issue-1996-07-15•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-15
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-15
issue-1996-07-15Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-15Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-17868 Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon; Proposed Establishment of Handler Reporting Requirements and Interest Charges on Overdue Assessment Payments, and Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36827-36829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17868]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 136 / Monday, July 15, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36827]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 956
[FV96-956-1PR]
Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast
Washington and Northeast Oregon; Proposed Establishment of Handler
Reporting Requirements and Interest Charges on Overdue Assessment
Payments, and Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved
Information Collection
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish handler reporting
requirements and establish interest charges on overdue assessments.
This action also announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS)
intention to request a revision to the currently approved information
collection requirements issued under the marketing order. This proposed
rule would contribute to the efficient operation of the program by
helping to ensure that assessments are available in a timely manner to
cover budgeted expenses incurred under the marketing order. The
Committee believes that this is the only alternative available to
ensure timely payments of assessments. These proposed changes are
expected to reduce the need for compliance efforts and thereby reduce
the costs to administer the order.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 30, 1996. Pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments to the information collection burden
must be received by September 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2523, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, Fax: (202) 720-
5698. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk
during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 369,
Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; telephone: (503) 326-2724; or Robert F.
Matthews, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone: (202) 690-0464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is proposed under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 956 (7 CFR part 956; 60 FR 27624, May 24,
1995), regulating the handling of sweet onions grown in the Walla Walla
Valley of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon, hereinafter
referred to as the ``order.'' The order is authorized by the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.'' This proposed rule was
recommended by the Walla Walla Sweet Onion Committee (Committee), the
agency responsible for the local administration of the marketing order
for sweet onions grown in the Walla Walla Valley.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. If
adopted, the proposed rule would not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with the proposal.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
In compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of
1996, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has published a ``Small
Business Guide for Complying with Marketing Agreements and Orders for
Fruits, Vegetables and Specialty Crops.'' Interested persons may obtain
a copy of the Guide by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC
29909-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, FAX (202) 720-5698.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the
economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 30 handlers of Walla Walla Sweet Onions
subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 50
producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service
firms have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR
121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and
small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $500,000. The majority of Walla Walla Sweet Onion
handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule would establish interest charges on overdue
assessments
[[Page 36828]]
and establish handler reporting requirements.
This proposed rule would contribute to the efficient operation of
the program by helping to ensure that assessments are available in a
timely manner to cover budgeted expenses incurred under the marketing
order. Those persons large and small who pay in a timely manner would
not be subject to an interest charge. The proposed changes establishing
interest charges are expected to reduce the need for compliance efforts
and thereby reduce the costs to administer the order which will benefit
all persons who are subject to assessments.
The preparation of one form one time each year should not
constitute a significant burden on a business unit, small or large. The
estimated reporting burden per response is 0.323 hours. In addition,
gift box and roadside stand sales would be exempt from reporting the
region to which shipments are made, which should be particularly
favorable to small entities.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory
and informational impacts of the proposal on small businesses.
The Committee meets prior to each season to consider
recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the
regulatory requirements for Walla Walla Sweet Onions. Committee
meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express
their views at these meetings. The Department reviews Committee
recommendations and information submitted by the Committee and other
available information, and determines whether modification, suspension,
or termination of the regulatory requirements would tend to effectuate
the declared policy of the Act.
At its February 15, 1996, meeting the Committee unanimously
proposed the addition of administrative rules and regulations that
would provide a late payment charge for delinquent assessments and a
reporting requirement for handlers.
The Act provides that each handler shall pay to the Committee such
handler's pro rata share of Committee expenses that the Secretary finds
are reasonable and likely to be incurred for the maintenance and
functioning of the Committee. Section 956.42 authorizes the Committee
to levy assessments on handlers of Walla Walla Sweet Onions to cover
each handler's share of Committee expenses.
Section 956.42(f) provides the authority for the Committee to
impose, with the approval of the Secretary, a late payment or an
interest charge on handlers who fail to pay any assessment in a timely
manner. This proposed rule would establish an interest charge of 1 \1/
2\ percent per month to be applied to any assessment balance remaining
unpaid on October 1 of each year.
The Committee depends upon handler assessments for operating funds.
Last year, the first season of operation of the order, some handlers
were late with their assessment payments, with fewer than half
submitting their assessment payments when due. When assessments are not
paid in a timely manner, the handlers paying assessments on time are
placed in an unfair situation compared to the delinquent handlers.
As part of its collection efforts, the Committee requested
delinquent handlers to promptly submit assessment payments. However,
such requests did not substantially hasten the payment of such
delinquent assessments, a few of which were over 120 days delinquent.
To facilitate the collection of assessments needed for the maintenance
and functioning of the Committee, the Committee recommended the
establishment of an interest charge of 1 \1/2\ percent per month to be
applied to assessment balances unpaid after 30 days. Annual assessments
are due from handlers on September 1. The 1-\1/2\ percent interest
charge would be applied monthly, after September 30, to the unpaid
balance, including any accumulated interest.
This proposed change is intended to encourage handlers to pay their
assessments when due, thereby eliminating potential inequities towards
handlers who pay their assessments on time. It would contribute to the
efficient operation of the program by ensuring that adequate funds are
available to cover expenses incurred under the marketing order.
Section 956.80 provides authority for the Committee, with the
approval of the Secretary, to require that each handler furnish to the
Committee, in such manner and at such time as it may prescribe, such
reports and other information as may be necessary for the Committee to
perform its duties under the marketing order.
