[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3907-3936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1058]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6523-8]
RIN 2060-AH74
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule amendments and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA issued a final rule (63 FR
18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from the pulp and paper production source category. That rule
(known as the Pulp and Paper national emission standard for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) or 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). In this action, we are
proposing to amend certain passages
[[Page 3908]]
of regulatory text in the 1998 pulp and paper NESHAP by adding
equivalent compliance alternatives. These proposed amendments do not
change the level of control or compromise the environmental protection
achieved by the 1998 pulp and paper NESHAP. We are reopening the public
comment period for comment only on the amendments proposed in today's
action. We are proposing amendments to the pulping process vent
standards and the biological treatment system standards to address
technical issues identified after promulgation. Also, drafting errors
identified after promulgation are being corrected in today's action.
DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments regarding these proposed
amendments on or before March 10, 2000.
Public Hearing.A public hearing regarding the proposed amendments
will be held if requests to speak are received by the EPA by February
7, 2000. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on
February 11, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit written comments (in duplicate, if
possible) to Docket No. A-92-40 at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to
Mr. Stephen Shedd at the address listed below.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-40 contains supporting information for this
proposed action and the prior promulgated and proposed amendments to
the 1998 NESHAP and is available for inspection and copying between
8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541-5397, and e-mail at
``[email protected]''. For questions on compliance and applicability
determinations, contact Mr. Seth Heminway, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assessment (2223A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7017 and e-
mail at ``[email protected]'.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this proposed action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC code NAICS code 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
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated
by this action, you must carefully examine the applicability criteria
in part 63, subparts A and S of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
is a network of electronic bulletin boards for the EPA. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. Information regarding the basis and purpose of this
proposed action, the rule, and other relevant documents can be found on
the pulp and paper page of EPA's TTN Unified Air Toxics World Wide Web
site (UATW) at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html''. For
more information on the TTN, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by the required
date (see DATES section in this document), the public hearing will be
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle
Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring
as to whether a hearing will be held should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins,
Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5671. The record for the hearing will
remain open for 30 days after the hearing date to provide an
opportunity for submittal of rebuttal and additional information.
In accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act, EPA will hold a
public hearing, if requested, to discuss the proposed amendments. If a
public hearing is held, the EPA may ask clarifying questions during the
oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations or
comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the
public may file a written statement (see DATES and ADDRESSES). The EPA
will consider written statements and supporting information with
equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information
subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking.
The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rule development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of
the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that you can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket except for certain interagency
documents will serve as the record in case of judicial review. (See
section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
Outline. Information on the proposed amendments is organized as
follows:
I. Description of the Proposed Amendments
A. Introduction
B. Is a performance test required for boilers that introduce HAP
emission streams with the combustion air (Sec. 63.443(d))?
C. Biological Treatment System Standards
1. Introduction for Proposed Amendments
2. Can a finite list of HAPs be used in demonstrating compliance
for biological treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?
3. Given the finite number of HAPs in regulated condensates,
what is the appropriate emission standard for biological treatment
systems (Sec. 63.446(e))?
4. What minimum measurement level should be used in analyzing
total HAPs in liquid streams (Sec. 63.457(c))?
D. Biological Treatment System Performance Test Requirements
1. Introduction
2. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct a performance
demonstration for a biological treatment system (Sec. 63.457(l))?
3. What procedures must be followed to determine the fraction of
compounds degraded in nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment
systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?
E. Open Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements
1. Introduction
[[Page 3909]]
2. May a mill use site-specific monitoring parameters for open
biological treatment systems instead of the parameters specified in
the final rule (Sec. 63.453(j))?
3. In the event of a parameter excursion, must I conduct in-zone
sampling of nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment systems
when unsafe conditions exist (Sec. 63.453)?
4. Are the biological treatment system monitoring requirements
applicable to both open and closed biological treatment systems
(Sec. 63.453)?
5. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct daily compliance
monitoring for open biological treatment systems (Sec. 63.453(j))?
6. Do I still have to conduct the first quarter compliance tests
for total HAPs (Sec. 63.453(j))?
7. May I use monitoring parameter values recorded during a
compliance monitoring test to expand the established parameter
operating range (Sec. 63.455(e))?
F. Drafting Error Corrections
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultations and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
I. Description of the Proposed Amendments
A. Introduction
The Pulp and Paper NESHAP was promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR
18504) and was codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. Since
promulgation, the rule has been amended by four Federal Register
notices (63 FR 42238, 63 FR 49455, 63 FR 71385, and 64 FR 17555) to
correct minor drafting errors and inadvertent omissions, clarify the
intent of the final rule, and provide technical amendments. The above
promulgated rule and amendments are hereafter referred to as the
``final rule'' in this preamble. Today, we are proposing additional
changes to the final rule that affect the compliance demonstration for
combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases and for
biological treatment systems used to treat pulping condensates. The
equivalent compliance alternatives proposed in today's amendments do
not change the level of control or compromise the environmental
protection achieved by the final rule. We are reopening the comment
period for comments only on the amendments proposed in today's action.
Following promulgation, we received comments from the industry
regarding the pulping process vent and condensate standards. The
comments focused on performance testing requirements for combustion
devices used to control HAP vent gas streams, and the monitoring and
test methods used for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance
using biological treatment systems.
We have evaluated the comments and decided to propose amendments to
the final rule to address the issues raised by the commenters. For the
pulping process vent standards for kraft, soda, and semi-chemical
mills, we are proposing to remove the requirement, in some cases, to
conduct an initial performance test or continuous temperature
monitoring of the control device.
For biological treatment systems, we are proposing several changes.
Under the proposed amendments, you would be allowed to use an optional
format of the emission limit, expressed as a minimum HAP mass removal,
and to use four specific HAPs as a surrogate for total HAPs. We are
also proposing to allow you to determine site-specific monitoring
parameters for open biological treatment systems as an alternative to
using the parameters specified in the final rule. Additionally, we are
proposing new test procedures, including special monitoring procedures,
for nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment systems.
The rationale for the proposed amendments is presented in the
following sections. The rationale for each change is presented in a
question and answer format.
B. Is a Performance Test Required for Boilers That Introduce HAP
Emission Streams With the Combustion Air (Sec. 63.443(d))?
We are proposing to remove the requirement for conducting an
initial performance test in some cases. The pulping process vent
requirement being proposed today (Sec. 63.443(d)(4)) eliminates the
initial performance test and continuous temperature monitoring if HAP
vent gases are introduced with the combustion air into a boiler or
recovery furnace with a heat input capacity greater than or equal to 44
megawatts (MW)(150 million British thermal units per hour, Btu/hr).
In the final rule, one option for controlling HAP emission streams
from kraft, soda, and semi-chemical pulping systems is to route the
streams to a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace
(Sec. 63.443(d)(4)). The final rule does not require you to conduct an
initial performance test or continuously monitor the operating
temperature of the combustion unit if the HAP emission stream enters
the unit with the primary fuel or enters directly into the flame zone.
Following promulgation, we received comments indicating that
pulping vent gases are typically controlled in boilers and recovery
furnaces by mixing the vent gases with the combustion air (not
introduced directly into the flame zone). The commenters stated that
conducting an initial performance test on these combustion devices to
demonstrate compliance with the standard would not be reasonable due to
the large volume of air flow through these devices. The commenters
requested that the initial performance test requirement for these
boilers be removed from the final rule.
