[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 13, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19734-19742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8311]



[[Page 19733]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



Site-Specific Rulemaking for Packaging Corporation of America's Pulp 
and Paper Mill Located in Tomahawk, WI, in Pursuant to the Joint State/
EPA Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovation; Direct Final Rule and 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 13, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19734]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7646-6]
RIN 2090-AA33


Site-Specific Rulemaking for Packaging Corporation of America's 
Pulp and Paper Mill Located in Tomahawk, WI, Pursuant to the Joint 
State/EPA Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 
is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and 
Paper Industry (Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP). Collectively, these 
revisions comprise a site-specific rule to control Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (HAPs) applicable only to the semi-chemical pulp and paper 
mill currently owned and operated by Packaging Corporation of America 
(PCA) in Tomahawk, Wisconsin (the Tomahawk Mill). EPA is adopting these 
revisions pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Joint State/EPA 
Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation (Innovations Agreement).
    The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP currently requires semi-chemical 
pulp and paper mills to control the HAP emissions from the air stack 
for the collection of equipment comprising the Low Volume High 
Concentration (LVHC) system. Neither the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP, nor any other Federal or State regulation, requires such mills 
to control HAPs that may be contained in the liquid condensates from 
the LVHC system. This site-specific rule allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to 
control the HAPs generated in the LVHC system by condensing them into a 
liquid and treating them via anaerobic biodegradation in the facility's 
wastewater treatment system. In other words, the site-specific rule 
allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to control the HAPs generated in the LVHC 
system from an emission point and with a technology not addressed by 
the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP.
    As a result, PCA will maintain compliance with the CAA and achieve 
a reduction in HAPs emitted to the environment significantly superior 
to that which would have been achieved through compliance with the 
control methodology currently prescribed by the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP. Additionally, the revisions are consistent with the Innovations 
Agreement by allowing PCA's Tomahawk Mill to achieve superior 
environmental performance through regulatory flexibility.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on June 14, 2004 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 
2004. If EPA receives adverse comments, the Agency will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail by sending two (2) copies 
of your comments to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2003-0205. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or 
through hand delivery/courier, following the detailed instructions as 
provided in the proposed rule action with the same title located in the 
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Eileen L. Furey or Mr. Eaton R. 
Weiler at U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. Ms. Furey or Mr. Weiler can be reached at (312) 886-
7950 or (312) 886-6041, respectively (or by e-mail at: 
[email protected] or [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    This site-specific revision to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, 
which governs the emission of HAPs from the pulp and paper industry, 
applies only to a single source, PCA's Tomahawk, Wisconsin pulp and 
paper mill.

Direct Final Rule

    EPA is issuing these revisions as a direct final rule, without 
prior proposal, because we consider the revisions to be 
noncontroversial and anticipate no significant adverse comments. 
Additionally, EPA is aware that most persons with an interest in this 
proposed rule have already been afforded at least two opportunities to 
comment on its merits. In April 2003, and again in September 2003, PCA 
sponsored public meetings regarding the project that is described at 
length in today's rule. EPA believes that PCA made every reasonable 
effort to invite all potential stakeholders to those public meetings. 
Nevertheless, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document with the same title 
that will serve as the proposal to amend the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP if significant adverse comments are filed.
    If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Docket

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0205. The official public docket consists of the 
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part 
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information statutorily restricted 
from disclosure. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for 
the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

Electronic Access

    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

[[Page 19735]]

Outline of Today's Document

    The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:

I. Authority
II. Background
    A. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP
    1. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP Generally
    2. The Requirements of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP as 
Applied to PCA's Tomahawk Mill
    B. Overview of the Regulatory Innovation Agreements
    1. The Joint State/EPA Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovation 
(Innovations Agreement)
    2. The WDNR/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
    3. The WDNR/PCA Environmental Cooperative Agreement
III. The Site-Specific Rule
    A. Rationale and Background of the Site-Specific Rule
    B. Environmental Benefit of the Site-Specific Rule
    C. Overview of the Site-Specific Rule
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Executive Order 12998: Civil Justice Reform
    L. Congressional Review Act

I. Authority

    EPA issues this regulation under the authority provided by sections 
112 and 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)(1). EPA has 
determined that this rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 
307(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d).

