[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80755-80776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32028]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-6917-1]
RIN 2060-AH74
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Pulp and Paper Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907), we proposed amendments to
the pulp and paper national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) (63 FR 18504, April 15, 1998). The 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP is the air component of the integrated air and water rules
for the pulp and paper industry (known as the Pulp and Paper Cluster
Rules). The NESHAP limit and control hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
that are known to cause or suspected to cause cancer or other serious
health or environmental effects. These final amendments include changes
to the pulping process vent standards, the biological treatment system
standards, monitoring requirements, and test methods and procedures to
address technical issues identified after promulgation of the 1998 Pulp
and Paper NESHAP. Also, drafting errors in the final rule that were
identified since proposal of these amendments are being corrected by
this action. These amendments do not change the level of control or
compromise the environmental protection achieved by the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP. This action also clarifies that downtime due to routine
maintenance of pulping process vent control devices is included in the
excess emissions allowances. Lastly, in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), we are amending as a final rule the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval table to list the OMB control
number issued under the PRA for information collection requirements for
the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-40 contains supporting information for this
action and the prior promulgated and proposed amendments to the 1998
Pulp and Paper NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor),
and is available for inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
(919) 541-5397, e-mail [email protected]. For questions on compliance
and applicability determinations, contact Mr. Seth Heminway, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assessment (2223A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7017,
e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the
development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for
review in the docket, or copies may be mailed on request from the Air
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being
available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's amendments
[[Page 80756]]
will be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). Following signature, we will post a copy of these amendments on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Also, a
separate page on the TTN provides all the proposal and promulgation
notices, support documents, and implementation information for the 1998
Pulp and Paper NESHAP http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html. If
you need more information regarding the TTN, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. The EPA proposed these amendments to the 1998 Pulp
and Paper NESHAP on January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907). This final rule
adopting the amendments constitutes final administrative action
concerning that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
February 20, 2001. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by today's final rule may not be challenged later in civil
or criminal proceeding brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC NAICS Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................... 26 3221 Pulp mills and integrated mills
(mills that manufacture pulp and
paper/paperboard) that chemically
pulp wood fiber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is not intended to be exhaustive. It provides a guide
regarding the types of entities that we expect to regulate by this
action. To determine whether this action would regulate your facility,
you must carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.440 of
the final rule. 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 local or State air pollution control agency who has
permitting authority for your facility. If you are unsure of who has
the permitting authority or need additional assistance, you should
contact the appropriate EPA regional office below.
Region I: U.S. EPA New England Director, Air Compliance Program, 1
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SEA), Boston, MA 02114-2023, Phone: (617)
918-1650, Fax: (617) 918-1505
Region II: U.S. EPA--Region 2, Air Compliance Branch, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 637-4080, Fax: (212) 637-3998
Region III: U.S. EPA--Region 3, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch (3AP12),
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone: (215) 814-3438,
Fax: (215) 814-2134, Region 3 Office Website: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/hazpollut/hazairpol.htm
Region IV: U.S. EPA--Region 4, Air and Radiation Technology Branch,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104,
Phone: (404) 562-9105, Fax: (404) 562-9095
Region V: U.S. EPA--Region 5, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Branch (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590,
Phone: (312) 353-2088, Fax: (312) 353-8289
Region VI: U.S. EPA--Region 6, Chief, Toxics Enforcement Section (6EN-
AT), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Phone: (214) 665-7224,
Fax: (214) 665-7446, Region 6 Office Website: www.epa.gov/region6
Region VII: U.S. EPA--Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, KS
66101, Phone: (913) 551-7020, Fax: (913) 551-7844, Office Website:
http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/toxics/airtox1.htm.
Region VIII: U.S. EPA--Region 8, Air Enforcement Program (8ENF-T), 999
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: (303) 312-6312, Fax:
(303) 312-6409
Region IX: U.S. EPA--Region 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 744-1219, Fax: (415) 744-1076
Region X: U.S. EPA--Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 553-4273, Fax: (206) 553-
0110
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
III. Summary of Public Comments, Responses, and Changes to the
Standards
IV. Information Collection Request (ICR)
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultations and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
The EPA promulgated the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP on April 15,
1998 (63 FR 18504), with subsequent amendments for corrections,
clarifications, and to provide technical amendments.
On January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907), we proposed amendments to the
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP to revise the compliance demonstration
procedures for combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases
and for biological treatment systems used to treat pulping condensates,
and to correct minor drafting errors. The proposed amendment regarding
the pulping vent combustion devices removed the requirement, in some
cases, to conduct an initial performance test or to continuously
monitor the temperature of the control device. Briefly, the proposed
amendments for biological treatment systems: Added an alternative
emission standard (minimum HAP or methanol mass removal), specified a
finite list of HAP (instead of total HAP) for use in demonstrating
compliance, allowed for determination of site-specific monitoring
parameters, and added testing and monitoring procedures for biological
treatment systems that do not meet the criteria for a ``thoroughly
mixed'' system.
In response to the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments, we
received four public comment letters from industry representatives. In
developing today's final rule amendments, we considered public comment
where appropriate, and we are revising the compliance demonstration
procedures for combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases;
revising the standards, monitoring requirements,
[[Page 80757]]
and test methods and procedures for biological treatment systems; and
correcting minor drafting errors. We are also specifying that downtime
due to routine maintenance of pulping process vent control devices is
included in the excess emissions allowances. Although maintenance
downtime was not part of the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments, we
are using this notice to clarify our intent.
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
In today's final rule, we are promulgating the following amendments
to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and clarifying the downtime provision
for pulping vent control devices. We are amending:
The standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and
semi-chemical processes (Sec. 63.443(d)(4)) to remove the requirement,
in some cases, to conduct an initial performance test or to
continuously monitor the temperature of the pulping vent control
device.
The standards for kraft pulping process condensates to add
mass emissions standards for biological treatment provisions
(Sec. 63.446(e)(2)) and to refer to the procedure for measuring total
HAP in Sec. 63.457(g).
The standards for kraft pulping process condensates
(Sec. 63.446(i)) to add a reference to the minimum mass condensate
collection option (Sec. 63.446(c)(3)) and to correct a minor drafting
error.