We have reviewed the performance of combustion devices used to
control HAP emissions and found that many standards allow boilers with
heat input capacities greater than or equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/
hr) to control HAP emission streams without conducting an initial
performance test. The supporting information (``Reactor Processes in
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--Background
Information for Promulgated Standards,'' EPA-450/3-90-016b, March 1993)
shows that ``large'' boilers with heat input capacities greater than or
equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) are typically operated at
temperatures and residence times exceeding the levels needed to achieve
at least 98 percent reduction of HAPs (as required in the final rule
(Sec. 63.443(d)(1))) when the HAP gases are introduced with the
combustion air. In contrast, boilers with heat input capacities less
than 44 MW are generally not operated at levels that would ensure at
least 98 percent HAP reduction unless the HAP emission stream is
introduced with the primary fuel or into the flame zone. Using this
same rationale, the National Emission Standard for Organic HAP from
Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater
(subpart G of part 63), the NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (subpart CC
of part 63), and several other NESHAP allow these large boilers to be
used to control HAP emission streams without conducting an initial
performance test and without monitoring operating temperature if the
HAP emission streams are introduced with the combustion air, with the
primary fuel, or into the flame zone.
Consequently, we are proposing to amend the vent control
requirements for kraft, soda, and semi-chemical pulping mills to
eliminate the initial performance test and continuous monitoring
requirements if you
[[Page 3910]]
introduce the regulated HAP emission streams with the combustion air
into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity greater
than or equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr). However, an initial
performance test and continuous monitoring of the operating temperature
are required if you introduce the HAP emission streams with the
combustion air into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input
capacity less than 44 MW. Lime kilns must demonstrate compliance with
the final rule by introducing HAP emission streams with the primary
fuel or into the flame zone because we do not have any data that show
lime kilns can achieve 98 percent destruction by introducing the HAP
emission streams by any other means.
Although an initial performance test and continuous monitoring are
not required for these large boilers, you must design and operate the
closed-vent system according to the requirements specified in the final
rule (Sec. 63.450) and conduct the periodic visual inspections and leak
detection tests (Sec. 63.453) of the closed-vent system components. You
must record the results of these inspections and tests and comply with
the reporting requirements (Sec. 63.455) of the final rule. Also, you
must keep records of the boiler or recovery furnace downtime
(Sec. 63.10(c)(8)) to demonstrate compliance with the excess emission
allowance standards (Sec. 63.443(e)).
C. Biological Treatment System Standards
1. Introduction for Proposed Amendments
One of the options for complying with the pulping condensate
standards in the final rule is to discharge the applicable condensates
below the liquid surface of a biological treatment system that achieves
92 percent reduction of total HAPs. Following promulgation, commenters
raised several compliance issues associated with using biological
treatment systems to comply with the condensate standards. The
commenters were concerned that they would have difficulty demonstrating
a 92 percent reduction of total HAPs in biological treatment systems.
Therefore, they requested the flexibility to use the mass removal
option, which is allowed for other treatment devices. The commenters
also stated that their analytical labs were having difficulty using
Method 305 to evaluate condensate samples for total HAP compounds. The
commenters stated their belief that the number of measurable HAPs in
the regulated condensate streams is very limited, and that testing for
a specific list of HAPs would reduce the complexity and cost compliance
testing. The commenters recommended a specific list of HAPs to measure
in biological treatment systems. Additionally, in meetings with
industry representatives after promulgation, it was identified that
some biological treatment systems used in the industry were not
thoroughly mixed. Therefore, the performance tests procedures in the
final rule, which were established for thoroughly mixed systems, are
not appropriate in all cases for nonthoroughly mixed systems.
Since promulgation, several meetings between the EPA and industry
representatives were held to discuss these issues. We have reviewed the
comments and information obtained during these meetings and decided to
propose amendments to the final rule to address these concerns.
2. Can a Finite List of HAPs be Used in Demonstrating Compliance for
Biological Treatment Systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?
We have found that the regulated condensate streams contain a
finite number of measurable HAPs. Today's proposed action amends the
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(l)) to specify that
only four HAP compounds (acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone,
and propionaldehyde) are to be measured to determine compliance with
all biological treatment standards, instead of measuring for all 188
HAP compounds.
The final rule (Sec. 63.457(g)) requires measurement of the total
HAPs for mills that comply with the condensate standards using a
biological treatment system. At promulgation of the final rule, we had
limited data on the speciation profile of total HAPs in regulated
condensate streams. We needed additional data to establish a specific
list of the 188 HAPs for compliance testing.
To support the development of a specific list of HAPs, the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI), submitted to EPA a study (Hazardous Air Pollutants Present in
Kraft Mill Condensates and Their Significance for the Hard-piping
Option Under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), December
1998) (Docket No. A-92-40) of the condensate streams contained in steam
stripper feed tanks at eight mills. They sampled condensates in steam
stripper feed tanks since these are the same condensates that the final
rule regulates. We gave NCASI a list of 108 volatile HAPs to be
evaluated in the study. This list specifies the HAPs that volatilize
most readily from biological treatment systems. The NCASI used a test
method with a nominal detection limit between 0.5 and 1 part per
million by weight (ppmw) to analyze the steam stripper feed tank
contents. This detection limit was selected because the final rule
(Sec. 63.457(j)(4)) specifies those HAP compounds with concentrations
at the point of determination that are either below 1 ppmw or below the
detection limit are not required to be included in the total HAP
compliance demonstrations.
The NCASI data report that the HAP compounds with concentrations
greater than 1 ppmw in regulated condensate streams are methanol,
methyl ethyl ketone, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. Methanol
accounts for approximately 98.5 percent of the total HAP mass with
acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde accounting for
the remaining 1.5 percent.
We have reviewed the test methods and sampling procedures used in
the NCASI study and concur that the methods and procedures were
appropriate. We have also reviewed the criteria used by NCASI for
selecting the condensate streams to be analyzed, and we agree that the
condensate streams sampled are representative of the range of
condensate streams found at kraft mills. Therefore, we agree that
acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde
account for the total of HAP compounds in the regulated condensate
streams. Identifying a specific list of HAPs will achieve the EPA's and
industry's goal of reducing the performance testing and monitoring
burden without reducing the emission reductions achieved by the final
rule. Today's proposal amends the test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457(l)) of the final rule to specify that the HAPs in the
regulated condensate streams are determined by measuring acetaldehyde,
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde.
3. Given the Finite Number of HAPs in Regulated Condensates, What is
the Appropriate Emission Standard for Biological Treatment Systems
(Sec. 63.446(e))?
In today's action, we are proposing to amend the test methods and
procedures section of the final rule to add a mass standard and two
alternative compliance procedures for biological treatment systems. The
two alternative procedures require sending additional condensates to
the biological treatment
[[Page 3911]]
system by calculating the standards on an individual HAP or methanol
basis. These proposed revisions to the emission standards and test
methods and procedures sections of the final rule are necessary to
implement the reduced list of HAPs in condensates, discussed earlier in
section I.C.2 of this preamble, and to simplify the testing and
monitoring procedures for biological treatment systems.
Since promulgation, we held several meetings with industry
representatives to discuss ways to simplify the testing and monitoring
procedures for demonstrating compliance of biological treatment
systems, considering the condensate speciation data submitted after
promulgation (see section I.C.2 of this preamble). Industry
representatives suggested that mills be allowed to conduct the initial
performance and subsequent compliance monitoring tests only for the
major HAP constituent of the regulated condensates, methanol. Industry
representatives also requested that they be allowed to comply with the
mass removal standard, kilograms of total HAPs per megagram of oven-
dried pulp, which is allowed for steam strippers.