This proposed rule would also establish a requirement that each
handler submit an annual report, on a form provided by the Committee,
showing their weekly and total yearly shipments of Walla Walla Sweet
Onions by geographical region. The annual handler reporting requirement
would provide the Committee with statistical information regarding
total industry shipments which would be useful to the Committee in
developing a budget and in making marketing and promotion plans for the
upcoming season. The form would include the total number of 50 pound
equivalents of Walla Walla Sweet Onions shipped during each week of the
shipping season and an end of season total. The form will also require
handlers to indicate the geographical regions to which onions are
shipped. The geographical region to which shipments are made would be
useful in planning marketing and promotional activities. The Committee
has drawn up boundaries of 11 geographical regions to help it in
developing its marketing and promotional plans. To effectively promote
and market Walla Walla Sweet Onions, knowledge of market conditions and
access to accurate statistical information is invaluable. The Committee
recommended that handlers be exempt from having to indicate the
geographical region to where the onions were shipped when making
roadside stand and gift box sales. The Committee felt that having to
report the geographical region shipped for every bag of onions sold in
these outlets would be burdensome to handlers making such shipments.
The form would also require handlers to provide their name and
address to properly identify the firm, as a basis for verifying
compliance with the assessment provisions of the order.
In addition to marketing and promotion planning, the information on
the form would help compliance efforts by keeping the committee
informed of handlers' operations. It would enable the Committee manager
to become aware of potential problems and discuss them with the
handlers involved before violations occurred, thus reducing the need
for, and the expense of, compliance action by the Committee and the
Department.
To implement these changes, a new Subpart--Rules and Regulations is
proposed to be added to part 956. Sections 956.142 Interest charges.,
and 956.180 Reports. would be included in that subpart.
A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. This period is deemed appropriate because the
shipping season, which begins soon, is relatively short and the
Committee needs to gather information on shipments made during the
shipping period. The proposal was recommended by the Committee in a
public meeting and all interested persons were invited to provide
input.
[[Page 36829]]
All written comments received within the comment period will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the AMS announces its intention to request a revision to a
currently approved information collection for Walla Walla sweet onions.
Title: Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast
Washington and Northeast Oregon, Marketing Order No. 956.
OMB Number: 0581-0172.
Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 1998.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: The information collection requirements in this request
are essential to carry out the intent of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they
request, and to administer the program.
This proposed rule would establish a requirement that each handler
submit an annual report, on a form provided by the Committee, showing
Walla Walla Sweet Onion shipment information. This information would
facilitate the billing and collection of handler assessments needed for
the maintenance and functioning of the Committee. The information would
also be useful to the Committee in developing a budget and in making
marketing plans for the upcoming season.
The information collected is used only by authorized
representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable
Division regional and headquarter's staff, and employees of the
Committee. Committee employees are the primary users of the information
and AMS employees are secondary users.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this proposed
collection of information is estimated to average 0.323 hours per
response.
Respondents: Walla Walla Sweet Onion producers and for-profit
businesses handling fresh Walla Walla Sweet Onions produced in
southwestern Washington and northeastern Oregon.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 82.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 0.756.
Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 25 hours.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the functioning of the Walla Walla Sweet
Onion Marketing Order and the Department's oversight of the program;
(2) the accuracy of the collection burden estimate and the validity of
methodology and assumptions used in estimating the burden on
respondents; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information requested; and (4) ways to minimize the burden,
including use of automated or electronic technologies.
Comments must be received by September 13, 1996. Comments should
reference OMB No. 0581-0172 and the Walla Walla Sweet Onion Marketing
Order No. 956, and be submitted to Teresa L. Hutchinson, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 369, Portland, OR
97204; fax 503-326-7440. All comments received will be available for
public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval.
Because there is insufficient time for normal clearance procedures,
AMS is seeking temporary approval from OMB for the use of this form for
the coming season. The form would be added to the other 5 forms
currently approved for use under OMB Number 0581-0172.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 956
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and record keeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7
CFR part 956 be amended as follows:
PART 956--SWEET ONIONS GROWN IN THE WALLA WALLA VALLEY OF SOUTHEAST
WASHINGTON AND NORTHEAST OREGON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 956 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In part 956, a new Subpart--Rules and Regulations consisting of
sections 956.142 and 956.180 is added to read as follows:
Subpart--Rules and Regulations
Sec. 956.142 Interest charges.
The Committee shall impose an interest charge on any handler who
fails to pay his or her annual assessments within thirty (30) days of
the due date of September 1. The interest charge shall, after 30 days,
be 1 1/2 percent of the unpaid assessment balance. In the event the
handler fails to pay the delinquent assessment amount within 60 days
following the due date, the 1 1/2 percent interest charge shall be
applied monthly thereafter to the unpaid balance, including any
accumulated interest. Any amount paid by a handler as an assessment,
including any charges imposed pursuant to this paragraph, shall be
credited when the payment is received in the Committee office.
Sec. 956.180 Reports.
Each handler shall furnish to the Committee by September 1 of each
year an annual report containing the following information, except that
gift-box and roadside stand sales shall be exempt from paragraph (b):
(a) The number of 50 lb. equivalents of Walla Walla Sweet Onions
shipped by each handler during each week of the shipping season and the
total for the season;
(b) The geographical regions as defined by the Committee to which
each shipment is made; and
(c) The name, address, and signature of each handler.
Dated: July 8, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-17868 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17802 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36835-36858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17802]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63 and 430
[FRL-5535-5]
RIN 2060-AD03 and 2040-AB53
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 17, 1993, EPA proposed standards to reduce the
discharge of water pollutants and emissions of hazardous air pollutants
from the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry (58 FR 66078). This
document describes the Agency's goals for environmental improvement in
this industry, announces a framework for the final wastewater
standards, and presents the preliminary results of detailed analyses
for a portion of this industry.