The open biological treatment system monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)) to allow for site-specific monitoring
parameters and to clarify the quarterly performance test procedures.
The monitoring requirements section (Sec. 63.453(n)) to
include the reference to the site-specific biological treatment system
monitoring parameters and to correct a minor drafting error.
The open biological treatment system monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(p)) to revise the procedures for conducting
the optional performance tests and clarify the timing of corrective
actions taken during monitoring parameter excursions.
Sec. 63.454 to address recordkeeping requirements for
documenting unsafe sampling conditions and the results of optional
performance tests conducted in response to monitoring parameter
excursions, and add corresponding reference.
The reporting requirements section (Sec. 63.455(e)) to add
performance testing notification requirements to be used if open
biological treatment system performance test results are used to revise
approved monitoring values or ranges.
The test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457(c)(1)) to correct the reference to the liquid sampling
procedures.
The test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457(c)(4)) to add the word ``open'' before ``biological
treatment system.''
The test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)(5)
and (6)) to specify the procedures for determining the minimum
measurement level of HAP for a given test method.
The test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(g))
to specify the measurement of only four HAP for biological treatment
systems.
The test methods and procedures for open biological
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(l)) to remove the total HAP percent
reduction procedure, to add the methanol percent reduction and mass
removal procedures, to add an equation for determining the ratio of
nonmethanol HAP to methanol, to add clarity to the purpose of the
requirements, and to correct minor drafting errors.
The test methods and procedures for open biological
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(m)) to correct references.
The test methods and procedures for open biological
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(n)) to add the word ``open'' to the
paragraph title and to correct minor drafting errors.
The delegation of authority section (Sec. 63.458(b)(5)) to
add a reference to the procedure for determining the minimum
measurement level of HAP.
To add monitoring procedures (appendix E) for biological
treatment systems when more detailed sampling is unsafe.
The table in part 9 that includes the currently approved
information request control numbers to add the 1998 Pulp and Paper
NESHAP information collection requirements.
III. Summary of Public Comments, Responses, and Changes to the
Standards
Generally, the comments were supportive of the proposed amendments,
and we have not summarized those positive comments. We received no
adverse comments regarding the proposed amendment for pulping vent
combustion devices; therefore, the amendment is being promulgated as
proposed. Below is an overview of the major issues raised by commenters
and our responses. A complete summary of major comments and responses
is available in the docket and on the WWW. The ADDRESSES and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this preamble contain detailed
information on the docket and WWW.
The major public comments we received suggested changes and
clarifications to the proposed amendments for the standards, monitoring
requirements, and test methods for biological treatment systems.
Individual HAP procedure. We proposed a procedure (the ``individual
HAP procedure'') that can be used to demonstrate compliance of
biological treatment systems on an individual HAP basis (either percent
reduction or mass removal). The procedure was proposed as an
alternative to demonstrating compliance by measuring total HAP. To use
the procedure, you must measure the mass of the individual HAP entering
and exiting the biological treatment system.
The comments stated that the proposed procedure is not viable
because the outlet concentrations of the nonmethanol HAP will be below
the detection limit of the test methods specified in the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP. We agree with the commenter that the proposed individual
HAP procedure is not viable due to lack of adequate test methods.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed individual HAP procedure and
its associated test methods (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i) and Sec. 63.457(l)(1)
and (2) of the proposed amendments).
Minimum measurement level procedure. We proposed amendments to the
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)) that added two
alternative procedures for determining the minimum measurement level
(MML) of specific HAP in pulping process condensate streams. The
comments received stated that several clarifications and corrections to
the proposed procedures were needed. We agree with the suggested
clarifications and corrections, and we have revised the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP accordingly.
Methanol procedure for biological treatment systems. We proposed a
procedure (the ``methanol procedure'') that can be used as an
alternative to demonstrating compliance of biological treatment systems
on an individual HAP basis. As part of the methanol procedure, you are
required to measure the ratio of nonmethanol HAP (acetaldehyde, methyl
ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde) mass to methanol mass. The value of
this ratio is designated in the proposed amendments as ``r.'' The 1998
Pulp and Paper NESHAP require total HAP measurements on a quarterly
basis. We requested comments and data to
[[Page 80758]]
determine if quarterly testing for total HAP is still warranted, or if
testing for total HAP annually is adequate.
The comments received stated that an annual measurement of ``r'' is
sufficient since the value of ``r'' is very low and the corresponding
impact on the mass removal determinations will be small. We agree with
the commenter that an annual measurement of ``r'' is sufficient.
Therefore, we are revising the biological treatment system monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)(3)(ii)) to specify that the value of ``r''
must be determined only during the first-quarter test of each year.
Quarterly performance tests versus initial performance tests. We
proposed adding a mass removal option for biological treatment systems
in addition to the percent reduction standard already contained in the
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP. We also proposed to amend the quarterly
testing and compliance monitoring requirements to make conforming
revisions by replacing the term ``percent reduction tests'' with
``performance test'' or ``compliance test.''
The comments received stated that the EPA should clarify that the
requirements for the quarterly tests are less extensive than for the
initial performance test since the quarterly tests are part of the
monitoring requirements. We disagree with the comments, and we are
making text changes to the quarterly testing requirements and the
reporting requirements to use consistent language.
Condensate variability. We received several comments stating that
the performance test and continuous monitoring procedures for the
condensate collection and treatment requirements should account for
inherent hour-to-hour and day-to-day variability in the amount of
methanol generated in the regulated condensates. Based on the data
being collected for industry condensate characterization studies, the
comments stated that there is significant variability over all time
scales, and the causes of methanol variability are beyond the control
of the mill operator. Consequently, there is a chance that the amount
of methanol collected and sent to treatment on a short-term basis can
be less than that required by the standards and can lead to
noncompliance, even though the pulping processes and controls are
operating normally.
We agree that condensate variability is a concern in both the
initial and continuous compliance demonstrations. Variability is
particularly a concern for the mass removal option where compliance is
based on an amount of mass collected and the performance of the control
device or system.