We have considered the data and industry comments and decided to
propose a mass standard and two alternative compliance procedures in
today's action. We believe a mass removal standard is appropriate (as
an alternative to the current percent reduction standard) for
biological systems since we established one for steam strippers and it
provides equivalent environmental protection. To establish the level of
the mass standard for biological treatment units to be equivalent to
steam strippers, adjustments needed to be made to the proposed mass and
current percent reduction standards for biological treatment units. We
believe that the mass standard should be set at the current level of
the standard and the test procedures should be adjusted to address the
proposed list of HAPs (only four HAPs instead of all 188 HAP
compounds). In meetings following promulgation, the industry
representatives recommended only testing for methanol which is the
major HAP constituent in the regulated condensates. During those
meetings, we reiterated that steam strippers operating at a 92 percent
efficiency to remove methanol, also removed nearly all of the other
volatile HAP compounds (see the preamble to the final rule, 63 FR
18524). However, in biological treatment units, the amount of
biodegradation of those nonmethanol HAP compounds is less than for
methanol. To balance this difference, we are proposing two alternative
procedures that require additional condensate to be sent to the
biological treatment system. These two procedures require you to
measure the four HAPs and comply with the current percent reduction or
proposed mass standard on either an individual HAP or methanol basis,
as discussed in the following sections.
A. Individual HAP procedure. The condensate control options in the
final rule were developed based on the performance of a steam stripper
achieving 92 percent reduction of methanol. We have determined that a
steam stripper operating at 92 percent reduction of methanol achieves
at least 99 percent reduction of the other HAP compounds (acetaldehyde,
methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde) in the regulated condensates
(determination contained in Docket No. A-92-40). Thus, we are setting
the percent reduction standard at 92 percent for methanol and 99
percent for acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde.
For the mass standard, we calculated the required mass removal that
is equivalent to those percent reduction levels. To set the mass
standard for each compound, we used the required mass removal of
methanol (10.2 and 6.6 pounds of methanol per oven-dried ton of pulp
(lb/ODTP)) and the average composition of the four HAP compounds found
in the NCASI testing discussed earlier in section I.C.2 of this
preamble. For mills that perform bleaching, the mass standard is 10.2
lb/ODTP for methanol, 0.104 lb/ODTP for acetaldehyde, 0.052 lb/ODTP for
methyl ethyl ketone, and 0.010 lb/ODTP for propionaldehyde. For mills
that do not perform bleaching, the mass standard is 6.6 lb/ODTP for
methanol, 0.067 lb/ODTP for acetaldehyde, 0.034 lb/ODTP for methyl
ethyl ketone, and 0.0067 lb/ODTP for propionaldehyde.
B. Methanol procedure. Industry requested the second procedure
proposed in today's action to simplify testing requirements and reduce
the complications in analyzing HAP compounds which are present in low
concentrations in the regulated condensates. As discussed earlier, this
is an alternative approach to balance the difference in HAP removal
efficiencies between steam strippers and biological treatment systems
while allowing mills to demonstrate compliance by measuring only
methanol. Sending additional condensate to the biological treatment
system achieves this balance. In meetings following promulgation,
industry representatives suggested a procedure for determining an
estimate of the required amount of additional condensate HAP mass that
you must send to the biological treatment system. Under this concept,
you would assume that a steam stripper complying with the condensate
standards is achieving 92 percent reduction of methanol and 100 percent
reduction of all other HAP compounds present in the regulated
condensates.
For example, assume that a hypothetical bleached kraft mill
determines that the regulated condensates contain 90 percent methanol.
If the mill sends 12 lb/ODTP of methanol to a steam stripper, then the
mill is also sending 1.3 lb/ODTP of nonmethanol HAPs. If the steam
stripper achieves 92 percent reduction of methanol and 100 percent
removal of nonmethanol HAPs, then the steam stripper would be achieving
a total HAP removal of 12.3 lb/ODTP. If you make the conservative
assumption that biological treatment systems do not achieve any
degradation of nonmethanol HAP compounds, then the mill using a
biological treatment system would need to remove 12.3 lb/ODTP of
methanol. Under this concept, we would require a mill using a steam
stripper to remove 10.2 lb/ODTP of methanol to comply with the
standard, while we would require a mill using a biological treatment
system to remove 11.4 lb/ODTP of methanol to comply with the standard.
We agree with the industry representatives that this approach
provides an alternative to the individual HAP approach discussed
earlier (section I.C.3.A of this preamble). Under this second
alternative procedure in today's proposed action, you measure the mass
of the four HAPs in the regulated condensates entering the biological
treatment system and determine the ratio of nonmethanol HAP mass to
methanol mass. Compliance with the percent reduction or proposed mass
removal standard is then determined using that ratio and the
appropriate procedures in appendix C of part 63, using methanol
measurements instead of measurements for all four HAPs in the
condensate streams.
In today's action, we are proposing to amend the kraft pulping
process condensate standards (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)) to specify that
biological treatment systems may be used to comply with the proposed
mass removal and percent reduction requirements, using either the
individual HAP or methanol procedure. Additionally, we are proposing to
revise the test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(g) and (l))
of the final rule to include the alternative procedures for
[[Page 3912]]
demonstrating compliance for biological treatment systems.
4. What Minimum Measurement Level Should Be Used in Analyzing Total
HAPs in Liquid Streams (Sec. 63.457(c))?
You must use the procedure proposed in today's action to determine
the minimum measurement level (MML) of a specific HAP for the liquid
stream test method that you select to demonstrate compliance. Also, you
must use this MML value in all compliance calculations if the test
method does not detect a value at or below the MML. Today's proposed
action amends the test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c))
of the final rule to add two alternative procedures to determine the
MML.
The final rule and the amendments proposed in today's action
require kraft mills to determine the HAP or methanol concentration in
liquid streams (e.g., steam stripper outlet or biological treatment
system inlet or outlet) to demonstrate compliance with the condensate
standards. Following promulgation, commenters stated that there could
be some cases where the concentration of a particular HAP may be too
low to quantify using a given test method. Consequently, the commenters
stated that because the compliance demonstration calculations for the
percent reduction, mass removal, and control device outlet
concentration treatment options require a HAP concentration, an MML was
needed.
We have evaluated the comments and decided to propose in today's
action two alternative procedures to determine the MML that you must
use in compliance calculations. Also, a quality assurance procedure is
being proposed in today's action that must be followed for either
alternative, in addition to the quality assurance procedures required
in Sec. 63.7(c) of the NESHAP general provisions. These procedures were
developed by EPA's testing group and industry representatives to
provide you with flexibility in determining the appropriate MML. The
two alternative procedures are: (1) a procedure for each analytical
laboratory to follow to determine the MML for each test method setup,
and (2) a procedure to follow if a group chooses to collect sufficient
data to determine the MML for a given test method.
In the first procedure for determining the MML of a particular HAP
using one of the test methods specified in the Sec. 63.457(c)(3) of the
final rule, you must perform the following procedures each time that
the analytical equipment for the test method is set up: (1) assume a
concentration that you believe represents the MML; (2) measure the
concentration in a minimum of three replicate samples that contain the
target HAP at the MML concentration, using the selected test method;
and (3) calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) and the upper
confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level of the resulting
concentration values, using the assumed MML as the mean.
In the first step of this procedure, you must assume a
concentration value for the particular HAP in question (e.g.,
acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, or propionaldehyde) that
you believe represents the MML. However, the MML chosen must not be
below the calibration standard of the selected test method.
In the second step of this procedure, you must measure the
concentration of the target HAP in a minimum of three replicate
condensate samples, using the selected test method. All replicate
condensate samples must be run through the entire analytical procedure.
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
samples is at the MML.
In the final step of this procedure, you must calculate the RSD and
the upper confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level, using
the measured HAP concentrations determined in step 2 of the procedure.
If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 percent, then
the selected MML is acceptable, and this MML value would be established
for the laboratory's analytical equipment setup and procedure used in
this analysis. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is greater than
or equal to 30 percent, then the selected MML is too low and a higher
MML must be selected.