DATES: Comments on this notice are solicited and will be accepted until
August 14, 1996. Comments are to be submitted in triplicate, and also
in electronic format (diskettes) if possible.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Mr. David Hoadley at the
following address: Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The framework and preliminary results of detailed analyses being
announced today are based on data and information in the EPA Water
Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, room M2616, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-3027. The Docket staff
requests that interested parties call for an appointment before
visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding wastewater
standards, contact Mr. Donald Anderson at the following address:
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202) 260-7189, or Mr. Ronald
Jordan also at this address, telephone number (202) 260-7115. For
questions regarding air emissions standards, contact Ms. Penny
Lassiter, Emissions Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5396.
Contents of This Notice
I. Summary of Notices for this Regulation
II. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
III. Anticipated Schedule for Issuing Final Wastewater Standards
A. Schedule for Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories
B. Scheduled for Proposed Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving
Sulfite Subcategories
C. Schedule for the Remaining Proposed Subcategories
IV. Post-Proposal Data Gathering
V. Regulatory Framework and Preliminary Results
A. Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
1. Preliminary Conclusion Regarding Technology Basis for BAT
2. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
3. Technology Options for BAT
4. Framework for PSES
5. Pollutant Parameters
6. Best Management Practices
7. Costs for Options A and B
8. Effluent Reduction Benefits
9. Revised Effluent Limitations
a. Changes to Statistical Methodology
b. Revised Effluent Limitations Being Considered
10. Conventional Pollutant Limitations (BPT and BCT)
11. Technology Options for NSPS
12. Revised Economic Impact Results
a. Revisions to the Economic Analysis
b. Economic Impacts of BAT Options A and
c. Cost-Effectiveness
B. Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
1. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Technology Basis for BAT
2. Technology Options for BAT
3. Costs
4. Effluent Reduction Benefits
5. Revised Effluent Limitations for BAT and PSES
6. Conventional Pollutant Limitations
7. Technology Options and Revised Effluent Limitations for NSPS
8. Economic Impacts
a. Costs and Impacts
b. Cost-Effectiveness
VI. Environmental Assessment
VII. Best Management Practices
VIII. Pretreatment Standards
IX. Implementation Issues
A. Permit Limits for Multiple Subcategory Mills
B. New Sources
C. Monitoring
D. BMPs as NPDES Permit Special Conditions
E. Relationship Between the Cluster Rules and Project XL
F. Summary of Changes to Methods for Analysis of Pulp and Paper
Industry Wastewaters
1. Method 1624, Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution
GC/MS
2. Method 1650, AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric
3. Method 1653, Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and
Isotope Dilution GC/MS
4. Method NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253, Color
G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
X. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
A. Advanced Technology Tiers
1. Definition of Incentives-Related BAT Limitations or NSPS by
Tier
a. Tier I BAT Limitations
b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS
c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS
2. Basis for Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and NSPS
3. Legal Authority to Establish Incentives-Related BAT
Limitations and NSPS
B. Incentives Available Prior to Achievement of Incentives-
Related BAT
1. Extended Compliance Schedules
[[Page 36836]]
C. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations and NSPS
1. Greater certainty regarding permit limits and requirements
2. Reduced effluent monitoring
3.Reduced penalties
4. Reduced inspections
5. Public recognition programs
6. Fast-track permit modification
D. Solicitations of Comments on Incentives Program
E. Alternative Incentives Programs and Provisions Suggested by
Stakeholders
I. Summary of Notices for This Regulation
Today's notice announces the Agency's current thinking, based on
preliminary detailed evaluation of the supplemented record and
stakeholder discussions, regarding the technology bases to be
considered for setting final effluent limitations and standards for a
portion (i.e., certain subcategories) of this industry. These
subcategories are the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite subcategories. Today's notice continues the public
review and participation process that began with the proposed
rulemaking and continued with additional notices.
On December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078), EPA proposed integrated air and
water rules that included limitations and standards to reduce the
discharge of toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in
wastewaters and emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry. On March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12567), EPA
published a correction notice to the proposed rules and extended the
comment period to April 18, 1994.
In the preamble to the proposed rules, EPA solicited data on
various issues and questions related to the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards. The
Agency received and added new material to the Air and Water Dockets. In
a notice of data availability published on February 22, 1995 (60 FR
9813), EPA announced the availability of new data related to the
proposed air emissions standards. Those new data are located in Air
Docket A-92-40. In a second notice of data availability published on
July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938), EPA announced the availability of new
information and data related to the proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. Those new data are located starting at
Section 18.0 of the Post-Proposal Rulemaking Record, which is a
continuation of the proposal record. The Post-Proposal Rulemaking
Record is located in the Water Docket, which is updated periodically to
include other new information and analyses. EPA did not solicit comment
on the new air and water data in either notice. EPA solicits comment on
the information and data announced in those prior notices, on the
information and approach discussed in this notice, on other newly
docketed information, and on the preliminary results of the detailed
analyses presented in this notice.
On March 8, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice
pertaining to the air portions of the proposed rules, announced the
availability of supplemental information, and proposed additional
sources to be covered by the rulemaking (61 FR 9383). The comment
period for that notice closed on April 8, 1996.
The Agency has held numerous meetings on these proposed integrated
rules with many of the stakeholders from the pulp and paper industry,
including a trade association (American Forest and Paper Association,
or AF&PA), numerous individual companies, consultants and vendors,
environmental groups, labor unions, and other interested parties.
Materials have been added to the Air and Water Dockets to document
these meetings and to make available for public review new information
received at those meetings.
II. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
The Agency envisions a long-term approach to environmental
improvement that is consistent with sound capital expenditures. This
approach, which is presented in today's notice, stems from extensive
discussions with a range of stakeholders. The effluent limitations and
air emissions standards are only one component of the framework to
achieve long-term environmental goals. The overall regulatory framework
also includes incentives to reward and encourage mills that implement
pollution prevention beyond regulatory requirements.
EPA's long-term goals include improved air quality, improved water
quality, the elimination of fish consumption advisories downstream of
mills, and elimination of ecologically significant bioaccumulation. An
integral part of these goals is an industry committed to continuous
environmental improvement--an industry that aggressively pursues
research and pilot projects to identify technologies that work together
appropriately to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, pollutant discharges
for existing and new sources. A holistic approach to implementing these
pollution prevention technologies would contribute to the long-term
goal of minimizing impacts of mills in all environmental media by
moving mills toward closed-loop process operations. Effective
implementation of these technologies is capable of increasing reuse of
recoverable materials and energy while concurrently reducing
consumption of raw materials (e.g., process water, unrecoverable
chemicals, etc.), and reducing generation of air emissions and
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. This combination of regulation,
research, pilot projects, and incentives will foster continuous
environmental improvement with each mill investment cycle.
III. Anticipated Schedule for Issuing Final Wastewater Standards
A. Schedule for Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories
EPA will promulgate final effluent limitations and standards for
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard industrial category in stages
consisting of several subcategories at a time. For the following
reasons, EPA intends to promulgate final effluent limitations and
standards for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory and the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory before
promulgating such limitations and standards for any other proposed
subcategory.
Under the consent decree entered in the case Environmental Defense
Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973
(D.D.C.), and subsequently amended, EPA was required to use its best
efforts to promulgate regulations addressing discharges of dioxins and
furans from 104 bleaching pulp mills by June 17, 1995. Despite making
its best efforts, EPA was not able to promulgate final effluent
limitations and standards for those subcategories by this date.
However, EPA believes that regulating the discharge of dioxins and
furans from those mills remains a very high priority and for this
reason plans to promulgate effluent limitations and standards for mills
in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory and the
proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory before it finalizes limitations
and standards for the other proposed subcategories.
[[Page 36837]]
B. Scheduled for Proposed Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategories
EPA is evaluating the comments and preliminary new data affecting
the proposed dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite subcategories. The
Agency anticipates that the final effluent limitations and standards
for these subcategories will be based on different technologies than
those that served as the basis for the proposed limitations and
standards. For example, EPA has received data suggesting that oxygen
delignification is not a feasible process for making some dissolving
pulp products, particularly high grade products. In addition, some use
of hypochlorite appears to be necessary to maintain product quality for
some products. Affected companies have undertaken laboratory studies
and mill trials to develop alternative bleaching processes and to
document the effects on wastewater and air emissions. The Agency is
working with these companies as their efforts progress.
For these reasons, EPA does not expect to promulgate final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for these proposed subcategories
in 1996. Even in the absence of these limitations and standards,
however, EPA anticipates that alternative bleaching processes developed
as a result of these studies and trials should contribute to
substantial reductions in the generation and release of pollutants,
when compared to current operating practices. Among the pollutants EPA
expects to be reduced are chlorinated organic compounds (e.g.,
chloroform) in air emissions and wastewaters. EPA encourages mills in
these subcategories to undertake and expeditiously complete
developmental work that will facilitate installation of alternative
process technologies that achieve these pollution prevention goals.
C. Schedule for the Remaining Proposed Subcategories
EPA is assessing comments and data received since proposal for the
remaining eight proposed subcategories. These eight proposed
subcategories are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2) Semi-Chemical; (3)
Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; (5) Secondary Fiber Deink;
(6) Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; (7) Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp; and (8) Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp. For example, EPA has received information from an
industry-sponsored survey of secondary fiber non-deink mills. The
Agency also has received additional data from mills in other proposed
subcategories, including semi-chemical, unbleached kraft, and secondary
fiber deink. EPA plans to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for these subcategories after promulgation of the final
rules for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
and the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory.
IV. Post-Proposal Data Gathering
EPA has gathered a substantial amount of new information and data
since proposal. Much of this information was collected with the
cooperation and support of AF&PA and the National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and with the
assistance of many individual mills in the U.S. EPA also has gathered
additional information from pulp and paper mills primarily in Canada
and Europe. Some of the new information and data were generated through
field sampling and related efforts at individual mills in the U.S.,
Canada, and Europe. The following paragraphs summarize some of these
data gathering efforts.
For the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory,
EPA has new data for several technologies, including: complete chlorine
dioxide substitution (without oxygen delignification); oxygen
delignification (OD) or extended cooking plus complete chlorine dioxide
substitution; extended cooking plus OD plus complete chlorine dioxide
substitution; OD plus ozone bleaching plus complete substitution with
chlorine dioxide; and totally chlorine-free (TCF) processes. EPA has a
combination of bleach plant and end-of-pipe data for these
technologies. (See the record at Document Control Number (DCN) 13951.)
For the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, EPA has new bleach
plant data for elemental chlorine-free processes and TCF processes. EPA
also has information on trials for alternative processes beyond
existing technologies for products that cannot be made with TCF
processes. For example, EPA has data from trials using OD plus complete
chlorine dioxide substitution for selected products.
For the proposed dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite
subcategories, EPA has information on trials for alternative processes
beyond existing technologies (e.g., reduction in use of hypochlorite,
chlorine dioxide substitution with OD and without OD). EPA also has a
preliminary evaluation of minimum hypochlorite usage necessary to
maintain product quality.