II. Background

A. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP

1. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP Generally
    Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412 et seq., requires EPA first 
to identify, by industrial category or subcategory, ``major sources'' 
of HAPs, and then to promulgate regulations to control HAPs emitted by 
such sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit (or have the 
potential to emit) at least 10 tons per year of any single HAP (e.g. 
methanol), or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. 
Additionally, section 112 specifies that EPA's regulations promulgated 
thereunder must require major sources of HAPs to attain the maximum 
achievable reduction in HAP emissions, taking into consideration cost, 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements. In essence, regulations promulgated pursuant to section 
112 must ensure that all regulated HAP sources achieve the level of 
control that is already being achieved by the lower (12% lowest) 
emitting sources in each industrial category or subcategory. See 42 
U.S.C. 7412(d)(3). This approach provides assurance to U.S. citizens 
that regulated sources will employ good control measures to limit their 
HAP emissions.
    EPA identified the pulp and paper industry as a major source 
requiring regulation under section 112 of the CAA. Accordingly, on 
April 15, 1998, EPA promulgated the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP (See 
63 FR 18503). The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, 40 CFR 63.440 through 
63.459, subcategorized the pulp and paper industry according to seven 
different pulping processes (kraft, sulfite, semi-chemical, soda, 
mechanical wood pulping, secondary fiber pulping, or non-wood pulping), 
and established different emissions standards for each such process. 
For a thorough and detailed discussion on the background, development, 
and promulgation of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, the reader is 
referred to the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pulp/pulppg.html. The website contains links to all relevant Federal 
Register notices, background documents, enabling documents, fact 
sheets, and rule summary documents.
2. The Requirements of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP as Applied to 
PCA's Tomahawk Mill
    PCA uses a sodium carbonate semi-chemical process to produce 
unbleached corrugating medium at the Tomahawk Mill. In order to prevent 
pollution of the air by HAPs generated during semi-chemical pulping 
processes, the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP requires the collection 
and control of HAP emissions from a collection of equipment systems. 
This collection of equipment systems (which includes the digester and 
evaporator systems) is referred to in the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP as the LVHC system. Semi-chemical mills must enclose the 
numerous equipment systems comprising the LVHC system, and route the 
HAP-containing air emissions through a closed-vent system to a control 
device. The positive pressure portions of the closed vent system must 
be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. Regulated mills may 
choose among four control device options for destroying the collected 
HAPs. The control device must: (1) Reduce the total HAP emissions by 98 
percent or more by weight; (2) reduce total HAP concentration at the 
outlet of the thermal oxidizer to 20 parts per million or less by 
volume, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry basis; (3) reduce total 
HAP emissions using a thermal oxidizer designed and operated at a 
minimum temperature of 871 degrees Centigrade and a minimum residence 
time of 0.75 seconds; or (4) reduce the total HAP emissions using a 
boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace by introducing the HAP emission 
stream with the primary fuel or into the flame zone. See 40 CFR 
63.443(d). Neither the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, nor any other 
federal or state regulation, requires semi-chemical pulp and paper 
mills to control the HAPs that may be contained in the liquid 
condensates generated in the LVHC system (``pulping process 
condensates'').

B. Overview of the Regulatory Innovation Agreements

1. The Joint State/EPA Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovation 
(Innovations Agreement)
    EPA announced the Innovations Agreement on May 5, 1998 (63 FR 
24874). Through this agreement, EPA and senior State environmental 
officials jointly committed to encouraging new and innovative 
approaches to improvement of the nation's environment. The parties to 
the Innovations Agreement agreed that the following seven principles 
would guide the process of developing, testing and implementing 
regulatory innovations: experimentation; environmental performance; 
smarter approaches; stakeholder involvement; measuring and verifying 
results; accountability/enforcement; and State-EPA partnership. The 
Innovations Agreement encouraged ``prudent risk taking'' as a necessary 
component of the effort to continue the nation's progress towards 
protection of human health and the environment.
    The Innovations Agreement established a process by which the States 
would develop innovation

[[Page 19736]]