In the second procedure proposed in today's action, a group (e.g.,
company or trade association) would determine the MML and present
supporting data to demonstrate, to the EPA's satisfaction, that the
selected MML is appropriate. To support the selected MML, enough data
would need to be collected from different laboratories to demonstrate
that the appropriate MML for a particular test method and specific HAP
was determined. Once EPA approval is obtained, then the MML value would
be established, and this value would be used in compliance
demonstration calculations. Also, any laboratory may use the MML value
provided that the proper quality assurance procedures are followed,
including the quality assurance procedures discussed in the following
paragraph.
Once the MML has been determined using one of the alternative
procedures, the analytical laboratory that you choose to conduct the
initial performance test analysis must also follow the quality
assurance procedure proposed in today's action to demonstrate that they
are performing the test method correctly. The proposed quality
assurance procedure specifies that the analytical laboratory must
measure the concentration of the target HAP in a minimum of three
replicate condensate samples using the selected test method. The upper
confidence limit of the RSD at the 95 percent confidence level
determined using the measured HAP concentrations must be less than 30
percent. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is greater than or
equal to 30 percent, then the test method is not being performed
correctly. If you have not met the quality assurance procedure, then
the analytical equipment must be corrected, and you must repeat the
quality assurance procedure until met.
Today's action proposes to amend the test methods and procedures
section (Sec. 63.457(c)) of the final rule to (1) specify that the MML
must be used in compliance demonstrations if the selected test method
indicates nondetect for a specific HAP, and (2) to include the
procedures for determining the MML. In today's proposed action, we are
also amending the delegation of authority section (Sec. 63.458) of the
final rule to specify that the procedure for obtaining EPA approval of
the demonstrated MML is not delegated to the States.
D. Biological Treatment System Performance Test Requirements
1. Introduction
At promulgation, the only treatment option available for biological
treatment systems was the percent reduction option. Today's proposed
amendments allow mills to use biological treatment systems to comply
with the condensate standard mass removal requirements and to use four
specific HAPS as a surrogate for total HAPS. Consequently, these
proposed amendments alter the procedures for conducting performance
tests of biological treatment systems.
2. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct a performance
demonstration for a biological treatment system (Sec. 63.457(l))?
To conduct a performance test of an open or closed biological
treatment system, you would first measure the mass of the four specific
HAPs entering the biological treatment system. The
[[Page 3913]]
subsequent compliance procedures would differ depending on if you are
complying with the proposed percent reduction or mass removal treatment
options.
For biological treatment systems, table 1 presents a summary of the
proposed performance test requirements including those in today's
action. Briefly, to conduct a performance test of a biological
treatment system, you would measure the mass of the four HAPs in the
regulated condensates entering the biological treatment system. Then
you determine the fraction of compounds that are biodegraded
(fbio) in the biological treatment system, using the
appropriate procedures in appendix C of part 63. Using the inlet mass
of the four HAP compounds and the value of fbio, you would
demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction or mass removal
treatment options on an individual HAP or methanol basis using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l).
Table 1.--Summary of the Performance Test Procedures for Biological Treatment Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determine the fraction of HAP compounds Demonstrate compliance with
Determine the inlet and outlet HAP mass degraded in the biological treatment the condensate standards
flow rates by-- system using-- using--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring the volumetric flow rate of the The inlet and outlet concentration The individual HAP percent
liquid streams entering and exiting the procedure (procedure 3) in appendix C reduction or mass removal
treatment system using the procedures of part 63, for thoroughly mixed procedures specified in
specified in Sec. 63.457(c)(2), systems, or Sec. 63.457(l) (1) and
(2), or
Measuring the concentration of The multiple zone concentration The methanol percent
acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl measurements procedure (procedure 5) in reduction or mass removal
ketone, and propionaldehyde in the appendix C of part 63, for procedures specified in
liquid streams using one of the test nonthoroughly mixed systems. Sec. 63.457(l) (3) and
methods specified in Sec. 63.457(c)(3), (4).
and
Calculating the individual HAP mass flow
rates using the equations specified in
Sec. 63.457(j).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After promulgation of the final rule, a few mills said that they
intended to use closed biological treatment systems (both aerobic and
anaerobic systems) to comply with the kraft pulping process condensate
standards. The mill representatives have mentioned multiple types of
systems, however, we have not received any specific information
detailing system designs or how they would conduct the performance
demonstration for a closed biological treatment system. Consequently,
we cannot amend the final rule to specifically address closed
biological treatment systems, and we believe that setting one procedure
for a few systems with varying designs would be impractical. Typically,
closed biological treatment systems would need to test all inlets and
outlets and demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission
standard and demonstrate appropriate continuous compliance monitoring
procedures. Appendix C of part 63 contains test procedures that can be
used for most known designs of closed systems. If the design of the
systems mentioned by industry representatives meets the calculation
procedures of appendix C, then you could use appendix C procedures. For
other designs, you must present for EPA approval the design of the
system and a test and monitoring plan. The above information is
provided for discussion purposes only, and we are not requesting or
taking comment or planning to propose test procedures for all designs
of closed biological treatment systems in this proposal or comment
period.
3. What Procedures Must Be Followed To Determine the Fraction of
Compounds Degraded in Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment
Systems (Sec. 63.457(1))?
We plan to propose in the near future a new procedure for
calculating the site-specific fraction of organic compounds biodegraded
in nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment systems (or units)
under a separate action. This new procedure, called the Multiple Mixing
Zone Concentration Measurements Procedure, will be proposed as an
addition to appendix C of part 63.
The performance test and monitoring procedures in the final rule
for open biological treatment systems were developed under the
presumption that all biological treatment systems at kraft mills would
be thoroughly mixed systems, and that the Inlet and Outlet
Concentration Measurement Procedure in appendix C of part 63 would be
the most appropriate procedure for you to use to determine the
performance of the open biological treatment system at pulp mills.
However, the Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurement Procedure is
not appropriate for evaluating the performance of nonthoroughly mixed
biological treatment systems. In meetings with industry representatives
following promulgation, it was identified that the biological treatment
systems at most mills do not meet the criteria (uniform biomass
distribution and organic compound concentrations) for thoroughly mixed
systems. Consequently, another procedure is needed because appendix C
of part 63 does not contain a concentration measurement procedure for
modeling nonthoroughly mixed systems.
The soon-to-be proposed amendments to appendix C of part 63 will
include a concentration measurement procedure for determining fbio
in nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment systems. A draft copy of
these soon-to-be proposed procedures is contained in the docket for
today's proposed action (see the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION sections at the beginning of this preamble for docket
information). In developing the new procedure, we worked with industry
representatives, including NCASI. The new procedure, Multiple Zone
Concentration Measurements--Procedure 5, specifies the biological
treatment system information that you must have to use the new
procedure.
Additionally, there are two documents (``Technical Support Document
for Evaluation of Thoroughly Mixed Biological Treatment Units'' and the
``Technical Support Document for the Evaluation of Aerobic Biological
Treatment Units with Multiple Mixing Zones'') that provide technical
information on how to determine if a biological treatment system is
thoroughly mixed and how to evaluate the performance of a nonthoroughly
mixed biological treatment system using multiple mixing zones. The
first document is available from the public
[[Page 3914]]
docket and from the pulp and paper page of EPA's TTN UATW at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html''. The second document is near
completion and will also be available at the pulp and paper page of the
UATW at the address listed above, and a copy of the latest draft is
contained in the public docket.
E. Open Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements
1. Introduction
The monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)) in the final rule
require mills using an open biological treatment system to conduct
daily parameter monitoring and quarterly performance tests. The
parameter values must be established during a performance test.