EPA has new information on several topics related to compliance
cost estimation, such as process information and data for selected
bleached chemical pulp mills and costs of process technology unit
operations at selected mills. This information has been used by the
Agency to verify its cost curves. EPA also has new information on best
management practices, recovery systems, and equipment availability.
V. Regulatory Framework and Preliminary Results
A. Proposed Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
For this subcategory and all others addressed in the proposal, the
Agency proposed numerical effluent limitations guidelines and standards
based on certain model technologies. Although EPA similarly will employ
model technologies to calculate the final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, individual mills will be free to use any
combination of technologies that will result in compliance with the
final effluent limitations and standards.
1. Preliminary Conclusion Regarding Technology Basis for BAT
After re-evaluating technologies for mills in the proposed bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, EPA has determined that two
technology options identified in the proposal merit careful
consideration for effluent limitations based on best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) and pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES). These options include both in-plant process
technologies (e.g., chemical substitution) and end-of-pipe biological
treatment technologies (e.g., activated sludge systems). The first of
these options is complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine
dioxide for chlorine as the key process technology. The second of these
options is the technology basis from proposal, which includes oxygen
delignification (OD) or extended cooking with complete (100 percent)
substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine as the key process
technologies. Although the final detailed analysis and decisions are
not yet complete, the post-proposal analysis to date has demonstrated
to the Agency that the first option--complete (100 percent)
substitution of chlorine dioxide--should be given equal weight as a
possible technology basis for the BAT effluent limitations and for PSES
for this proposed subcategory. EPA anticipates that comments on this
notice will assist in the final decision.
[[Page 36838]]
EPA's preliminary evaluation of information and data for these two
BAT/PSES options indicates that both options appear to reduce dioxins
and furans in wastewaters to concentrations at or below the current
analytical minimum levels. EPA also anticipates that both technology
options would reduce discharges of dioxin such that the number of
dioxin-based fish consumption advisories related to discharges from
these facilities are likely to be substantially reduced or eliminated
over time (depending on stream hydrodynamics of each site).
The incremental environmental benefits that the Agency can
attribute to the use of extended delignification (e.g., OD or extended
cooking) in addition to complete (100 percent) substitution include
reduced chronic toxicity to some aquatic life species. This reduced
chronic toxicity is probably attributable to a reduction in mass
loadings of certain nonchlorinated compounds that are indirectly
measured by the bulk analytical parameter chemical oxygen demand (COD).
The reduced chronic toxicity also may reflect an incremental reduction
in the potential for formation of dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) and furan
(2,3,7,8 TDCF), which at many mills is no longer measurable by current
analytical methods at the end-of-pipe, and a reduction in mass loadings
of all chlorinated compounds which can be measured by the bulk
analytical parameter adsorbable organic halides (AOX).
EPA is continuing to carefully review and analyze the information
and data pertinent to establishing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards under the Clean Water Act. This includes an analysis of
compliance costs and economic achievability. Results of these and other
analyses, presented in preliminary form below, will be carefully
considered along with comments in preparing the final rule.
2. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
EPA is considering including compliance and enforcement incentives
in the final regulations to recognize the achievements of those mills
that use technology options more advanced than the technology option
ultimately selected as BAT. If EPA chooses as the basis for the final
BAT limitations and PSES complete (100 percent) substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine, without OD or extended cooking,
qualifying technologies might include processes employing extended
delignification (e.g., OD, extended cooking), ozone-based bleaching
sequences, totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching, process wastewater
flow reduction (i.e., technologies which move mills toward closed loop
operation), or other combinations of technologies. Many of these
technologies also would qualify for incentives if EPA includes an
extended delignification process as part of BAT. All of these
technologies are already being implemented at some mills while further
developmental work is ongoing to improve the performance of these
technologies.
EPA is considering establishing two sets of incentives for further
environmental improvements. The structure, with some variations, would
apply regardless of the baseline BAT technology options ultimately
selected. The first set of incentives would provide interested mills
with additional time--up to 15 years beyond the effective date of these
rules--to meet limitations more stringent than those based on the
baseline BAT. This set of incentives would be available to any mill
that voluntarily selects, as its BAT, technologies that can achieve
more stringent effluent limits set forth in the incentives approach.
The various incentives-related BAT limitations and standards would be
codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and would represent BAT
limitations for any mill choosing to participate in the incentives
program. The second set of incentives, which could include various
monitoring, enforcement, and public recognition elements, would be
available only after compliance with the more stringent incentive-
related BAT limits and standards is achieved. Any incentives adopted by
EPA would be intended to encourage mills to investigate, develop, and
implement technologies that are more advanced and that achieve more
stringent limitations and standards than the technologies now being
considered as the basis for baseline BAT limitations.
EPA has already received suggestions from several stakeholders on
possible incentives. Details regarding the possible incentives are
discussed in Section X of this notice. EPA solicits comments on this
approach and invites specific ideas for incentives. EPA solicits
comments on extending this approach to indirect dischargers. Such
comments and suggestions would be considered as EPA formulates the
final rule for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite subcategories.
3. Technology Options for BAT
As noted above, the post-proposal analysis focuses on two process
technology options. The first option, referred to as Option A, employs
conventional pulping processes followed by complete (100 percent)
substitution for elemental chlorine by chlorine dioxide. This is an
elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technology.
The second option, referred to as Option B, employs oxygen
delignification (OD) and/or extended cooking (EC), followed by complete
(100 percent) substitution which reduces the lignin content of
unbleached pulp beyond that typically provided through conventional
pulping processes. The effectiveness of pulping processes in removing
lignin is indicated by the unbleached pulp kappa number. A kappa number
typical of unbleached pulp from traditional pulping processes for
softwoods is approximately 30 and for hardwoods is approximately 20.