proposals and obtain prompt review and acceptance or rejection by EPA. 
The success of any innovation project would be measured by its 
environmental impact, improved efficiency, or other relevant indicator 
of superior performance.
2. The WDNR/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
    To carry out the purposes of the Innovations Agreement, on March 
25, 1999 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and 
Region 5 EPA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA 
recognized that the Wisconsin legislature had established an 
Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program, which provided WDNR the 
statutory authority to develop up to ten pilot projects with companies 
willing to test alternative approaches to traditional command and 
control regulations. (Wis. Stat. Sec. 299.80). Many of the goals of the 
Wisconsin pilot program were similar to those articulated in the 
Innovations Agreement. The Wisconsin pilot program required any 
participating company to enter into an environmental cooperative 
agreement with WDNR. In return for operational flexibility and 
variances from applicable state regulations, participating pilot 
companies agreed to achieve environmental performance superior to that 
which would be achieved through compliance with existing regulations. 
Participating companies further agreed to establish environmental 
management systems at their facilities to ensure regular auditing and 
reporting of environmental performance and compliance.
    WDNR and Region 5 recognized in the MOA that EPA would not be a 
party to these state-company agreements, but provided that when Federal 
involvement was needed or helpful, Region 5 would promptly identify 
and, when appropriate, take the necessary federal steps to implement a 
pilot project. WDNR and EPA agreed that when a project undertaken 
pursuant to a Wisconsin environmental cooperative agreement required a 
change in the regulatory requirements of a federally authorized or 
delegated program, the agencies would follow applicable Federal 
procedures for the necessary rule or program changes. The agencies 
specifically intended that any such changes would be federally 
enforceable.
3. The WDNR/PCA Environmental Cooperative Agreement
    As explained at greater length below, when PCA began to investigate 
what changes would be necessary at its Tomahawk Mill to comply with the 
then recently-enacted Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, the company 
discovered that, due to its unique process configuration, the vast 
majority of HAPs generated in the LVHC system partition to the pulping 
process condensates. PCA used these condensates as process water in 
other facility operations, which allowed the HAPs in the condensates to 
be emitted to the air. Recognizing the opportunity to destroy a far 
greater quantity of HAPs by treating the condensates instead of the 
LVHC air stack emissions, PCA proposed an environmental pilot project 
to WDNR. In lieu of treatment of the LVHC air stack emissions via 
thermal destruction (as contemplated by the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP), PCA proposed to treat the condensed HAPs via biodegradation in 
the Tomahawk Mill's anaerobic wastewater treatment system.
    WDNR concurred with PCA's conclusions about the environmental 
benefits of the proposed project and, on August 27, 1999, submitted 
PCA's proposal to Region 5 as one appropriate for evaluation under the 
terms of the MOA. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS) thereafter requested PCA to conduct a full-scale study of the 
ability of its anaerobic wastewater treatment system to achieve a level 
of HAP destruction superior to that which would be achieved through 
compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. The full-scale 
treatability study successfully established that PCA's anaerobic system 
could: (1) Destroy the same HAPs as are required to be controlled under 
the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP; and (2) destroy a significantly 
greater quantity of those HAPs than would be destroyed through 
compliance with the Pulp and Paper NESHAP. In June 2001, OAQPS and 
Region 5 approved PCA's innovation project as one appropriate to 
pursue.
    On September 10, 2002, pursuant to the Wisconsin Environmental 
Cooperation Pilot Program, and with Region 5 EPA's support under the 
MOA, WDNR and PCA entered into an Environmental Cooperative Agreement 
(WDNR/PCA Agreement). The WDNR/PCA Agreement required PCA's Tomahawk 
Mill to achieve approximately double the destruction of HAPs over what 
would be achieved through compliance with 40 CFR 63.443(c) and(d) (as 
explained below, EPA actually believes the facility will achieve a 
greater than five-fold increase in HAP destruction over what would have 
been achieved through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP.) In lieu of controlling the HAPs from the LVHC system at the 
LVHC air stack, the WDNR/PCA Agreement allowed PCA to route the LVHC 
air emissions at its Tomahawk Mill through a series of indirect contact 
condensers and hardpipe the resulting pulping process condensates to an 
anaerobic digester for biodegradation. Additionally, the WDNR/PCA 
Agreement required PCA to conduct a second full-scale performance test 
of its wastewater treatment system in order to identify and develop 
enforceable operating parameters and a monitoring plan, acceptable to 
EPA, that would ensure continuous compliance with the more stringent 
level of HAP destruction. Finally, the WDNR/PCA Agreement identified 
certain provisions of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP with which 
PCA's Tomahawk Mill would be required to comply regardless of, or 
because of, its use of an alternative treatment technology. See 68 FR 
7706, 7707-7708 (February 18, 2003), where EPA adopted a similar 
amendment to the Pulp and Paper NESHAP.
    Pursuant to the WDNR/PCA Agreement, during October of 2002, PCA 
performed the second full-scale performance test of the Tomahawk Mill's 
anaerobic wastewater treatment system. The test further verified that 
PCA's anaerobic wastewater treatment system was capable of achieving a 
more stringent level of HAP destruction than would be accomplished 
through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. 
Importantly, through the test results, PCA, EPA and WDNR identified 
enforceable operating parameters, and also developed a monitoring plan 
that ensures continuous achievement of the more stringent level of HAP 
destruction.
    The WDNR/PCA Agreement specified that in the event a site-specific 
rule for PCA's Tomahawk Mill was not finalized, the WDNR/PCA Agreement 
would terminate. EPA agreed to take no enforcement action against PCA 
for violations of the requirements of 40 CFR 63.443(c) and (d) at the 
Tomahawk facility until EPA either revised the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP to include a Federal site-specific rule for PCA's Tomahawk Mill, 
or notified the company that EPA had decided that a site-specific rule 
was inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Finally, the WDNR/PCA 
Agreement specified that, provided certain conditions were satisfied 
and subject to the approval of U.S. EPA and WDNR, PCA's rights and 
obligations under the agreement could be transferred to any subsequent 
owner of the Tomahawk Mill. Among other things, a transferee would be 
obligated

[[Page 19737]]

to demonstrate that it had the financial and technical capability to 
assume the obligations of the WDNR/PCA Agreement.
    For a copy of the WDNR/PCA Agreement, and associated fact sheets 
and public notices, the reader is referred to the following Web site: 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/ecpp/agreements/pca/.