Some comments recommended that because of the variability of
methanol in condensate streams, the rule should be revised to clarify
that long-term averages are necessary for demonstrating initial and
continuous compliance with the condensate collection standards. While
we agree that variability should be considered in establishing
appropriate averaging periods, the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP already
provide you with flexibility in establishing the appropriate averaging
periods for demonstrating initial compliance and conducting continuous
compliance monitoring. Consequently, we are not changing the 1998 Pulp
and Paper NESHAP text to address this issue.
We proposed mass removal standards, expressed as either individual
HAP or methanol, for biological treatment systems as an alternative to
the percent reduction standards. Compliance with a mass removal
standard requires that the inlet HAP (methanol) mass and the
performance of the treatment device be measured over the same time
period. The comments recommended that the rule be revised to consider
variability of inlet mass concentrations during performance tests of
condensate treatment devices (i.e., steam strippers and biological
treatment systems). To address short-term variability in condensates on
the day the performance test is conducted, these comments recommended
that the mass in condensates be based on long-term averages established
prior to the date of the test.
We disagree with the comments that the mass in condensates be based
on data established prior to the date of the treatment system
performance test. The performance test for the treatment standard must
be based on actual test data of the inlet HAP (or methanol) mass and
the treatment device performance on the same time basis. However, we
agree with the comments that the proposed rule amendments did not
adequately account for variability during optional tests to confirm the
performance of biological treatment systems during parameter
excursions. Today's final rule amendments, therefore, provide some
additional flexibility in conducting these tests.
Procedures for responding to parameter excursions in biological
treatment systems. We proposed a modeling procedure (appendix E of 40
CFR part 63) to use during unsafe sampling conditions. The procedure
would be used whenever a parameter excursion occurs during an event
when it is too dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe for personnel
to collect samples from an open nonthoroughly mixed biological
treatment system. The procedure would be used to satisfy the daily
monitoring requirements until such time as a full performance test can
be conducted under safe conditions.
The comments received stated that a conflict exists between the
timing of the modeling procedure and the subsequent performance test,
and on initiating steps to end the parameter excursion. We are revising
the monitoring requirements of the rule to clarify the timing of the
modeling procedure, the performance test, and implementation of
corrective actions; however, the intent of the 1998 Pulp and Paper
NESHAP remains unchanged since we believe that there is no conflict in
this rule requirement.
Monitoring procedures for biological treatment systems during
unsafe conditions. We proposed a modeling procedure (appendix E of 40
CFR part 63) for monitoring open biological treatment systems that can
be used when unsafe conditions exist in the system that would prevent
personnel from conducting the sampling necessary to conduct a full
performance test. The comments suggested several clarifications and
corrections to the proposed modeling procedure. We agree that
clarifications are needed in some of the cases identified by the
commenter, and these clarifications have been added.
Performance test notifications. We proposed that the notification
period for certain compliance monitoring testing be reduced from 60
days, as required by the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP general provisions
(Sec. 63.7(b)), to 15 days. This shortened notification period would be
used if a mill intends to revise the allowable monitoring parameter
ranges or values using data recorded during any valid subsequent
performance tests required in the monitoring requirements section of
the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP. We received comments stating that the
15-day period was too long, and that same day notification should be
allowed. We disagree with the comments, and we believe the length of
the notification period (15 days) is appropriate. Consequently, the 15-
day notification change is being made to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP
as proposed.
Drafting errors and clarifications. We proposed several corrections
to minor drafting errors identified following promulgation of the 1998
Pulp and Paper NESHAP. No comments were received regarding those
proposed corrections. Therefore, the amendments for the corrections and
minor drafting errors are being published as proposed.
[[Page 80759]]
However, below are some additional corrections found since these
amendments were proposed on January 25, 2000.
In the April 12, 1999 final rule interpretation and technical
amendments, we inserted a new test procedure into the middle of a list
of other procedures. One of those other procedures is cross referenced
in another section of the rule, and we did not change the cross
reference text. In today's final rule amendments, we are correcting
that error by changing the cross referenced procedure text in
Sec. 63.458(b)(4), from Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(ii) to its new location in
Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(iii). Additionally, commenters identified a drafting
error in the original rule text published on April 15, 1998. We are
correcting the error by changing the cross referenced text in the
standards for condensate closed collection systems (Sec. 63.446(d)(1)),
from Sec. 63.962(b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii) to its correct location in
Sec. 63.962(b)(5)(iii).
In the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments notice, we proposed
several amendments to the standards (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)), monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)), and test methods and procedures
(Sec. 63.457(l)) used for biological treatment system. These proposed
amendments allow you to comply with a percent reduction or mass removal
standard using individual HAP or using methanol under certain
conditions. In these proposed amendments, the following drafting errors
and corrections were identified by commenters:
The quarterly testing requirements in Sec. 63.453(j)(3(i)
contain incorrect language from the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and
references to the condensate standards,
An incorrect variable was used in the proposed amendments
(Sec. 63.457(l)) to the test methods and procedures section, and
The definition of ``r'' (the ratio of nonmethanol HAP to
methanol) and the equation to determine ``r'' was not included in the
proposed amendments (Sec. 63.457(l)(3) and
(4) to the test methods and procedures section. We agree with each
of the drafting errors identified by the commenters, and we are
revising the rule accordingly.
Control device downtime due to scheduled maintenance. In today's
final rule amendments, we are clarifying that downtime associated with
routine maintenance of control devices used to reduce emissions of HAP
from pulping process vents is included in the excess emissions
allowances. Following promulgation of the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP,
we received comments stating that routine maintenance of control
devices should be included in the excess emission allowances, since
this category of outages is not covered under the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction provisions.
In the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP, the excess emission allowances
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. However, in the
promulgation preamble (63 FR 18529-18530), we specifically stated that
excess emission allowances did not include scheduled maintenance
activities. When the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP was promulgated, the
EPA was considering revisions to the NESHAP general provisions that
would address downtime associated with scheduled maintenance. Those
revisions have not been made. Therefore, in today's final rule
amendments, we are clarifying that excess emission allowances for
pulping vent control devices (Sec. 63.443(e)) can include downtime due
to scheduled maintenance activities.