Extended delignification processes (such as OD or EC) typically produce
unbleached softwood pulps with an approximate kappa number of 15
(approximately 10 for hardwoods). Option B also is an ECF technology.
In analyzing performance for Option B, the Agency is considering
performance data for mills with OD and/or EC. This analysis differs
from proposal when the Agency distinguished between extended
delignification sequences with only OD or EC, and sequences with both
OD and EC.
This notice presents EPA's preliminary analysis of data pertaining
to Option A and compares it to Option B. In addition to obtaining and
analyzing data pertaining to Options A and B, the Agency also has
endeavored to obtain and analyze additional data for TCF process
technologies as a possible BAT technology. TCF technologies typically
incorporate OD while relying on peroxide and/or ozone, rather than
chlorine-containing compounds, to accomplish pulp bleaching and
brightening. Only one U.S. bleached papergrade kraft mill employs a TCF
process, and it produces a market pulp of somewhat less than full
market pulp brightness. Since proposal of this rule, the U.S. bleached
papergrade kraft TCF mill has achieved higher brightness targets, but
still less than full market brightness pulp of approximately 90 ISO.
EPA obtained bleach plant performance data from this mill, but because
the mill discharges to territorial seas under Section 301(m) of the
Clean Water Act and thus does not employ secondary treatment, end-of-
pipe data reflecting the performance of biological treatment were not
available. European TCF mills have achieved at or near full market
brightness pulps for limited periods. However, EPA consistently
[[Page 36839]]
requested but obtained only limited process and pollutant removal
performance data for TCF mills in Europe. The limited range of
papergrade TCF products currently produced and sold in the U.S. market
indicates that TCF technology is not yet available to make the full
range of products produced by ECF or similar chlorine-based processes.
Nonetheless, EPA continues to strongly encourage further development
and implementation of TCF technologies and products. It is also
probable that all TCF mills would qualify for the advanced technology
incentives program described below; this should provide an opportunity
to stimulate production and U.S. market share for TCF products.
The Agency considered other technology options in developing the
proposed regulations for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and
soda subcategory. However, for reasons cited in the proposal, these
technologies were not selected as the underlying process technologies
for the proposed effluent limitations based on BAT, and have not been
further pursued as options for the final rule.
4. Framework for PSES
In the proposal, EPA discussed three options for pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) for four proposed subcategories,
including bleached papergrade kraft and soda. These options primarily
concern end-of-pipe limitations for indirect dischargers. The
conclusions in the discussion of BAT technology options also apply to
technology options for bleach plant limits for indirect dischargers.
See Section VIII of today's notice for a discussion of PSES options.
5. Pollutant Parameters
In the proposed regulations, EPA included both in-process (bleach
plant) and end-of-pipe BAT limitations and PSES for mills that bleach
chemical pulps covered in four proposed subcategories, including
bleached papergrade kraft and soda.
The parameters proposed to be controlled at the bleach plant were
2,3,7,8 TCDD (``dioxin''), 2,3,7,8 TCDF (``furan''), 12 specific
chlorinated phenolic compounds, and the volatile organic pollutants
chloroform, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and acetone.
With respect to the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite subcategories, EPA is considering codifying limits
for all of these pollutants except for methylene chloride, MEK, and
acetone. Based on EPA's most current data, the presence of these
pollutants or the levels at which they are found does not appear to be
directly related to any of the pollution prevention process
technologies being considered (extended delignification processes, such
as extended cooking or oxygen delignification, or bleaching process
changes, such as complete substitution for elemental chlorine by
chlorine dioxide and elimination of hypochlorite). Acetone and MEK
generally are amenable to biological treatment, while other forms of
end-of-pipe physical treatment, for the concentrations levels involved,
are likely to be costly. Methylene chloride has been found to be a
sample and laboratory contaminant in certain cases. Therefore, EPA
cannot at this time identify a pollution prevention basis for setting
effluent limitations and standards for these pollutants for these
proposed subcategories.
The parameters proposed to be controlled at the end-of-pipe were
adsorbable organic halides (AOX), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and,
for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory only,
color. EPA received comments asserting that neither AOX nor COD is an
appropriate parameter to be controlled because, among other reasons
cited, these parameters are not directly related to environmental
effects or effluent toxicity. Commenters also asserted that color
should not be controlled because it is an aesthetic concern more
appropriately addressed in individual permits based on applicable water
quality standards.
EPA continues to believe that AOX is a valid measure of the total
chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting from the bleaching
of pulps. Although statistically significant relationships between AOX
and a broad range of specific chlorinated organic compounds have not
been established, trends in concentration changes, however, have been
observed between AOX and specific pollutants, including dioxin, furan,
and chlorinated phenolic compounds. Even though dioxin and furan are no
longer measurable at the end-of-pipe at many mills, the potential for
formation of these pollutants continues to exist at pulp and paper
mills as long as any chlorine-containing compounds (including chlorine
dioxide) are used in the bleaching process. Final effluent AOX loading
is an appropriate measure of the performance of in-process and end-of-
pipe technologies in reducing the mass of chlorinated organic
pollutants such as dioxin and furan found in wastewaters discharged by
this industry. Thus, EPA expects that process changes and treatment
technologies implemented to reduce AOX discharges at the end of the
pipe will in turn further reduce the likelihood of the formation and
discharge of these chlorinated organic pollutants. The analytical
method for this bulk parameter is also very reliable and affords
significant savings in monitoring costs over analytical methods for
individual pollutants, which are substantially more expensive.