Whenever a parameter excursion occurs, you can conduct a performance
test of the open biological treatment system to demonstrate that the
system is in compliance with the applicable emission limit even though
a parameter exceedance occurred. Quarterly performance tests must be
conducted for total HAPs in the first quarter, however the tests may be
conducted for methanol in the remaining quarters.
After promulgation, several issues were identified regarding the
monitoring requirements for open biological treatment systems. In
today's action, we are proposing the following changes to address the
issues:
Allowing you to determine site-specific monitoring
parameters for biological treatment systems;
Providing an alternative procedure for estimating the
fraction of organic compounds degraded in a nonthoroughly mixed
biological treatment system during unsafe sampling conditions;
Clarifying the monitoring requirements for open versus
closed biological treatment systems;
Removing the requirement to test for total HAPs in the
first quarter performance test; and
Specifying the period for notifying the Administrator if
you intend to use data collected during a performance test to expand
the allowable range of a monitoring parameter.
The proposed amendments are discussed in sections I.E.2 through I.E.7
of this preamble.
2. May a Mill Use Site-Specific Monitoring Parameters for Open
Biological Treatment Systems Instead of the Parameters Specified in the
Final Rule (Sec. 63.453(j))?
Today's action proposes to amend the final rule to specify that
mills may establish site-specific monitoring parameters for open
biological treatment systems. The mill must conduct a performance test
to demonstrate that the monitoring parameters are appropriate to
determine continuous compliance with the applicable emission standard.
The monitoring parameters and the operating ranges that demonstrate
continuous compliance must be approved by the permit authority.
The final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)) requires daily monitoring of outlet
soluble biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration and
other system operating parameters. Additionally, you must collect and
archive inlet and outlet grab samples. The grab samples must be used to
demonstrate compliance if the soluble (BOD5), mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), or the aerator horsepower monitoring
parameters fall outside the range established during the initial
performance test.
After promulgation, commenters indicated that the monitoring
parameters in the final rule might not be appropriate for all open
biological treatment systems, especially for nonthoroughly mixed
systems. The commenters requested that the final rule be revised to
give mills the flexibility to monitor different parameters for open
biological treatment systems on a case-by-case basis.
We agree that in some circumstances operating parameters other than
those specified in the final rule may provide assurance that continuous
compliance with the emission limits is being achieved for nonthoroughly
mixed systems. The monitoring requirements in the final rule were
established under the presumption that all biological treatment systems
in the pulp and paper industry were thoroughly mixed and would,
therefore, use the inlet and outlet procedure in appendix C of part 63
to determine the performance of the system. However, for nonthoroughly
mixed biological treatment systems, the treatment unit must be divided
into mixing zones, and concentration monitoring must be conducted
within each zone.
In today's action, we are proposing to add a new paragraph to the
open biological treatment system monitoring requirements
(Sec. 63.453(j)(2)) that would allow mills the option to determine
site-specific monitoring parameters. The site-specific monitoring
parameters must be developed based on a performance test and must be
approved by the Administrator using the procedures specified in the
final rule (Sec. 63.453(n)). In Sec. 63.453(n), the final rule
specifies that you must conduct a performance test to determine the
appropriate parameters to be monitored continuously and corresponding
parameter values. The rationale and supporting documentation for the
parameter selection must also be provided for the Administrator's
approval. The Administrator in this case is the delegated
implementation and enforcement State authority.
3. In the Event of a Parameter Excursion, Must I Conduct In-Zone
Sampling of Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment Systems When
Unsafe Conditions Exist (Sec. 63.453)?
No. Today's proposed amendments contain a modeling procedure that
can be used until such time as the unsafe conditions pass and in-zone
sampling and a full performance test can be conducted. The alternative
modeling procedure is proposed as appendix E of part 63--Test Procedure
for Nonthoroughly Mixed Biological Treatment Units at Kraft Pulp Mills
Under Unsafe Sampling Conditions. In addition, today's action proposes
conforming amendments to the monitoring requirements section
(Sec. 63.453(p)(1)). An amendment to the recordkeeping requirements
(Sec. 63.454(e)) section of the final rule is also being proposed to
require you to maintain descriptions of the unsafe conditions that
would warrant the use of the modeling procedure.
The kraft pulping process condensate standards of the final rule
require periodic performance testing of open biological treatment
systems that are used as control devices. During discussions following
promulgation, industry representatives noted that there are times when
sampling and monitoring of multizone biological treatment systems would
expose workers to unsafe conditions. Examples of unsafe conditions
provided by industry representatives include: weather conditions (e.g.,
high wind, fog, lightning, heavy rain, hail storm, sleet, and snow);
lack of outdoor lighting; availability of boats; personnel
availability; heavy foam layer; and high hydrogen sulfide
concentration.
Industry representatives requested that when unsafe conditions
occur they be able to use a modeling approach (proposed as appendix E
of part 63) developed by NCASI that approximates the total HAP or
methanol concentrations within the mixing zones of a biological
treatment system. The approach consists of three components: (1)
Confirmation that the open biological treatment system can be
represented by Monod kinetics, (2) data collection to characterize the
[[Page 3915]]
performance of the open biological treatment system, and (3) data
collection during unsafe conditions.
Under the first component of the modeling approach, the value of
the saturation coefficient, Ks, must be determined. The determination
that the value of Ks is a constant is used to demonstrate that the
mill's open biological treatment system being tested can be represented
by Monod kinetics. Under the second component of the modeling approach,
you would determine the number and characteristics of each mixing zone
in the open biological treatment system, and the recycle ratio of the
internal recirculation between the mixing zones. Technical information
on how to evaluate open biological treatment systems with multiple
mixing zones can be found in the ``Technical Support Document for the
Evaluation of Aerobic Biological Treatment Units with Multiple Mixing
Zones'' (discussed in section I.D.3 of this preamble). Under the third
component, inlet and outlet concentration data are collected during
conditions when conducting in-zone sampling is determined to be unsafe.
These data are used with the characterization data developed under the
first component to estimate the HAP concentrations in each of the
mixing zones. The industry representatives noted that collection of
inlet and outlet samples would not be affected by unsafe conditions.
We analyzed the above industry concerns, and we agree that in rare
circumstances there may be conditions when sampling in each zone of an
open biological treatment system could expose workers to dangerous,
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. During these conditions, we
believe that the above modeling procedure proposed in appendix E of
part 63 is a reasonable procedure to follow until the full in-zone
sampling and performance test can be conducted to determine the
system's compliance with the applicable emission limit. If the mass
removal or percent reduction calculations using the value of fbio
determined from the procedures in appendix E of part 63 show that the
open biological treatment system is not achieving the applicable
emission limit, then this is considered a violation of the applicable
emission standard. However, if the compliance demonstration
calculations using the value of fbio derived from the
appendix E of part 63 procedures show a mass removal or percent
reduction greater than or equal to that required by the final rule,
then the mill is in compliance with the daily monitoring procedures.
When conditions permit, a full performance test using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.457 must be performed to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission standard.
Further, we believe the conditions that warrant the use of the
proposed calculations will be limited to those conditions that are
beyond the mill's control, such as extreme weather conditions and
presence of high and heavy foam or high concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide. The mill operator should use remote and automated sampling
systems wherever possible to decrease the number and frequency of
possible unsafe conditions. We believe that unsafe conditions do not
include conditions that are within the control of the mill, such as
unavailability of outdoor lighting, boats, or mill personnel. If these
later types of conditions cannot be addressed by the mill and made safe
for mill personnel, then this will severely limit the ability of the
mill and control agency to determine compliance and allow use of an
open biological treatment system as a control device. We believe that
those conditions are within the control of the operator and that unless
they are addressed and fixed by the operator, the other NESHAP control
options (recycling, steam stripping, or closed biological systems) must
be used to meet the kraft pulping process condensate standards.