IV. Information Collection Request (ICR)
This final rule amends the table of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB. This final rule updates the table to list those
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP information requirements promulgated in
1998. We will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated
table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's
regulations and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping
requirements and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the
OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR
satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The ICR itself was subject
to public notice and comment prior to OMB's approval of the ICR.
Further, because amendment of the table in part 9 is technical in
nature, we believe that another notice and comment period for this
amendment is unnecessary. For these reasons, we believe that there is
good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b) to
amend this table without prior notice and comment.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51375, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 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, completion, 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.
The 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP was considered a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA
prepared a regulatory impact analysis. These final rule amendments make
technical revisions and correct inadvertent drafting errors. The OMB
evaluated this action and determined it to be nonsignificant; thus, it
did not require OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the 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.''
``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.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance
[[Page 80760]]
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The
FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and the EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the
agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
These final amendments to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP will not
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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. While the 1998 Pulp and Paper
NESHAP do not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments,
EPA involved State and local air pollution control agencies in its
development. Today's action does not create a mandate upon State,
local, or tribal governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultations and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the 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, or if EPA consults
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order
13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, 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 officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's final rule amendments do not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP do not create mandates upon tribal governments. These
amendments do not create a mandate on tribal governments. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the rule on children and explain why the planned regulation
is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The 1998 Pulp and Paper
NESHAP fall into that category only in part: the minimum rule
stringency is set according to a congressionally mandated, technology-
based lower limit called the ``floor,'' while a decision to increase
the stringency beyond this floor can be partly based on risk
considerations.
No children's risk analysis was performed for the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP rulemaking because no alternative technologies exist that
would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost, and, therefore,
the results of any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency
decision. Today's final rule amendments are not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because they do not involve decisions on environmental
health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the 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 the 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 the 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
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. These amendments
provide additional flexibility to the
[[Page 80761]]
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and reduce compliance costs. Therefore,
these amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute 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 organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
The EPA determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with today's final rule amendments.
These amendments will not result in increased impacts to small
entities, but will provide additional flexibility to the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP by adding equivalent treatment alternatives.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA submitted the information requirements of the 1998 Pulp and
Paper NESHAP for approval to the OMB on April 27, 1998 under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA prepared an ICR
document (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also request a copy by
e-mail at: [email protected] or from the Office of Policy website
at: http://www.epa.gov/icr. The ICR has been approved by OMB (OMB No.
2060-0387.)
These amendments to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP will have no
impact on the information collection burden estimates made previously.
Consequently, EPA has not revised the ICR.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
Today's final rule amendments do not establish new or modify
existing technical standards. Therefore, consideration of VCS is not
relevant to this action.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
SBREFA, 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. The EPA will submit a report
containing this final 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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These amendments will be effective
February 20, 2001.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 7, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
9 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table in
numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories
* * * * *
63.450, 63.453-63.455, and 63.457................. 2060-0387
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
* * * * *
PART 63--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 80762]]
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
4. Amend Sec. 63.443 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.443 Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Reduce total HAP emissions using one of the following:
(i) A boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace by introducing the HAP
emission stream with the primary fuel or into the flame zone; or
(ii) A boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity
greater than or equal to 44 megawatts (150 million British thermal
units per hour) by introducing the HAP emission stream with the
combustion air.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 63.446 by revising paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(2) and (i)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain
system requirements specified in Secs. 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962 of
subpart RR of this part, except for closed vent systems and control
devices shall be designed and operated in accordance with
Secs. 63.443(d) and 63.450, instead of in accordance with Sec. 63.693
as specified in Sec. 63.962 (a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(5)(iii);
and
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Discharge the pulping process condensate below the liquid
surface of a biological treatment system and treat the pulping process
condensates to meet the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3),
(4), or (5) of this section, and total HAP shall be measured as
specified in Sec. 63.457(g); or
* * * * *
(i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph
(c)(2) or (3) or paragraph (e)(4) or (5) of this section at mills
producing both bleached and unbleached pulp products, owners and
operators may meet a prorated mass standard that is calculated by
prorating the applicable mass standards (kilograms of total HAP per
megagram of ODP) for bleached and unbleached mills specified in
paragraph (c)(2) or (3) or paragraph (e)(4) or (5) of this section by
the ratio of annual megagrams of bleached and unbleached ODP.
6. Amend Sec. 63.453 by revising paragraphs (j), (n), and (p) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.453 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(j) Each owner or operator using an open biological treatment
system to comply with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the daily
monitoring procedures specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of
this section and shall conduct a performance test each quarter using
the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
(1) Comply with the monitoring and sampling requirements specified
in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) On a daily basis, monitor the following parameters for each
open biological treatment unit:
(A) Composite daily sample of outlet soluble BOD5
concentration to monitor for maximum daily and maximum monthly average;
(B) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids;
(C) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);
(D) Inlet liquid flow; and
(E) Liquid temperature.
(ii) If the Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurement Procedure
(Procedure 3) in appendix C of this part is used to determine the
fraction of HAP compounds degraded in the biological treatment system
as specified in Sec. 63.457(l), conduct the sampling and archival
requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid grab samples from each
biological treatment unit to have HAP data available to perform
quarterly performance tests specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this
section and the compliance tests specified in paragraph (p) of this
section.
(B) Store the samples as specified in Sec. 63.457(n) until after
the results of the soluble BOD5 test required in paragraph
(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section are obtained. The storage requirement is
needed since the soluble BOD5 test requires 5 days or more
to obtain results. If the results of the soluble BOD5 test
are outside of the range established during the initial performance
test, then the archive sample shall be used to perform the mass removal
or percent reduction determinations.
(2) As an alternative to the monitoring requirements of paragraph
(j)(1) of this section, conduct daily monitoring of the site-specific
parameters established according to the procedures specified in
paragraph (n) of this section.
(3) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.457(l)
within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter and meet the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
(i) The performance test conducted in the first quarter (annually)
shall be performed for total HAP as specified in Sec. 63.457(g) and
meet the percent reduction or mass removal emission limit specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
(ii) The remaining quarterly performance tests shall be performed
as specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section except owners or
operators may use the applicable methanol procedure in
Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2) and the value of r determined during the first
quarter test instead of measuring the additional HAP to determine a new
value of r.