III. The Site-Specific Rule

A. Rationale and Background of the Site-Specific Rule

    Existing semi-chemical mills subject to the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP, including PCA's Tomahawk Mill, were required to comply with the 
applicable provisions of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP by April 
16, 2001. In 1999, while preparing to comply with the Pulp and Paper 
Industry NESHAP at its Tomahawk Mill, PCA recognized that to properly 
design and operate a Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP-compliant 
incineration control device, it needed to condition the air emissions 
from the digester system. Accordingly, PCA installed two in-series 
indirect contact condensers following the digester system, which 
conditioned the air emissions by reducing the moisture content.
    Before designing the incineration control device, PCA next sought 
to characterize (for HAP content, flow rate, moisture content, etc.) 
the air emissions from the two new indirect contact condensers. PCA's 
testing surprisingly revealed that the HAP content in the LVHC air 
emissions was far less than the company had expected. The air emissions 
from the digester system at the Tomahawk Mill contained approximately 
0.4 pounds of HAPs, as methanol, per Oven Dried Ton of Pulp (ODTP). 
Background studies for the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP had led PCA 
to believe that these air emissions would contain greater than two 
pounds of HAPs, as methanol, per ODTP.
    PCA then undertook a study to determine why the HAP content of the 
digester system's air emissions was far less than expected. PCA 
determined that, because of the unique process configuration at its 
Tomahawk Mill, the vast majority of the HAPs contained in the air 
emissions from the digester system partitioned to the condensate stream 
produced by the indirect contact condensers. Under the Pulp and Paper 
Industry NESHAP (or any other Federal or State regulation), the 
Tomahawk Mill is not required to treat any pulping process condensates 
and, at that time, the Tomahawk Mill mixed the pulping process 
condensates with other reuse water streams and routed them to other 
uncontrolled production processes at the mill. Testing conducted by PCA 
revealed that the condensates from the two indirect contact condensers 
following the digester system contained approximately 2.5 pounds of 
HAPs per ODTP--in other words, approximately six times the quantity of 
HAPS, as methanol, that could potentially be treated as LVHC air 
emissions, as currently prescribed by the Pulp and Paper Industry 
NESHAP.
    EPA, WDNR, and PCA concluded that the destruction of HAPs contained 
in the pulping process condensates from the Tomahawk Mill's LVHC 
system-- rather than destruction of HAPs contained in the air stack 
emissions from the LVHC system--would result in greater overall 
reduction of HAPs emitted to the environment. EPA, WDNR, and PCA 
further reasoned that PCA's Tomahawk Mill would be able to treat the 
HAPs contained in the pulping process condensates by hardpiping them to 
the basins of PCA Tomahawk's state-of-the-art wastewater treatment 
plant for anaerobic biodegradation. Such alternative treatment would 
yield significant cost savings to PCA, since the company would not need 
to design and install an incinerator to control the HAPs contained in 
the air emissions from the LVHC system at the Tomahawk Mill.
    EPA then authorized PCA to proceed to implement the project for the 
entire LVHC system (as opposed to just the digester system), and 
requested PCA to conduct full scale testing upon completion of the 
project. PCA proceeded thereafter to install a third indirect contact 
condenser, and collect and route the HAP-containing air emissions from 
the entire LVHC system through the third indirect contact condenser.

B. Environmental Benefit of the Site-Specific Rule

    PCA's subsequent full-scale testing demonstrated that, with the 
installation of the third indirect contact condenser, approximately 85 
percent of the HAPs in the entire LVHC system partition to the pulping 
process condensates. While the air emissions from the entire LVHC 
system contain approximately 0.6 pounds of HAPs per ODTP, the pulping 
process condensates contain approximately 3.0 pounds of HAPs per ODTP. 
Full-scale testing at PCA's Tomahawk Mill further verified that between 
96 and 100 percent of the HAPs contained in the pulping process 
condensates and hardpiped to the wastewater treatment plant are 
destroyed by anaerobic biodegradation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of calculating a HAP destruction efficiency, 
EPA required PCA to assume that the concentration of HAPs in the 
wastewater treatment plant effluent was equal to the detection limit 
concentration. Use of the detection limit concentration result in a 
96 percent HAP destruction efficiency calculation. No HAPs were 
actually detected in the wastewater treatment plant effluent, 
potentially signifying a 100% destruction efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum quantity of HAPs available for destruction at PCA's 
Tomahawk Mill through compliance with 40 CFR 63.443(d) is approximately 
0.6 pounds of HAP per ODTP. The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP requires 
that 98 percent of the approximately 0.6 pounds (i.e. 0.59 pounds HAPs/
ODTP) be destroyed. As indicated above, by hardpiping the pulping 
process condensates to the anaerobic basins of the wastewater treatment 
plant, approximately 3.0 pounds of HAPs per ODTP are available for 
destruction and, in actuality, more than 96 percent of the 
approximately 3.0 pounds (i.e. at least 2.9 pounds/ODTP) are destroyed. 
In short, by condensing the HAPs from the entire LVHC system and 
routing them to the anaerobic wastewater treatment system for 
treatment, PCA is able to destroy approximately five times the mass of 
HAPs that it would otherwise destroy through compliance with the Pulp 
and Paper Industry NESHAP.