The proposed amendments (Sec. 63.453(p)) specify that if performing
the sampling and test procedures for nonthoroughly mixed systems would
expose a worker to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe
conditions, the proposed appendix E of part 63 calculation can be used
to estimate compliance of biological treatment systems instead of the
full multiple mixing zone performance test procedures specified in the
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(l)) of the final rule.
The proposed amendments to Sec. 63.457(l) also specify that the value
of the biorate constant must be determined during the initial
performance test (Sec. 63.457(l)(4)).
The proposed amendments also specify that as soon as practical (but
within 24 hours) after the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe
conditions have passed, you must conduct the full multiple mixing zone
performance test procedures (Sec. 63.457(l)). The performance test is
required, regardless of whether or not the monitoring parameter values
are within the approved range, following the period of unsafe
conditions. The purpose of the test is to confirm that the dangerous,
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions did not alter the performance
of the system and to confirm that the treatment system operation is
achieving the required removal through biodegradation and not through
volatilization.
Amendments to the recordkeeping requirements section (Sec. 63.454)
of the final rule are being proposed that would require you to maintain
onsite a written record identifying the specific conditions under which
sampling of the open biological treatment system would expose a worker
to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. The proposed
amendments specify that this written record must include a written
explanation of why the in-zone sampling cannot be performed under those
conditions. The proposed amendments also specify that whenever
dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions prevent you from
conducting the sampling and test requirements for nonthoroughly mixed
open biological treatment systems, you must notify the Administrator
(the delegated permit authority) as soon as practicable of the onset of
the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. The
notification must include the reason why the specified sampling and
test requirements could not be performed.
4. Are the Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements
Applicable To Both Open and Closed Biological Treatment Systems
(Sec. 63.453)?
The biological treatment system monitoring and test procedures
specified in the final rule are applicable only to open biological
treatment systems. Following promulgation, commenters questioned if
closed aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment systems would be
required to comply with the monitoring procedures specified in
Sec. 63.453(j) and (p). Today's action proposes to add the word
``open'' to citations in the monitoring requirements section of the
final rule where the term ``biological treatment system'' is used.
In the final rule, we intended that the reference to ``biological
treatment system'' in the monitoring requirements section meant open
biological treatment systems. Although the test methods and procedures
specified in Sec. 63.457(l) refer to open biological treatment systems,
we inadvertently omitted the word ``open'' in the Sec. 63.453(j) and
(p) of the final rule. Today's action proposes amendments to the
sections mentioned above to clarify that these requirements are
applicable only to open biological treatment systems.
[[Page 3916]]
If you choose to comply using a closed biological treatment system,
you must determine appropriate monitoring parameters and establish the
parameter values or ranges during the performance test using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.453(m) and (n). Both the monitoring
parameters and the parameter values or ranges must be approved by the
Administrator (see section I.D.2 of this preamble for additional
discussion).
5. Given the Proposed Changes, How Do I Conduct Daily Compliance
Monitoring for Open Biological Treatment Systems (Sec. 63.453(j))?
The flow diagram shown in figure 1 summarizes the daily monitoring
requirements for open biological treatment systems. In figure 1,
today's proposed changes are depicted by dashed lines and rounded
boxes.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
[[Page 3917]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 3918]]
Mills must monitor on a daily basis either the parameters specified
in the final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)(1)) or site-specific parameters that
have been approved (proposed Sec. 63.453(j)(2), see section I.E.2 of
this preamble). If the monitoring parameters are within the values or
ranges established during the initial performance test, compliance with
the applicable emission standard is demonstrated for that day. If the
monitoring parameters are outside the established values or ranges, you
must conduct a performance test to confirm compliance of the open
biological treatment system. The performance test must be performed
using the same procedures (i.e., the appropriate procedures in appendix
C of part 63) that were followed during the initial performance test.
During periods of monitoring parameter excursions, you must take
steps to repair or adjust the process operation to end the parameter
excursion, and you must take steps to minimize the total HAP emissions
to the atmosphere (Sec. 63.453(p)(4)). However, the samples for the
optional performance test to confirm compliance with the applicable
emission limit must be collected before these repair steps are
implemented (Sec. 63.453(p)(2)) since the steps taken to end the
parameter excursion or minimize total HAP emissions would influence the
results of the performance test.
The final rule (Sec. 63.453(p)(3)) provides a special procedure to
model the fraction of compounds that are biodegraded in nonthoroughly
mixed systems. This modeling procedure applies whenever unsafe
conditions would prevent mill personnel from conducting in-zone
sampling. After the unsafe conditions have passed, you must confirm
compliance of the nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment system by
conducting a full performance test using the initial performance test
procedures.
6. Do I Still Have To Conduct the First Quarter Compliance Tests for
Total HAPs (Sec. 63.453(j))?
Yes. The requirement for quarterly performance tests of open
biological treatment systems is retained in the final rule. However, in
today's action, we are proposing to allow you to initially demonstrate
compliance with the condensate standards by testing for four specific
HAPs. Additionally, in today's action we are proposing amendments to
the condensate standards that allow you to comply with a percent
reduction or mass removal standard using the individual HAPs or using
methanol under certain conditions. Consequently, we are proposing to
amend the quarterly performance test requirements in the final rule to
incorporate these proposed changes.
The final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)(2)(ii)) requires you to conduct
quarterly performance tests to confirm the performance of open
biological treatment systems. The first quarter test is performed for
total HAPs while the remaining quarterly tests may be performed for
methanol or total HAPs. Also, in the final rule, mills that use a
biological treatment system to comply with the condensate standards
were limited to the percent reduction standard (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)).
As discussed in section I.C.2 of this preamble, we are proposing to
allow you to measure total HAPs as acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl
ketone, and propionaldehyde since these four compounds represent the
majority of the HAPs present in the regulated condensate streams. No
changes were necessary to the monitoring section (Sec. 63.453(j)) text
in the final rule to address limiting the analysis to four HAP
compounds. The rule text references the test methods and procedures
section (Sec. 63.457(g)) that has already been corrected for this
change. Also, in section I.C.3 of this preamble, we are proposing to
add a mass removal standard for biological treatment systems. Because
the monitoring section of the final rule, as written, does not mention
a mass removal standard, we are proposing in today's action to amend
the monitoring rule text to include this proposed treatment option.
In today's proposed action, we are specifically requesting comment
on the requirement to test for the four HAPs in the first quarter of
each year. Industry representatives suggested that testing for the four
HAPs in the first quarter of each year was unnecessary because the
majority of HAPs in the regulated condensates is one compound
(methanol). Also, because the contribution from the other nonmethanol
HAPs is small, variations in the composition of these nonmethanol HAPs
would be insignificant. The industry representatives suggested that
testing for the four HAPs is only necessary if new or modified pulping
process condensates are generated, or when changes occur in the annual
bleached and unbleached oven-dried ton of pulp production rates used to
prorate the mass removal standards. At this time, we do not have data
that address the variability of the HAP composition of the regulated
condensates. Therefore, in today's action, we are proposing to retain
the requirement for annual testing of the four HAPs in the first
quarter. However, if data are submitted with public comments on this
proposal, we will consider removing the requirement and allowing you to
conduct the quarterly performance tests after the initial first quarter
test for methanol only.
7. May I Use Monitoring Parameter Values Recorded During a Compliance
Monitoring Test To Expand the Established Parameter Operating Range
(Sec. 63.455(e))?