* * * * *
(n) To establish or reestablish the value for each operating
parameter required to be monitored under paragraphs (b) through (j),
(l), and (m) of this section or to establish appropriate parameters for
paragraphs (f), (i), (j)(2), and (m) of this section, each owner or
operator shall use the following procedures:
* * * * *
(p) The procedures of this paragraph apply to each owner or
operator of an open biological treatment system complying with
paragraph (j) of this section whenever a monitoring parameter excursion
occurs, and the owner or operator chooses to conduct a performance test
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit. A
monitoring parameter excursion occurs whenever the monitoring
parameters specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section or any of the monitoring parameters specified in paragraph
(j)(2) of this section are below minimum operating parameter values or
above maximum operating parameter values established in paragraph (n)
of this section.
(1) As soon as practical after the beginning of the monitoring
parameter excursion, the following requirements shall be met:
(i) Before the steps in paragraph (p)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this
section are performed, all sampling and measurements necessary to meet
the requirements in paragraph (p)(2) of this section shall be
conducted.
(ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the
process to end the parameter excursion period.
(iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
(2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable
emission standard if the results of the
[[Page 80763]]
performance test conducted using the procedures in this paragraph
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
(i) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.457 using
the monitoring data specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this
section that coincides with the time of the parameter excursion. No
maintenance or changes shall be made to the open biological treatment
system after the beginning of a parameter excursion that would
influence the results of the performance test.
(ii) If the results of the performance test specified in paragraph
(p)(2)(i) of this section demonstrate compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), then the parameter excursion is
not a violation of the applicable emission limit.
(iii) If the results of the performance test specified in paragraph
(p)(2)(i) of this section do not demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) because the total HAP
mass entering the open biological treatment system is below the level
needed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2), then the owner or operator shall perform the
following comparisons:
(A) If the value of fbio (MeOH) determined during the
performance test specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this section is
within the range of values established during the initial and
subsequent performance tests approved by the Administrator, then the
parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable standard.
(B) If the value of fbio (MeOH) determined during the
performance test specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this section is
not within the range of values established during the initial and
subsequent performance tests approved by the Administrator, then the
parameter excursion is a violation of the applicable standard.
(iv) The results of the performance test specified in paragraph
(p)(2)(i) of this section shall be recorded as specified in
Sec. 63.454(f).
(3) If an owner or operator determines that performing the required
procedures under paragraph (p)(2) of this section for a nonthoroughly
mixed open biological system would expose a worker to dangerous,
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions, all of the following
procedures shall be performed:
(i) Calculate the mass removal or percent reduction value using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) except the value for
fbio (MeOH) shall be determined using the procedures in
appendix E to this part.
(ii) Repeat the procedures in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section
for every day until the unsafe conditions have passed.
(iii) A parameter excursion is a violation of the standard if the
percent reduction or mass removal determined in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of
this section is less than the percent reduction or mass removal
standards specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), as appropriate, unless the
value of fbio (MeOH) determined using the procedures in
appendix E of this section, as specified in paragraph (p)(3)(i), is
within the range of fbio (MeOH) values established during
the initial and subsequent performance tests previously approved by the
Administrator.
(iv) The determination that there is a condition that exposes a
worker to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions shall be
documented according to requirements in Sec. 63.454(e) and reporting in
Sec. 63.455(f).
(v) The requirements of paragraphs (p)(1) and (2) of this section
shall be performed and met as soon as practical but no later than 24
hours after the conditions have passed that exposed a worker to
dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions.
7. Amend Sec. 63.454 by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.454 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.10, as shown in table 1 of this subpart, and
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator of an open nonthoroughly mixed biological
treatment system complying with Sec. 63.453(p)(3) instead of
Sec. 63.453(p)(2) shall prepare a written record identifying the
specific conditions that would expose a worker to dangerous, hazardous,
or otherwise unsafe conditions. The record must include a written
explanation of the specific reason(s) why a worker would not be able to
perform the sampling and test procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l).
(f) The owner or operator of an open biological treatment system
complying with Sec. 63.453(p) shall prepare a written record specifying
the results of the performance test specified in Sec. 63.453(p)(2).
8. Amend Sec. 63.455 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.455 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(e) If the owner or operator uses the results of the performance
test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(2) to revise the approved values or
ranges of the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(1) or
(2), the owner or operator shall submit an initial notification of the
subsequent performance test to the Administrator as soon as
practicable, but no later than 15 days, before the performance test
required in Sec. 63.453(p)(2) is scheduled to be conducted. The owner
or operator shall notify the Administrator as soon as practicable, but
no later than 24 hours, before the performance test is scheduled to be
conducted to confirm the exact date and time of the performance test.
(f) To comply with the open biological treatment system monitoring
provisions of Sec. 63.453(p)(3), the owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator as soon as practicable of the onset of the dangerous,
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions that did not allow a
compliance determination to be conducted using the sampling and test
procedures in Sec. 63.457(l). The notification shall occur no later
than 24 hours after the onset of the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise
unsafe conditions and shall include the specific reason(s) that the
sampling and test procedures in Sec. 63.457(l) could not be performed.
9. Section 63.457 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text;
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
d. Adding paragraph (c)(6);
e. Revising paragraph (g);
f. Revising paragraph (l) introductory text;
g. Revising paragraph (m)(1) introductory text;
h. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(iii);
i. Revising paragraph (m)(2) introductory text
j. Revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii) introductory text;
k. Revising paragraph (n).
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
Sec. 63.457 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures of the
test method listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section selected to
determine liquid stream HAP concentrations;
* * * * *
[[Page 80764]]
(4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the effluent stream
from an open biological treatment unit used to comply with
Secs. 63.446(e)(2) and 63.453(j), the owner or operator shall use
Method 405.1 of part 136 of this chapter with the following
modifications:
* * * * *
(5) If the test method used to determine HAP concentration
indicates that a specific HAP is not detectable, the value determined
as the minimum measurement level (MML) of the selected test method for
the specific HAP shall be used in the compliance demonstration
calculations. To determine the MML for a specific HAP using one of the
test methods specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, one of the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section
shall be performed. The MML for a particular HAP must be determined
only if the HAP is not detected in the normal working range of the
method.