C. Overview of the Site-Specific Rule

    EPA's rule allows PCA, in lieu of controlling HAPs in the Tomahawk 
Mill's LVHC air stack emissions, to control the HAPs partitioning from 
those air emissions to the pulping process condensates. More 
particularly, EPA's rule allows PCA to: (1) Install a closed-vent 
system to collect the HAP-containing air emissions from the LVHC 
system; (2) route the emissions through a series of indirect contact 
condensers; and (3) hardpipe the resulting pulping process condensates 
to the anaerobic basins of the facility's wastewater treatment plant. 
The anaerobic basins of the wastewater treatment plant must achieve a 
destruction efficiency of at least 1.0 pound of HAPs per ODTP by 
anaerobic biodegradation, i.e. approximately twice the quantity of what 
would have been achieved by the facility under the current Pulp and 
Paper Industry NESHAP. EPA and PCA actually anticipate that the HAP 
destruction in the wastewater treatment plant anaerobic basins will 
significantly exceed the 1.0 pound per ODTP requirement. As stated 
above, the average HAP destruction efficiency of the wastewater 
treatment system is approximately 3.0 pounds per ODTP.

[[Page 19738]]

    To allow PCA to achieve this superior environmental performance and 
remain in compliance with the CAA, EPA is promulgating limited 
revisions to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, Subpart S, 40 CFR 
63.440 though 63.459. The revisions collectively comprise a site-
specific rule applicable only to PCA's Tomahawk Mill. Under the site-
specific rule, PCA's Tomahawk Mill may comply with either the otherwise 
applicable control technology requirements of the Pulp and Paper 
Industry NESHAP, or the control technology requirements of the site-
specific rule.
    Like the otherwise applicable provisions of the Pulp and Paper 
Industry NESHAP, the site-specific rule requires PCA's Tomahawk Mill to 
enclose the LVHC system and vent the air emissions to a closed-vent 
system. The standards and monitoring requirements for the enclosures 
and closed-vent system included in the rule are equivalent (except for 
formatting and reference changes) to the otherwise applicable Pulp and 
Paper Industry NESHAP requirements.
    The site-specific rule allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to use an 
alternative treatment technology to control the HAPs collected in the 
closed-vent system. The rule allows PCA to treat its HAPs at an 
emission point not addressed by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. PCA 
may route the collected air emissions through a series of indirect 
contact condensers and hardpipe the resulting pulping process 
condensates in a closed collection system to the wastewater treatment 
plant for anaerobic biodegradation. The standards and monitoring 
requirements for the closed collection system are equivalent (except 
for formatting and reference changes) to those required by the Pulp and 
Paper Industry NESHAP for kraft mills (which must collect and treat 
pulping process condensates).
    The site-specific rule establishes a minimum destruction efficiency 
standard of 1.0 pound of HAPs per ODTP, and further requires PCA to 
monitor, and maintain within specified limits, several operating 
parameters to ensure continuous compliance with the HAP destruction 
efficiency standard. PCA must conduct quarterly performance testing of 
the anaerobic wastewater treatment system to verify compliance with the 
minimum HAP destruction efficiency standard. Finally, PCA's Tomahawk 
Mill must continue to comply with all applicable recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of the general provisions at subpart A, 40 CFR 
63.10.
    Under the site-specific rule (and analogous to the excess emission 
allowance of 40 CFR 63.443(e)(1)), PCA's Tomahawk Mill will be deemed 
in compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP so long as it 
complies with all applicable provisions, including the requirement that 
it achieve the established destruction efficiency standard, no less 
than 99 percent of the operating time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which 
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of 
this regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory'' 
action as one that is likely to result in 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, or 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.
    Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of 
general applicability. EPA has determined that this rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
since it applies to only one facility. It is exempt from OMB review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act because it is a site-specific rule, 
directed to fewer than ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), (10); 5 CFR 
1320.3(c), 1320.4 and 1320.5.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and public comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The subject of this 
site-specific rulemaking, PCA, is not a small business. This rule does 
not apply to small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, or 
small governmental jurisdictions. Further, it is a site-specific rule 
with limited applicability to only one pulp and paper mill in the 
nation. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or

