
comply with the MACT requirements for condensate treatment. Since the 
MACT requirements are a combination of treatment requirements and a 
downtime allowance, it is reasonable to interpret that any control 
device meeting the MACT requirements would be permissible--and this in 
fact is what EPA intended. However, the rule language is at variance 
with this preamble language because it limits the availability of the 
10 percent excess emissions allowance to steam strippers complying only 
with the 92 percent methanol removal option. Since this rule language 
does not reflect EPA's intent (as shown in the preambles, as just 
discussed), EPA is correcting the rule language in today's notice.
    The preamble to the final NESHAP at 63 FR 18529-30 describes excess 
emission allowances to include periods when the control device is 
inoperable and when the operating parameter values established during 
the initial performance test cannot be maintained at the appropriate 
level. The preamble further explains that the 10 percent excess 
emissions for condensate treatment includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction allowances of the General Provisions to part 
63. Since the MACT floor (both the treatment level and the excess 
emissions allowance) was based on steam stripping, the EPA discussed in 
the preamble likely problems that would necessitate an excess emissions 
allowance in the context of steam stripping operations. These were 
given as steam stripper downtime as a result of damage to the steam 
stripping system and loss of treatment efficiency resulting primarily 
from contamination of condensate with carryover of fiber or black 
liquor, steam supply downtime, and combustion control device downtime. 
(Control device downtime is a factor because the steam stripper should 
not be operated during periods when the stripper system vents cannot be 
routed to a control device). The EPA believes that these types of 
problems would necessitate this same downtime allowance, even with 
control devices other than steam strippers. An exception to this is 
where a mill elects to treat the condensate by discharging it below the 
liquid surface of a biological treatment system (see Sec. 63.446(e)(2)) 
that is part of their wastewater treatment plant. These types of 
biological treatment systems are different than steam strippers and 
other control devices in terms of their excess emissions allowance 
needs for several reasons. First, steam strippers and most other 
control devices are typically located in or near the process, may be 
integrated into part of the process, and treat primarily, and usually 
exclusively, condensates. All of these factors make the control device 
vulnerable to downtime periods, even at the best operating mills. A 
similar concept of downtime does not translate to biological wastewater 
treatment systems, which accept wastewaters from all over the mill and 
must be up and running at all times to comply with National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the Clean Water 
Act. Second, at steam strippers and other in-process type condensate 
control devices, periods when the operating parameter values 
(established during the initial performance test) cannot be maintained 
at the appropriate level count toward the 10 percent excess emissions 
allowance; however, for reasons set forth in the preamble at 63 FR 
18523-24, biological wastewater treatment units are provided a unique 
set of parameter excursion provisions at Sec. 63.453(p). Therefore, 
since the reasons for providing the 10 percent excess emissions 
allowance do not fit the biological wastewater treatment scenario and 
since the rule sets forth separate operating parameter excursion 
provisions for biological wastewater treatment, the EPA believes that 
it is reasonable to interpret the rule such that the 10 percent excess 
emissions allowance does not apply to biological wastewater treatment 
and is correcting the rule in today's action to reflect this 
interpretation.
    Finally, since promulgation of the NESHAP, the EPA has become aware 
that there is some confusion over what is meant in the rule by the term 
``biological treatment'' since the industry uses the term to refer to 
two different types of units. Today's action provides guidance but no 
rule changes to clarify how the rule applies to these two types of 
units. The issue has been raised by companies considering anaerobic 
biological treatment systems instead of steam strippers to comply with 
the condensate treatment requirements. The term, as used in the rule 
(see Secs. 63.446(e)(2); 63.453(j) and (p); and 63.457(l)), refers to 
systems installed as part of the mill's wastewater treatment system 
primarily for purposes of complying with NPDES requirements under the 
Clean Water Act. The units are characteristically open to the 
atmosphere, require modeling in lieu of direct air emissions 
measurement during the initial performance test, and handle all of the 
mill's wastewater. These biological treatment systems are different 
than in-process type biological treatment systems, such as enclosed 
anaerobic treatment systems that can be directly measured for air 
emissions during the initial performance test and that would be 
installed primarily to treat condensate streams subject to the final 
pulp and paper NESHAP. This type of anaerobic system would be used 
instead of a steam stripper to comply with the treatment requirements 
at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5) and thus, the excess emissions 
allowance at Sec. 63.446(g) would apply, but (correspondingly) the 
operating parameter excursion provisions for biological wastewater 
treatment systems at Sec. 63.453(p) would not apply. Also, it is 
important to note that since this anaerobic treatment system is serving 
the same function as a steam stripper (i.e. treatment of pulping 
condensates), it meets the rule definition of low volume high 
concentration system equipment and is thus subject to all of the 
pulping system requirements at Sec. 63.443.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information requirements of the previously promulgated NESHAP 
were submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) on April 27, 1998 under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been 
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