(i) To determine the MML for a specific HAP, the following
procedures shall be performed each time the method is set up. Set up is
defined as the first time the analytical apparatus is placed in
operation, after any shut down of 6 months or more, or any time a major
component of the analytical apparatus is replaced.
(A) Select a concentration value for the specific HAP in question
to represent the MML. The value of the MML selected shall not be below
the calibration standard of the selected test method.
(B) Measure the concentration of the specific HAP in a minimum of
three replicate samples using the selected test method. All replicate
samples shall be run through the entire analytical procedure. The
samples must contain the specific HAP at the selected MML concentration
and should be representative of the liquid streams to be analyzed in
the compliance demonstration. Spiking of the liquid samples with a
known concentration of the target HAP may be necessary to ensure that
the HAP concentration in the three replicate samples is at the selected
MML. The concentration of the HAP in the spiked sample must be within
50 percent of the proposed MML for the demonstration to be valid. As an
alternative to spiking, a field sample above the MML may be diluted to
produce a HAP concentration at the MML. To be a valid demonstration,
the diluted sample must have a HAP concentration within 20 percent of
the proposed MML, and the field sample must not be diluted by more than
a factor of five.
(C) Calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) and the upper
confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level using the measured
HAP concentrations determined in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this
section. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30
percent, then the selected MML is acceptable. If the upper confidence
limit of the RSD is greater than or equal to 30 percent, then the
selected MML is too low, and the procedures specified in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section must be repeated.
(ii) Provide for the Administrator's approval the selected value of
the MML for a specific HAP and the rationale for selecting the MML
including all data and calculations used to determine the MML. The
approved MML must be used in all applicable compliance demonstration
calculations.
(6) When using the MML determined using the procedures in paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section or when using the MML determined using the
procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(i), except during set up, the analytical
laboratory conducting the analysis must perform and meet the following
quality assurance procedures each time a set of samples is analyzed to
determine compliance.
(i) Using the selected test method, analyze in triplicate the
concentration of the specific HAP in a representative sample. The
sample must contain the specific HAP at a concentration that is within
a factor of two of the MML. If there are no samples in the set being
analyzed that contain the specific HAP at an appropriate concentration,
then a sample below the MML may be spiked to produce the appropriate
concentration, or a sample at a higher level may be diluted. After
spiking, the sample must contain the specific HAP within 50 percent of
the MML. If dilution is used instead, the diluted sample must contain
the specific HAP within 20 percent of the MML and must not be diluted
by more than a factor of five.
(ii) Calculate the RSD using the measured HAP concentrations
determined in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section. If the RSD is less
than 20 percent, then the laboratory is performing acceptably.
* * * * *
(g) Condensate HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of
complying with the kraft pulping condensate requirements in
Sec. 63.446, the owner or operator shall measure the total HAP
concentration as methanol. For biological treatment systems complying
with Sec. 63.446(e)(2), the owner or operator shall measure total HAP
as acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde and
follow the procedures in Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2).
* * * * *
(l) Biological treatment system percent reduction and mass removal
calculations. To demonstrate compliance with the condensate treatment
standards specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(3) using a biological
treatment system, the owner or operator shall use one of the procedures
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section. Owners or
operators using a nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment system
shall also comply with paragraph (l)(3) of this section.
(1) Percent reduction methanol procedure. For the purposes of
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i), the methanol percent reduction shall be
calculated using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.039
Where:
R=percent destruction.
fbio(MeOH)=the fraction of methanol removed in the
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall
be determined using the appropriate procedures specified in appendix C
of this part.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass.
F(nonmethanol)=the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone,
and propionaldehyde mass flow rates (kg/Mg ODP) entering the biological
treatment system determined using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of
this section.
F(methanol)=the mass flow rate (kg/Mg ODP) of methanol
entering the system determined using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2)
of this section.
(2) Mass removal methanol procedure. For the purposes of complying
with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
[[Page 80765]]
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii) or (iii), the methanol mass removal shall be
calculated using the following equation:
F=Fb * (f bio(MeOH)/(1 + 1.087(r)))
Where:
F=methanol mass removal (kg/Mg ODP).
Fb=inlet mass flow rate of methanol (kg/Mg ODP) determined
using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
fbio(MeOH)=the fraction of methanol removed in the
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall
be determined using the appropriate procedures specified in appendix C
of this part.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass determined using the procedures
in paragraph (1) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator of a nonthoroughly mixed open biological
treatment system using the monitoring requirements specified in
Sec. 63.453(p)(3) shall follow the procedures specified in section
III.B.1 of appendix E of this part to determine the borate constant,
Ks, and characterize the open biological treatment system during the
initial and any subsequent performance tests.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
(iii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) is demonstrated if the condensate stream or streams
from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(1) through (3)
being treated as specified in Sec. 63.446(e) contain at least as much
total HAP mass as the target total HAP mass determined in paragraph
(m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(3), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
(ii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(3) is demonstrated if the total HAP mass determined in
paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section is equal to or greater than the
appropriate mass requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(3).
(n) Open biological treatment system monitoring sampling storage.
The inlet and outlet grab samples required to be collected in
Sec. 63.453(j)(1)(ii) shall be stored at 4 deg.C (40 deg.F) to minimize
the biodegradation of the organic compounds in the samples.
* * * * *
10. Amend Sec. 63.458 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.458 Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(iii)--Use of an alternative test method
for total HAP or methanol in wastewater.
(5) Section 63.457(c)(5)(ii)--Determination of the minimum
measurement level in liquid streams for a specific HAP using the
selected test method.