[[Page 19739]]

more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory 
proposal with significant Federal mandates, and informing, educating, 
and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements. As used here, ``small government'' has the same meaning 
as that contained under 5 U.S.C. 601(5), that is, governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.
    As discussed above, this rule will have limited application. It 
applies only to the PCA's pulp and paper mill located in Tomahawk, 
Wisconsin. This site-specific rule does not impose any additional costs 
on PCA's Tomahawk Mill. EPA has determined that this site-specific rule 
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by 
State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this rule 
is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 
EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
The phrase, ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined 
in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    To the extent that this rule gives rise to federalism concerns, 
they have been addressed via EPA's direct consultation with Wisconsin, 
the affected State. As noted above, this rule was developed pursuant to 
the State-sponsored WDNR/PCA Agreement and the MOA between WDNR and 
Region 5 EPA.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop a process that is accountable to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' 
as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency believes the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This rule will require PCA to achieve a greater reduction of 
HAPs emitted to the environment by allowing it to use an alternative 
treatment technology not currently allowed by the existing the Pulp and 
Paper Industry NESHAP. Therefore, no additional risk to public health, 
including children's health, is expected to result from this action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It will 
not result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy 
distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless such practice is inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (for example, material specifications, test 
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rule uses all available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February 
11,

[[Page 19740]]

1994) is designed to address the environmental and human health 
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to 
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership 
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental 
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are 
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, 
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high 
adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of EPA's 
policies, programs, and activities. Today's action applies to one 
facility in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, and will have no disproportionate 
impacts on minority or low income communities. Overall, the project 
being undertaken at PCA's Tomahawk Mill, if successful, will produce 
environmental performance superior to that expected through compliance 
with existing regulations.

K. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by 
section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 
FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

L. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) 
rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially 
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. EPA is not 
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 7, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

0
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

0
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

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.459 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.459  Alternative standards.

* * * * *
    (b) Tomahawk Wisconsin Mill. (1) Applicability. (i) The provisions 
of this paragraph (b) apply to the owner or operator of the stand-alone 
semi-chemical pulp and paper mill located at N9090 County Road E in 
Tomahawk, Wisconsin, referred to as the Tomahawk Mill.
    (ii) The owner or operator is not required to comply with the 
provisions of this paragraph (b) if the owner and operator chooses to 
comply with the otherwise applicable sections of this subpart and 
provides the EPA with notice.
    (iii) If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the 
provisions of this paragraph (b) the owner or operator shall comply 
with all applicable provisions of this part, including this subpart, 
except the following:
    (A) Section 63.443(b);
    (B) Section 63.443(c); and
    (C) Section 63.443(d).
    (2) Collection and routing of HAP emissions. (i) The owner or 
operator shall collect the total HAP emissions from each LVHC system.
    (ii) Each LVHC system shall be enclosed and the HAP emissions shall 
be vented into a closed-vent system. The enclosures and closed-vent 
system shall meet requirements specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this 
section.
    (iii) The HAP emissions shall be routed as follows:
    (A) The HAP emissions collected in the closed-vent system from the 
digester system shall be routed through the primary indirect contact 
condenser, secondary indirect contact condenser, and evaporator 
indirect contact condenser; and
    (B) The HAP emissions collected in the closed-vent system from the 
evaporator system and foul condensate standpipe shall be routed through 
the evaporator indirect contact condenser.
    (3) Collection and routing of pulping process condensates. (i) The 
owner or operator shall collect the pulping process condensates from 
the following equipment systems:
    (A) Primary indirect contact condenser;
    (B) Secondary indirect contact condenser; and
    (C) Evaporator indirect contact condenser.
    (ii) The collected pulping process condensates shall be conveyed in 
a closed collection system that is designed and operated to meet the 
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
    (iii) The collected pulping process condensates shall be routed in 
the closed collection system to the wastewater treatment plant 
anaerobic basins for biodegradation.
    (iv) The pulping process condensates shall be discharged into the 
wastewater treatment plant anaerobic basins below the liquid surface of 
the wastewater treatment plant anaerobic basins.
    (4) HAP destruction efficiency requirements of the wastewater 
treatment plant. (i) The owner or operator shall achieve a destruction 
efficiency of at least one pound of HAPs per ton of ODP by 
biodegradation in the wastewater treatment plant.
    (ii) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the 
HAP destruction efficiency by biodegradation in the wastewater 
treatment plant:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP04.093


[[Page 19741]]



Where:

HAPd = HAP destruction efficiency of wastewater treatment 
plant (pounds of HAPs per ton of ODP);
RMEfr = flow rate of raw mill effluent (millions of gallons 
per day);
RMEc = HAP concentration of raw mill effluent (milligrams 
per liter);
PPCfr = flow rate of pulping process condensates (millions 
of gallons per day);
PPCc = HAP concentration of pulping process condensates 
(milligrams per liter);
ABDfr = flow rate of anaerobic basin discharge (millions of 
gallons per day);
ABDc = HAP concentration of anaerobic basin discharge 
(milligrams per liter); and
ODPr = rate of production of oven dried pulp (tons per day).