[[Page 49458]]

Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information requirements are 
not effective until OMB approves them.
    Today's amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on the 
information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes 
are interpretations of requirements and are not additional 
requirements. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the 
proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject 
to the OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 
Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely 
to lead to a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The NESHAP subpart S rule published on April 15, 1998, was 
considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and a regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments published today 
interpret the rule. The OMB has evaluated this action, and determined 
it to be nonsignificant; thus it did not require their review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    Today's action is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. However, for the reasons discussed in the April 15, 1998 Federal 
Register (63 FR 18611-12), this rule does not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The changes to the rule in 
today's action do not add new control requirements to the April 15, 
1998 rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), the EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any 
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the 
rule.
    The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the 
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    While the final rule published on April 15, 1998 does not create 
mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, EPA involved State 
and local governments in its development. Because the final regulation 
imposes costs to the private sector in excess of $100 million, the EPA 
pursued the preparation of an unfunded mandates statement and the other 
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Because today's 
action interprets the requirements of the final rule, today's action 
does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 
Today's action does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to today's action.

F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines 
(1) economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    Today's action is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on environmental 
health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect 
children.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that

[[Page 49459]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published on 
April 15, 1998 does not create mandates upon tribal governments. 
Because today's action interprets the requirements of the final rule, 
today's action does not create a mandate on tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary 
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations 
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    This action does not involve any new technical standards or the 
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore, 
consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to this 
action.

I. Immediate Effective Date

    The EPA is making today's action effective immediately. The EPA has 
determined that the rule changes being made in today's action are 
interpretive rules which are not subject to notice and comment 
requirements. In addition, the rule change is a type of technical 
correction, since it amends the rule to be consistent with EPA's 
intentions stated in the rule's preamble. Notice and opportunity for 
comment is not required for such technical corrections. The EPA has 
also determined that this rule may be made effective in less than 30 
days because it is interpretive, and relieves restrictions. See 5 
U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) and (2).

J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which 
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding 
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and 
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to 
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency 
promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated 
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the 
reasons therefor, and established an effective date of September 16, 
1998. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

III. Legal Authority

    These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 112, 
114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412, 
7414, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Pulp mills, 
Cluster Rules.

    Dated: September 6, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from the Pulp and Paper Industry

    2. Section 63.446 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 263.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * *
    (g) For each control device (e.g. steam stripper system or other 
equipment serving the same function) used to treat pulping process 
condensates to comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(e)(3) through (e)(5) of this section, periods of excess emissions 
reported under Sec. 63.455 shall not be a violation of paragraphs (d), 
(e)(3) through (e)(5), and (f) of this section provided that the time 
of excess emissions (including periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed 10 percent. The 10 percent 
excess emissions allowance does not apply to treatment of pulping 
process condensates according to paragraph (e)(2) of this section (e.g. 
the biological wastewater treatment system used to treat multiple 
(primarily non-condensate) wastewater streams to comply with the Clean 
Water Act).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-24837 Filed 9-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P