11. Add appendix E to this part to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 63--Monitoring Procedure for Nonthoroughly Mixed
Open Biological Treatment Systems at Kraft Pulp Mills Under Unsafe
Sampling Conditions
I. Purpose
This procedure is required to be performed in subpart S of this
part, entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry. Subpart S requires this
procedure in Sec. 63.453(p)(3) to be followed during unsafe sampling
conditions when it is not practicable to obtain representative
samples of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) concentrations from an
open biological treatment unit. It is assumed that inlet and outlet
HAP concentrations from the open biological treatment unit may be
obtained during the unsafe sampling conditions. The purpose of this
procedure is to estimate the concentration of HAP within the open
biological treatment unit based on information obtained at inlet and
outlet sampling locations in units that are not thoroughly mixed
and, therefore, have different concentrations of HAP at different
locations within the unit.
II. Definitions
Biological treatment unit = wastewater treatment unit designed
and operated to promote the growth of bacteria to destroy organic
materials in wastewater.
fbio =The fraction of organic compounds in the wastewater
biodegraded in a biological treatment unit.
Fe=The fraction of applicable organic compounds emitted from the
wastewater to the atmosphere.
K1=First-order biodegradation rate constant, L/g mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)-hr
KL=Liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
Ks=Monod biorate constant at half the maximum rate, g/m3
III. Test Procedure for Determination of fbio for
Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment Units Under Unsafe
Sampling Conditions
This test procedure is used under unsafe sampling conditions
that do not permit practicable sampling of open biological treatment
units within the unit itself, but rather relies on sampling at the
inlet and outlet locations of the unit. This procedure may be used
only under unsafe sampling conditions to estimate fbio.
Once the unsafe conditions have passed, then the formal compliance
demonstration procedures of fbio based upon measurements
within the open biological treatment unit must be completed.
A. Overview of Estimation Procedure
The steps in the estimation procedure include data collection,
the estimation of concentrations within the unit, and the use of
Form 1 to estimate fbio. The data collection procedure
consists of two separate components. The first data collection
component demonstrates that the open biological treatment unit can
be represented by Monod kinetics and characterizes the effectiveness
of the open biological treatment unit as part of the initial
performance test, and the second data collection component is used
when there are unsafe sampling conditions. These two data collection
components are used together in a data calculation procedure based
on a Monod kinetic model to estimate the concentrations in each zone
of the open biological treatment unit. After the first two
components of data collection are completed, the calculation
procedures are used to back estimate the zone concentrations,
starting with the last zone in the series and ending with the first
zone.
B. Data Collection Requirements
This method is based upon modeling the nonthoroughly mixed open
biological treatment unit as a series of well-mixed zones with
internal recycling between the units and assuming that two Monod
biological kinetic parameters can be used to characterize the
biological removal rates in each unit. The data collection procedure
consists of two separate components. The first data collection
component is part of the initial performance test, and the second
data collection component is used during unsafe sampling conditions.
1. Initial Performance Test
The objective of the first data collection component is to
demonstrate that the open biological treatment unit can be
represented by Monod kinetics and to characterize the performance of
the open biological treatment unit. An appropriate value of the
biorate constant, Ks, is determined using actual sampling data from
the open biological treatment unit. This is done during the initial
performance test when the open biological treatment unit is
operating under normal conditions. This specific Ks value obtained
during the initial performance test is used in the calculation
procedure to characterize the open biological treatment unit during
unsafe sampling conditions. The following open biological treatment
unit characterization
[[Page 80766]]
information is obtained from the first component of the data
collection procedure:
(1) The value of the biorate constant, Ks;
(2) The number and characteristics of each zone in the open
biological treatment unit (depth, area, characterization parameters
for surface aeration, submerged aeration rates, biomass
concentration, concentrations of organic compounds, dissolved oxygen
(DO), dissolved solids, temperature, and other relevant variables);
and
(3) The recycle ratio of internal recirculation between the
zones. The number of zones and the above characterization of the
zones are also used to determine the performance of the unit under
the unsafe sampling conditions of concern.
2. Data Collected Under Unsafe Sampling Conditions
In the second data collection component obtained under unsafe
sampling conditions, the measured inlet and outlet HAP
concentrations and the biomass concentration are obtained for the
open biological treatment unit. After the site specific data
collection is completed on the day a parameter excursion occurs, the
inlet and outlet concentrations are used with the prior open
biological treatment unit characterization to estimate the
concentrations of HAP in each zone. The following information on the
open biological treatment unit must be available in the second data
collection component:
(1) Basic unit variables such as inlet and recycle wastewater
flow rates, type of agitation, and operating conditions;
(2) The value of the inlet and outlet HAP concentrations; and
(3) The biomass concentration in the open biological treatment
unit.
C. One Time Determination of a Single Value of Ks (Initial Performance
Test)
A single value of Ks is calculated using Form 3 for each data
set that is collected during the initial performance test. A single
composite value of Ks, deemed to be representative of the biological
unit, is subsequently selected so that the fbio values
calculated by the procedures in this appendix (using this single
value of Ks) for the data sets collected during the initial
performance test are within 10 percent of the fbio value
determined by using Form 1 with these same data sets. The value of
Ks meeting these criteria is obtained by the following steps:
(1) Determine the median of the Ks values calculated for each
data set;
(2) Estimate fbio for each data set using the
selected Ks value (Form 1 and Form 2);
(3) Calculate fbio for each data set using Form 1;
and
(4) Compare the fbio values obtained in steps (2) and
(3); if the fbio value calculated using step (2) differs
from that calculated using step (3) by more than 10 percent, adjust
Ks (decrease Ks if the fbio value is lower than that
calculated by Form 1 and vice versa) and repeat this procedure
starting at step (2). If a negative value is obtained for the values
of Ks, then this negative kinetic constant may not be used with the
Monod model. If a negative value of Ks is obtained, this test
procedure cannot be used for evaluating the performance of the open
biological treatment unit.
D. Confirmation of Monod Kinetics (Initial Performance Test)
(1) Confirmation that the unit can be represented by Monod
kinetics is made by identifying the following two items:
(i) The zone methanol concentrations measured during the initial
performance test; and
(ii) The zone methanol concentrations estimated by the Multiple
Zone Concentrations Calculations Procedure based on inlet and outlet
concentrations (Column A of Form 2). For each zone, the
concentration in item 1 is compared to the concentration in item 2.