    (5) Monitoring requirements and parameter ranges. (i) The owner or 
operator shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain according to 
the manufacturer's specifications a continuous monitoring system (CMS, 
as defined in Sec.  63.2), using a continuous recorder, to monitor the 
following parameters:
    (A) Evaporator indirect contact condenser vent temperature;
    (B) Pulping process condensates flow rate;
    (C) Wastewater treatment plant effluent flow rate; and
    (D) Production rate of ODP.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall additionally monitor, on a daily 
basis, in each of the four anaerobic basins, the ratio of volatile acid 
to alkalinity (VA/A ratio). The owner or operator shall use the test 
methods identified for determining acidity and alkalinity as specified 
in 40 CFR 136.3, Table 1B.
    (iii) The temperature of the evaporator indirect contact condenser 
vent shall be maintained at or below 140 [deg]F on a continuous basis.
    (iv) The VA/A ratio in each of the four anaerobic basins shall be 
maintained at or below 0.5 on a continuous basis.
    (A) The owner or operator shall measure the methanol concentration 
of the outfall of any basin (using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03) when the 
VA/A ratio of that basin exceeds the following:
    (1) 0.38, or
    (2) The highest VA/A ratio at which the outfall of any basin has 
previously measured non-detect for methanol (using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 
94.03).
    (B) If the outfall of that basin measures detect for methanol, the 
owner or operator shall verify compliance with the emission standard 
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section by conducting a 
performance test pursuant to the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(8) of this section.
    (v) The owner or operator may seek to establish or reestablish the 
parameter ranges, and/or the parameters required to be monitored as 
provided in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (v) of this section, by 
following the provisions of Sec.  63.453(n)(1) through (4).
    (6) Standards and monitoring requirements for each enclosure and 
closed-vent system.
    (i) The owner or operator shall comply with the design and 
operational requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(ii) through 
(iv) of this section, and the monitoring requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(6)(v) through (x) of this section for each enclosure and closed-
vent system used for collecting and routing of HAP emissions as 
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Each enclosure shall be maintained at negative pressure at 
each enclosure or hood opening as demonstrated by the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.457(e). Each enclosure or hood opening closed 
during the initial performance test shall be maintained in the same 
closed and sealed position as during the performance test at all times 
except when necessary to use the opening for sampling, inspection, 
maintenance, or repairs.
    (iii) Each component of the closed-vent system that is operated at 
positive pressure shall be designed for and operated with no detectable 
leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per 
million by volume above background, as measured by the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.457(d).
    (iv) Each bypass line in the closed-vent system that could divert 
vent streams containing HAPs to the atmosphere without meeting the 
routing requirements specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
shall comply with either of the following requirements:
    (A) On each bypass line, the owner or operator shall install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 
specifications a flow indicator that provides a record of the presence 
of gas stream flow in the bypass line at least once every 15 minutes. 
The flow indicator shall be installed in the bypass line in such a way 
as to indicate flow in the bypass line; or
    (B) For bypass line valves that are not computer controlled, the 
owner or operator shall maintain the bypass line valve in the closed 
position with a car seal or seal placed on the valve or closure 
mechanism in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be 
opened without breaking the seal.
    (v) For each enclosure opening, the owner or operator shall 
perform, at least once every 30 days, a visual inspection of the 
closure mechanism specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section to 
ensure the opening is maintained in the closed position and sealed.
    (vi) For each closed-vent system required by paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall perform a visual inspection 
every 30 days and at other times as requested by the Administrator. The 
visual inspection shall include inspection of ductwork, piping, 
enclosures, and connections to covers for visible evidence of defects.
    (vii) For positive pressure closed-vent systems, or portions of 
closed-vent systems, the owner or operator shall demonstrate no 
detectable leaks as specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section, 
measured initially and annually by the procedures in Sec.  63.457(d).
    (viii) For each enclosure that is maintained at negative pressure, 
the owner or operator shall demonstrate initially and annually that it 
is maintained at negative pressure as specified in Sec.  63.457(e).
    (ix) For each valve or closure mechanism as specified in paragraph 
(b)(6)(iv)(B) of this section, the owner or operator shall perform an 
inspection at least once every 30 days to ensure that the valve is 
maintained in the closed position and the emissions point gas stream is 
not diverted through the bypass line.
    (x) If an inspection required by paragraph (b)(6) of this section 
identifies visible defects in ductwork, piping, enclosures, or 
connections to covers required by paragraph (b)(6) of this section, or 
if an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater 
above background is measured, or if the enclosure openings are not 
maintained at negative pressure, then the following corrective actions 
shall be taken as soon as follows:
    (A) A first effort to repair or correct the closed-vent system 
shall be made as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days 
after the problem is identified.
    (B) The repair or corrective action shall be completed no later 
than 15 calendar days after the problem is identified.
    (7) Standards and monitoring requirements for the pulping process 
condensates closed collection system. (i) The owner or operator shall 
comply with the design and operational requirements specified in 
paragraphs