Yes. You may use monitoring parameter values recorded during a
compliance test to expand the established parameter operating range,
after approval from your permit authority. Under the general provisions
to the final rule, you must notify the permit authority 60 days prior
to conducting the initial and subsequent performance tests. However,
for the reasons set forth below, we are proposing to change the timing
of the notification for certain compliance monitoring performance tests
from 60 days to 15 days with a 24-hour confirmation notification.
The final rule (Sec. 63.457(n)) specifies that you must establish
the value or range of values parameter required to be monitored. After
promulgation, commenters stated that some open biological treatment
system operating parameters (e.g., liquid temperature, biomass
concentration, dissolved oxygen concentration) vary with seasonal
changes. Because of a limited time period in which to characterize the
performance of their open biological treatment system and establish
appropriate monitoring parameter values, the commenters noted that they
might not see the full range of operating conditions before the
compliance date of the final rule. The commenters noted that a
monitoring parameter could be outside its established range even though
the open biological treatment system continued to achieve compliance
with the applicable emission limit. Therefore, the commenters requested
that they be allowed to use monitoring parameter values recorded during
the compliance monitoring test (i.e., post-initial performance test)
required to be conducted due to a parameter excursion (Sec. 63.453(p))
to change the established operating range for that parameter. To do
this, the commenters requested that the notification be reduced from 60
days to 24 hours or the same day as the compliance test.
We agree with the commenters that they should be allowed to change
their allowable monitoring parameter ranges
[[Page 3919]]
or values using data recorded during any valid subsequent compliance
tests required in the monitoring requirements section (Sec. 63.453(p))
of the final rule. Our intent is evident since the final rule
(Sec. 63.457(n)(1)), as written, specifies that the appropriate value
for a monitoring parameter must be established during the initial
performance test and any subsequent performance tests, such as
compliance tests required by Sec. 63.453(p). Subsequent compliance
tests are those tests used to expand the monitoring parameter value or
range of values that have been previously selected by the mill and
approved by the permit authority. However, the NESHAP general
provisions (Sec. 63.7(b)) specify that the Administrator must be
notified at least 60 days before the compliance test is scheduled to
begin.
Because these subsequent compliance tests are triggered by
monitoring parameter excursions or by conditions that cannot be
manipulated by the owner or operator, the performance tests are not
scheduled months in advance. Therefore, the 60-day period for notifying
the permit authority is not appropriate in all cases. However, a short-
term notification (24 hours or the same day) as suggested by the
industry representatives would not provide permitting agencies with
sufficient time to have an observer present during the subsequent
performance test.
We believe that the 15-day notification is the minimum period that
is appropriate to allow permit authorities time to plan and attend the
subsequent compliance test and given that the exact time of the
compliance test may not be known at the time of the 15-day
notification, the 24-hour confirmation notification is reasonable. We
also agree that all biological treatment system operating conditions
cannot be anticipated due to rare circumstances that are outside the
control of the mill operator. In these limited cases, shorter
notification periods may be necessary and are appropriate with prior
approval by the permit authority and properly recorded.
In today's action, we are proposing an amendment to the reporting
requirements section (Sec. 63.455(e)) of the final rule that requires a
15-day notification of intent to conduct a subsequent performance test
followed by a 24-hour confirmation notification. The purpose of the 15-
day notification is to give permitting agencies an early indication of
a possible subsequent performance testing, and the 24-hour confirmation
notification would establish the exact date and time for conducting the
subsequent performance test.
F. Drafting Error Corrections
Minor drafting errors were identified in the final rule after
promulgation. Today's action makes the following corrections:
Corrects the citations for the condensate segregation
requirements in Sec. 63.446(i) of the final rule from (c)(2) to (c)(2)
and (3).
Adds the word ``mills'' between the words ``unbleached''
and ``specified'' in the condensate standards (Sec. 63.446(i)) of the
final rule.
Removes the comma after the word ``reestablish'' in
Sec. 63.453(n) of the final rule.
Replaces the word ``shall'' with the word ``may'' in the
biological treatment system monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(p)) of
the final rule.
Corrects the liquid sampling procedures reference in
Sec. 63.457(c)(1) of the final rule from ``specified in Method 305 of
part 60, appendix A'' to ``of the test method selected to determine
liquid stream total HAP or methanol concentrations.''
Corrects the citation in the condensate segregation
procedures (Sec. 63.457(m)(1) and (m)(1)(iii)) of the final rule from
Sec. 63.446(c)(1) to Sec. 63.446(c)(2).
Corrects the citation in the condensate segregation
procedures (Sec. 63.457(m)(2) and (m)(2)(ii)) of the final rule from
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) to Sec. 63.446(c)(3).
Removes the spaces between the ``degree'' symbol ( deg.)
and the abbreviations for Celsius (C) and Fahrenheit (F) in
Sec. 63.457(n) of the final rule.
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA submitted the information requirements of the previously
promulgated NESHAP for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on April 27, 1998 under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The EPA prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR)
document (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, Office of Policy, Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW., 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 information requirements
are not effective until OMB approves them.
Today's proposed amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on
the information collection burden estimates made previously.
Consequently, EPA has not revised the ICR.
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51375, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the proposed regulatory action is
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines ``significant''
regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, 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 NESHAP published on April 15, 1998 was considered significant
under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA prepared a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA). The amendments proposed today make technical
revisions and correct inadvertent omissions. The OMB evaluated this
action and determined it to be nonsignificant; thus, it did not require
OMB review.
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultations and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments 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
[[Page 3920]]
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 proposed action does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published
on April 15, 1998 (1998 NESHAP) does not create mandates upon tribal
governments. Today's proposed action does not create a mandate on
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking 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 EPA determined
that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
in connection with today's action. These proposed amendments would not
result in increased impacts to small entities, and the changes to the
final rule in today's proposed action provide additional flexibility to
the final rule by adding equivalent treatment alternatives.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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, 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 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 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 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 action does 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. The amendments proposed in today's
action provide additional flexibility to the final rule and reduce
compliance costs. Therefore, today's proposed rule amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1)
is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the proposed regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the proposed rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, so that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule falls 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 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 proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety
risks that may disproportionately affect children.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide
Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's proposed action does not establish new or modify existing
technical standards. Therefore, consideration of voluntary consensus
standards is not relevant to this action.
H. 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.''
``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
[[Page 3921]]
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, 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 costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency 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 Office of Management and Budget (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 agency'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 final 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 proposed amendments to a final rule 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 final rule published on April 15,
1998 (1998 NESHAP) does not create mandates upon State, local, or
tribal governments EPA involved State and local governments in its
development. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order
do not apply to this rule. Today's proposed action does not create a
mandate upon State, local, or tribal governments, and they have been
briefed on the proposed amendments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.
Dated: January 10, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
2. 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.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 63.446 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
* * * * *
(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)(2)(i)
or (ii) of this section.
(i) On an individual HAP basis, using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2), either:
(A) Reduce methanol by 92 percent or more by weight and reduce
acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde each by 99
percent or more by weight; or
(B) At mills that do not perform bleaching, remove 3.3 kilograms or
more of methanol per megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP, remove 0.034
kilograms or more of acetaldehyde per megagram (0.067 pounds per ton)
of ODP, remove 0.017 kilograms or more of methyl ethyl ketone per
megagram (0.034 pounds per ton) of ODP, and remove 0.003 kilograms or
more of propionaldehyde per megagram (0.0067 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
(C) At mills that perform bleaching, remove 5.1 kilograms or more
of methanol per megagram (10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, remove 0.052
kilograms or more of acetaldehyde per megagram (0.104 pounds per ton)
of ODP, remove 0.026 kilograms or more of methyl ethyl ketone per
megagram (0.052 pounds per ton) of ODP, and remove 0.005 kilograms or
more of propionaldehyde per megagram (0.010 pounds per ton) of ODP.