With regard to COD, the Agency notes that chronic sub-lethal
aquatic toxicity has been found from wastewaters discharged by both
bleached and unbleached pulp mills. Some evidence indicates that this
toxicity is associated at least in part with families of non-
chlorinated organic materials. Some of these materials are probably
wood extractive constituents found in pulping liquors and are
refractory or resistant to rapid biological degradation, and thus are
not measurable by the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
analytical method. Several studies indicate that as wastewater COD is
reduced, indices of these chronic toxicity effects also are reduced. In
addition, final effluent COD loading is an appropriate measure of the
performance of in-process and end-of-pipe technologies in reducing the
mass of non-chlorinated pollutants found in wastewaters discharged by
this industry. EPA also has found that COD is an appropriate parameter
for use by mills for self-monitoring to evaluate the performance of
spent pulping liquor spill prevention programs (BMPs), as noted in
Section V.A.6 below. The analytical method for this bulk parameter also
is very reliable and affords significant savings in monitoring costs
over analytical methods for individual pollutants.
In evaluating comments on the proposal EPA has endeavored to obtain
additional data that would supplement the current COD data base for
setting final effluent limitations and standards. This supplemented
data base would allow EPA to determine the need and, if appropriate,
the basis for COD loadings allowances from other contributing sources
on-site at mills, such as paper machines and semi-chemical pulping. EPA
has received very limited (and, for some operations, insufficient) data
to characterize COD loadings from these mill operations. Further, EPA
has received only limited additional data to determine the combined
performance of well designed and operated spill prevention programs
(BMPs), process changes, and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems
in removing COD. Moreover, data that are now available indicate a
significant
[[Page 36840]]
range of values that may not accurately reflect the best performance of
these technologies. (See the record at DCN 13958.) EPA solicits
additional data that would further define the best performance of these
technologies and provide a basis for EPA to assess the need for
allowances for other on-site sources of COD and to develop such
allowances if appropriate. EPA will evaluate any COD data and public
comments received in response to this notice in establishing final
limits and standards for this parameter for ECF and TCF mills. EPA also
is considering whether it is appropriate that final COD limits and
standards for ECF and TCF mills in the proposed bleached papergrade
kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite subcategories should be deferred
and developed concurrently with BAT COD limits that may be developed
for other subcategories in a later rulemaking.
With regard to color, the Agency notes that some mills receive
limitations for color in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits where stream water quality requires such
limitations. The Agency is considering not promulgating a technology-
based limit for color, but rather deferring control of color to
individual permits where necessary to implement water quality standards
under CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).
6. Best Management Practices
In the proposed regulations, EPA included provisions for leak and
spill prevention, containment, and control through best management
practices (BMPs). The public comments on the proposal generally support
the use of BMPs, although some commenters challenged the details of
these provisions. EPA plans to incorporate BMPs into the final rule
with substantial restructuring of the program that was proposed. EPA
anticipates that the BMPs in the final rule will apply to mills in the
proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
subcategories. EPA also anticipates that the revised BMPs also will
apply, as proposed, to mills in other chemical pulping subcategories
(e.g., semi-chemical, unbleached kraft). Additional details about BMPs
are presented in Section VII of today's notice.
7. Costs for Options A and B
EPA has used additional cost information and data to update its
costing methodology. EPA has used costs for recently installed
equipment at U.S. mills as well as vendor information to update cost
curves and model algorithms for both capital costs and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs. EPA has updated mill specific information and
has estimated compliance costs for Options A and B. EPA used these
revised cost estimates to estimate economic impacts; the revised
economic results are discussed in Section V.A.12 of today's notice.
Reports included in the record contain detailed cost information (see
DCN 13953).
Much of the cost data EPA is considering was submitted by AF&PA.
One of the most significant sources of differences in costs developed
by AF&PA and EPA are the assumptions regarding the impact on recovery
boiler operation. EPA has investigated the differing assumptions and
revised its cost analysis for selected boiler capacity and related
recovery cycle components. EPA's preliminary findings are that
relatively inexpensive boiler upgrades will accommodate OD filtrate
streams and other increases in heat load. EPA's analysis of each mill
in this proposed subcategory indicates that boiler replacement will not
be necessary with the installation of OD as defined in Option B.
The Agency's revisions to the costing methodology to reflect new
information about the recovery cycle include, where appropriate, boiler
upgrades, pulping process modifications, black liquor oxidation, and
evaporator upgrades. Additional information about these cost components
is presented in the record (see DCN 13959).
EPA also relied on new data and information to revise costs for
BMPs. The new data were used to revise design assumptions and cost
model algorithms for developing mill-specific costs for BMP upgrades. A
significant increase in costs for BMPs resulted.
EPA also revised its analysis for changes in the cost of chemicals
and other raw materials used in pulp mills and bleach plants. Costs for
some of these raw materials and chemicals have increased while costs
for other raw materials and chemicals have decreased. The net effect of
these changes on total option costs varies among mills.
EPA updated its process information for each mill by reviewing
comments on the proposed rule, information gathered by AF&PA and NCASI,
other publicly available information, and by contacting mills directly.
EPA considered process changes and upgrades or renovations either
completed, underway, or committed to as of mid-1995. Costs in this
notice are presented in 1995 dollars. EPA used the updated information
for each mill, along with the costing methodology revisions, to
determine the need for and the sizing of process change unit operations
for Options A and B. The result of this mill-specific costing is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.-- Capital, O&M, and Total Annualized Costs for BAT and BMPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Current cost
estimated estimates
at ---------------------
proposal
for
Option B Option A Option B
(proposed
Option 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital ($ million).................... 2,184 998 2,036
O&M ($ million/yr)..................... 11.8 109 (7)
Total Annualized Costs:
(million/yr)......................... 223.2 140 155
($/UBMT)............................. 7.50 4.78 5.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Effluent Reduction Benefits
EPA has updated the calculation of effluent reduction benefits for
each bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill to a new baseline of mid-
1995. In addition, EPA has revised and simplified the methodology used
to estimate that baseline. The baseline calculation methodology
revisions along with details of the effluent reduction calculations are
described in the record (see DCN 13592). The following
[[Page 36841]]
highlights are changes from the proposal based on comments and new
information.