[[Page 19742]]

 (b)(7)(ii) through (iii) of this section, and monitoring requirements 
of paragraph (b)(7)(iv) for the equipment systems in paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section used to route the pulping process condensates in a 
closed collection system.
    (ii) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain 
system requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.960, 63.961, and 63.962, 
except that the closed vent systems shall be designed and operated in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section, instead of in 
accordance with Sec.  63.693 as specified in Sec.  63.692(a)(3)(ii), 
(b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and
    (iii) If a condensate tank is used in the closed collection system, 
the tank shall meet the following requirements:
    (A) The fixed roof and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling 
ports, gauge wells) shall be designed and operated with no detectable 
leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per 
million above background, and vented into a closed-vent system that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(6) of this section and routed 
in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
    (B) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position 
(e.g., covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that 
the tank contains pulping process condensates or any HAPs removed from 
a pulping process condensate stream except when it is necessary to use 
the opening for sampling, removal, or for equipment inspection, 
maintenance, or repair.
    (iv) For each pulping process condensate closed collection system 
used to comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall perform a visual inspection every 30 days and shall 
comply with the inspection and monitoring requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.964 except for the closed-vent system and control device 
inspection and monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  63.964(a)(2).
    (8) Quarterly performance testing. (i) The owner or operator shall, 
within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter, conduct a 
performance test.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall use NCASI Method DI/HAPS-99.01 to 
collect a grab sample and determine the HAP concentration of the Raw 
Mill Effluent, Pulping Process Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin 
Discharge for the quarterly performance test conducted during the first 
quarter each year.
    (iii) For each of the remaining three quarters, the owner or 
operator may use NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03 as a surrogate to collect 
and determine the HAP concentration of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping 
Process Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin Discharge.
    (iv) The sample used to determine the HAP or Methanol concentration 
in the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping Process Condensates, or Anaerobic 
Basin Discharge shall be a composite of four grab samples taken evenly 
spaced over an eight hour time period.
    (v) The Raw Mill Effluent grab samples shall be taken from the raw 
mill effluent composite sampler.
    (vi) The Pulping Process Condensates grab samples shall be taken 
from a line tap on the closed condensate collection system prior to 
discharge into the wastewater treatment plant.
    (vii) The Anaerobic Basic Discharge grab samples shall be taken 
subsequent to the confluence of the four anaerobic basin discharges.
    (viii) The flow rate of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping Process 
Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin Discharge, and the production rate of 
ODP shall be averaged over eight hours.
    (ix) The data collected as specified in paragraphs (b)(5) and 
(b)(8) of this section shall be used to determine the HAP destruction 
efficiency of the wastewater treatment plant as specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (x) The HAP destruction efficiency shall be at least as great as 
that specified by paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
    (9) Recordkeeping requirements. (i) The owner or operator shall 
comply with the recordkeeping requirements as specified in Table 1 of 
subpart S of part 63 as it pertains to Sec.  63.10.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements as specified in Sec.  63.454(b).
    (iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements as specified in Sec.  63.453(d).
    (10) Reporting requirements. (i) Each owner or operator shall 
comply with the reporting requirements as specified in Table 1 of Sec.  
63.10.
    (ii) Each owner or operator shall comply with the reporting 
requirements as specified in Sec.  63.455(d).
    (11) Violations. (i) Failure to comply with any applicable 
provision of this part shall constitute a violation.
    (ii) Periods of excess emissions shall not constitute a violation 
provided the time of excess emissions (excluding periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction) divided by the total process operating time 
in a semi-annual reporting period does not exceed one percent. All 
periods of excess emission (including periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction) shall be reported, and shall include:
    (A) Failure to monitor a parameter, or maintain a parameter within 
minimum or maximum (as appropriate) ranges as specified in paragraph 
(b)(5), (b)(6), or (b)(7) of this section; and
    (B) Failure to meet the HAP destruction efficiency standard 
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
    (iii) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(11)(ii) of this section, any 
excess emissions that present an imminent threat to public health or 
the environment, or may cause serious harm to public health or the 
environment, shall constitute a violation.
[FR Doc. 04-8311 Filed 4-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P