(ii) On a methanol basis, using the test procedures in
Sec. 63.457(l)(3) or (4) to determine the additional condensates to be
treated, either:
(A) Reduce methanol by 92 percent or more by weight; or
(B) At mills that do not perform bleaching, remove 3.3 kilograms or
more of methanol per megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
(C) At mills that perform bleaching, remove 5.1 kilograms or more
of methanol per megagram (10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP.
* * * * *
(i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph
(c)(2), (c)(3), (e)(4), or (e)(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),
(c)(3), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of this section by the ratio of annual
megagrams of bleached and unbleached ODP.
4. 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 (j)(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 (j)(1)(ii) of this section.
[[Page 3922]]
(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 part 63 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 (j)(1)(ii)(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 compliance 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) or (ii).
(i) The performance test conducted in the first quarter (annually)
shall be performed for total HAP and the percent reduction or mass
removal obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the total
HAP percent reduction or mass removal specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2)
(i) or (ii).
(ii) The remaining quarterly performance tests shall be performed
for either methanol or total HAP and the percent reduction or mass
removal obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the
methanol or total HAP percent reduction or mass removal determined in
the previous first-quarter test specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) of
this section.
* * * * *
(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) Each owner or operator of an open biological treatment system
complying with paragraph (j) of this section may perform the procedures
specified in this paragraph and record the results as soon as
practicable 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) are below minimum operating
parameter values or above maximum operating parameter values
established in paragraph (n) of this section.
(1) Determine compliance with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) using the test
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) and the monitoring data
specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this section that coincide
with the time period of the parameter excursion except as provided in
paragraph (p)(3) of this section.
(2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable
emission standard if the results of the compliance test conducted under
paragraph (p)(1) of this section demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.446(e)(2), and no maintenance or changes have been made to the
process or control device after the beginning of a parameter excursion
that would influence the results of the determination.
(3) If an owner or operator determines that performing the required
procedures under paragraph (p)(1) 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
shall be determined using the procedures in appendix E of this part.
(ii) Repeat the procedures in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section
for every day until the unsafe conditions have passed.
(iii) 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 values specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), as appropriate,
then this is a violation of the applicable standard.
(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.
(4) During periods of monitoring parameter excursions, the
following requirements shall be met:
(i) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the
process to end the parameter excursion period;
(ii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
5. Amend Sec. 63.454 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph
(e) 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 (e) 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)(1) 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).
6. 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 compliance
test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(1) 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 compliance test to the Administrator as soon as practicable,
but no later than 15
[[Page 3923]]
days, before the compliance test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(1) 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.
7. Amend Sec. 63.457 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory
text and (c)(4) introductory text, (g), (l), (m)(1) introductory text,
(m)(1)(iii), (m)(2) introductory text, (m)(2)(ii), and (n), and add
paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) 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;
* * * * *
(4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the effluent stream
from an open biological treatment unit used to comply with
Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and Sec. 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.
(i) To determine the MML for a specific HAP, the following
procedures shall be performed each time the method is used.
(A) Select a concentration value for the specific HAP in question
to represent the MML. The selected 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.
(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)(i) or (ii) of this section, the analytical laboratory conducting
the analysis must perform and meet the following quality assurance
procedures.
(i) Measure the concentration of the specific HAP in a minimum of
three replicate samples using the selected test method.
(ii) Calculate the RSD and the upper confidence limit at the 95
percent confidence level using the measured HAP concentrations
determined in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section. If the upper
confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 percent, then the test
method is being performed correctly. The upper confidence limit of the
RSD must be less than or equal to 30 percent.
* * * * *
(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 except as specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
* * * * *
(1) 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) through (4) of this section. Owners or
operators using a nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment system
shall also comply with paragraph (l)(5) of this section.
(1) Percent reduction individual HAP procedure. For the purposes of
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(A), the percent reduction due to destruction in
the biological treatment system shall be calculated using the following
equation:
R=fbio x 100
Where:
R=Destruction of each individual HAP specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(A) in the biological treatment system (percent).
fbio=The fraction of each individual HAP removed in the
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall
be determined using the procedures specified and as limited in Appendix
C of part 63.
(2) Mass removal individual HAP procedure. For the purposes of
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(B) or (C), the mass removal in the biological
treatment system shall be calculated using the following equation:
E=(F)*(fbio)
Where:
E=mass of each individual HAP specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(B) or
(C) removed in the biological treatment system (kg/Mg ODP).
F=mass of each individual HAP entering the biological treatment system
determined using the procedues specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this
section(kg/Mg ODP).
(3) Percent reduction methanol procedure. For the purposes of
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(A), the methanol
[[Page 3924]]
percent reduction shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.001
Where:
R=percent destruction.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass 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 part 63.
(4) Mass removal methanol procedure. For the purposes of complying
with the condensate treatment requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), the methanol mass removal shall be
calculated using the following equation:
E=Eb*(fbio(MeOH)/(1+1.087(r)))
Where:
E=methanol mass removal (kg/Mg ODP);
Eb=inlet mass flow rate of methanol (kg/Mg ODP) determined using the
procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of this section;
(5) 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 appendix E
of this part 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)(2) shall be stored at 4 deg.C (40 deg.F) to minimize the
biodegradation of the organic compounds in the samples.
8. Amend Sec. 63.458 by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.458 Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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.
9. Add appendix E to part 63 to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 63--Monitoring Procedure for Nonthoroughly Mixed
Open Biological Treatment Units or 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 pollutant (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 HAPs 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 HAPs 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 information is obtained from the first
component of the data collection procedure:
[[Page 3925]]
(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 HAPs 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)
i. Confirmation that the unit can be represented by Monod
kinetics is made by identifying the following two items:
(1) The zone methanol concentrations measured during the initial
performance test; and
(2) 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.
ii. For each zone, the estimated value of item 2 must be:
(1) Within 25 percent of item 1 when item 1 exceeds 8 mg/L; or
(2) Within 2 mg/L of item 1 when item 1 is 8 mg/L or less.
iii. Successful demonstration that the calculated zone
concentrations meet these criteria must be achieved for 80 percent
of the performance test data sets.
iv. 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)
i. 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:
(1) The programs must be altered to output a KL value that is
based on the site-specific parameters of the unit modeled; and
(2) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 must be substituted
for the existing Henry's law values in the models.
ii. The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 may be obtained from
the following sources:
(1) Values listed by EPA with temperature adjustment if needed;
(2) Measured values for the system of concern with temperature
adjustment; or
(3) Literature values of Henry's law values for methanol,
adjusted for temperature if needed.
iii. 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.
iv. Report the input parameters that you used in the computer
model on Forms 5 and 6 as an attachment to Form 4. If you have
submerged air flow in your unit, you must correct the value of KL
estimated on Form 4 with the correction factor determined using Form
7 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 HAPs 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 4 of Form 4, and the
inlet concentration is estimated in Column A of Form 4. 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 fbio 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
activated sludge 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 preparation of solutions, dilution procedures,
sampling procedures, monitoring of conditions, etc;
[[Page 3926]]
(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;
(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 fbio under unsafe sampling conditions. Form
1 uses measured concentrations of HAPs 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 well-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, measure
the concentrations of the HAPs in each zone. In this alternative
procedure for unsafe sampling conditions, the actual measured
concentrations of the HAPs 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 3927]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.002
[[Page 3928]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.003
[[Page 3929]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.004
[[Page 3930]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.005
[[Page 3931]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.006
[[Page 3932]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.007
[[Page 3933]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.008
[[Page 3934]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.009
[[Page 3935]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.010
[[Page 3936]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.011
[FR Doc. 00-1058 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C