(2) For each zone, the estimated value of item 2 must be:
(i) Within 25 percent of item 1 when item 1 exceeds 8 mg/L; or
(ii) Within 2 mg/L of item 1 when item 1 is 8 mg/L or less.
(3) Successful demonstration that the calculated zone
concentrations meet these criteria must be achieved for 80 percent
of the performance test data sets.
(4) If negative values are obtained for the values of K1 and Ks,
then these negative kinetic constants may not be used with the Monod
model, even if the criteria are met. If negative values are
obtained, this test procedure cannot be used for evaluating the
performance of the open biological treatment unit.
E. Determination of KL for Each Zone (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)
(1) A site-specific liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient (KL)
must be obtained for each zone during the unsafe sampling
conditions. Do not use a default value for KL. The KL value for each
zone must be based on the site-specific parameters of the specific
unit. The first step in using this procedure is to calculate KL for
each zone in the unit using Form 4. Form 4 outlines the procedure to
follow for using mass transfer equations to determine KL. Form 4
identifies the appropriate form to use for providing the detailed
calculations to support the estimate of the value of KL. Forms 5 and
6 are used to provide individual compound estimates of KL for
quiescent and aerated impoundments, respectively. A computer model
may be used to perform the calculations. If the WATER8 model or the
most recent update to this model is used, then report the computer
model input parameters that you used as an attachment to Form 4. In
addition, the Bay Area Sewage Toxics Emission (BASTE) model, version
3.0, or equivalent upgrade and the TOXCHEM (Environment Canada's
Wastewater Technology Centre and Environmega, Ltd.) model, version
1.10, or equivalent upgrade may also be used to determine KL for the
open biological treatment unit with the following stipulations:
(i) The programs must be altered to output a KL value that is
based on the site-specific parameters of the unit modeled; and
(ii) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 must be substituted
for the existing Henry's law values in the models.
(2) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 may be obtained from
the following sources:
(i) Values listed by EPA with temperature adjustment if needed;
(ii) Measured values for the system of concern with temperature
adjustment; or
(iii) Literature values of Henry's law values for methanol,
adjusted for temperature if needed.
(3) Input values used in the model and corresponding output
values shall become part of the documentation of the fbio
determination. The owner or operator should be aware that these
models may not provide equivalent KL values for some types of units.
To obtain an equivalent KL value in this situation, the owner or
operator shall either use the appropriate procedure on Form 4 or
adjust the KL value from the model to the equivalent KL value as
described on Form 4.
(4) Report the input parameters that you used in the computer
model on Forms 5, 6, and 7 as an attachment to Form 4. If you have
submerged air flow in your unit, you must add the value of KL
estimated on Form 7 to the value of KL obtained with Forms 5 and 6
before using the value of KL with Form 2.
F. Estimation of Zone Concentrations (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)
Form 2 is used to estimate the zone concentrations of HAP based
on the inlet and outlet data. The value of Ks entered on the form is
that single composite value of Ks discussed in section III.C of this
appendix. This value of Ks is calculated during the Initial
Performance Test (and subsequently updated, if necessary). A unique
value of the biorate K1 is entered on line 5 of Form 2, and the
inlet concentration is estimated in Column A of Form 2. The inlet
concentration is located in the row of Form 2 corresponding to zone
0. If there are three zones in the system, n-3 equals 0 for the
inlet concentration row. These estimated zone concentrations are
then used in Form 1 to estimate f bio for the treatment unit.
G. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC)
A QA/QC plan outlining the procedures used to determine the
measured inlet and outlet concentrations during unsafe conditions
and how the zone characterization data were obtained during the
initial performance test shall be prepared and submitted with the
initial performance test report. The plan should include, but may
not be limited to:
(1) A description of each of the sampling methods that were used
(method, procedures, time, method to avoid losses during sampling
and holding, and sampling procedures) including simplified schematic
drawings;
(2) A description of how that biomass was sampled from the
biotreatment unit, including methods, locations, and times;
(3) A description of what conditions (DO, temperature, etc.) are
important, what the target values are in the zones, how the factors
were controlled, and how they were monitored. These conditions are
primarily used to establish that the conditions of the initial
performance test correspond to the conditions of the day in
question;
(4) A description of how each analytical measurement was
conducted, including
[[Page 80767]]
preparation of solutions, dilution procedures, sampling procedures,
monitoring of conditions, etc;
(5) A description of the analytical instrumentation used, how
the instruments were calibrated, and a summary of the accuracy and
precision for each instrument;
(6) A description of the test methods used to determine HAP
concentrations and other measurements. Section 63.457(c)(3)
specifies the test methods that must be used to determine HAP
concentrations. During unsafe sampling conditions, you do not have
to sample over an extended period of time or obtain more than one
sample at each sample point.
(7) A description of how data are captured, recorded, and
stored; and
(8) A description of the equations used and their solutions for
sampling and analysis, including a reference to any software used
for calculations and/or curve-fitting.
IV. Calculation of Individual fbio (Unsafe Sampling
Conditions)
Use Form 1 with your zone concentration information to estimate
the value of f bio under unsafe sampling conditions. Form 1 uses
measured concentrations of HAP in the unit inlet and outlet, and
Form 1 also uses the estimated concentrations in each zone of the
unit obtained from Form 2. This procedure may be used on an open
biological treatment unit that has defined zones within the unit.
Use Form 1 to determine fbio for each open biological
treatment unit as it exists under subpart S of part 63. The first
step in using Form 1 is to calculate KL for each zone in the unit
using Form 4. Form 7 must also be used if submerged aeration is
used. After KL is determined using field data, obtain the
concentrations of the HAP in each zone. In this alternative
procedure for unsafe sampling conditions, the actual measured
concentrations of the HAP in each zone are replaced with the zone
concentrations that are estimated with Form 2. After KL and the zone
concentrations are determined, Form 1 is used to estimate the
overall unit Fe and fbio for methanol.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
[[Page 80768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.040
[[Page 80769]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.041
[[Page 80770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.042
[[Page 80771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.043
[[Page 80772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.044
[[Page 80773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.045
[[Page 80774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.046
[[Page 80775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.048
[[Page 80776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.049
[FR Doc. 00-32028 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C