First, EPA used data characterizing the generation of pollutants by
a variety of pulping and bleaching technologies and information about
the pulping and bleaching technologies at each mill and associated
wastewater flow data to characterize the pollutant loads generated as
of mid-1995. EPA also used data for individual mills from the NCASI
1994 Dioxin Profile (see DCN 13764) to estimate the effluent load of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF. The revised baselines, which were found
to be comparable to NCASI's industry-wide estimates, were used to
calculate effluent reduction benefits, summarized in Table 2. These
calculated reduction benefits are virtually the same for both options.
It is interesting to note that the baseline annual discharge loading in
1992 was 70 grams/year of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 341 grams/year of 2,3,7,8
TCDF (total of 411 grams/year). The reduction since 1992 to estimated
discharge loadings of 3-4 grams/year for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 3-4 grams/
year for 2,3,7,8 TCDF in mid-1995 represents a reduction of 95 percent
for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 99 percent for 2,3,7,8 TCDF.
Table 2.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Selected Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
reductions reductions
Pollutant parameter Baseline from baseline from baseline
discharge attributable attributable
to Option A to Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD (g/yr)............................................. 15 11 12
2,3,7,8-TCDF (g/yr)............................................. 93 89 90
AOX (kkg/yr).................................................... 35,000 24,700 30,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Revised Effluent Limitations
a. Changes to Statistical Methodology.
In developing the BAT limitations presented in today's notice, EPA
included the new data discussed in Section IV to calculate the revised
effluent limitations. EPA also made four changes to the proposed
statistical methodology. First, EPA determined that limitations set at
non-detect (ND) levels could be justified in some situations where the
data included detected measurements. In the proposal, EPA had set ND
limitations only when the data were all non-detected measurements or
were detected below the minimum level of the analytical method. In
today's notice, TCDF, chloroform, and AOX have numerical BAT
limitations. The remaining analytes have ND limitations. Second, EPA
determined that the value of half of the sample-specific detection
limit should be substituted for all non-detect measurements. In the
proposal, EPA had used a methodology for substituting a lower value for
anomalously large detection limits. Third, EPA calculated bleach plant
limitations for TCDF and chloroform by aggregating the acid and
alkaline measurements prior to calculating the limitations. In the
proposal, EPA had calculated separate production-normalized mass
limitations for the acid and alkaline streams and then summed the two
for an overall production-normalized mass bleach plant limitation.
Fourth, EPA calculated a concentration-based limitation for TCDF. In
the proposal, EPA had calculated a production-normalized mass-based
limitation for TCDF. Fifth, EPA adjusted for autocorrelation in the AOX
limitations by using BOD autocorrelation factors. In the preamble to
the proposed rules, EPA requested additional AOX data that would allow
for evaluating autocorrelation in daily AOX measurements. The AOX data
that EPA has received are insufficient for the purpose of evaluating
the autocorrelation in Options A and B. Adjustment for positive
autocorrelation appropriately leads to larger numerical values for
limitations. EPA believes that positive autocorrelation is likely to be
present in daily measurements of AOX and has adjusted the AOX monthly
average limitations using observed autocorrelation in BOD measurements.
The numerical values of the AOX daily maximum and monthly average
limitations for both options in today's notice are larger than the
proposed limitations.
EPA has provided additional documentation in the record on the
changes made to the BAT statistical methodology (see DCN 13963). The
information added to the record also includes the time series analysis
used in calculating the proposed BCT limitations; methodology used to
aggregate data collected from different sample points; errata to the
statistical support document; and the detailed results of the
statistical analyses.
b. Revised Effluent Limitations Being Considered. Table 3 presents
the proposed limitations and the preliminary results of revising bleach
plant effluent limitations for Options A and B.
Table 3.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Bleach Plant Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Maximum Limitation Monthly Average Limitation
-------------------------------------------------- a
---------------------------
As
As proposed for Option A Option B proposed Option Option
Option B for A B
Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCDD.............................. ND ND ND N/A N/A N/A
TCDF (pg/l)....................... 359 24.1 24.1 N/A N/A N/A
(ng/kkg)
Chlorinated Phenolics............. ND b ND ND N/A N/A N/A
Chloroform (g/kkg)................ 5.06 5.33 5.33 2.01 2.80 c 2.80 c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Where the monitoring frequency was proposed to be once a month, the monthly average limitation would not be
applicable (N/A).
[[Page 36842]]
b Limits > ND for two pollutants (trichlorosyringol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol)(mg/kkg).
c Limits based on low air-flow low-flow (pressure or diffusion) pulp washers in bleach plants.
Table 4 presents the proposed limitations and the preliminary
results of revising end-of-pipe effluent limitations for AOX.
Additional data from two mills representing Option A were submitted by
the industry but not with sufficient lead time to allow EPA to complete
all analyses necessary to use that data in this notice. Results of
analyses for these additional data sets will be incorporated as
appropriate in the final rule. Listings of these additional data sets
are provided in the record (see DCNs 13960, 13961).
Table 4.-- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda End-of-Pipe AOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As
proposed Option Option
for A (kg/ B (kg/
Option B kkg) kkg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Average........................... 0.143 0.413 0.153
Monthly Average Limitation.................. 0.156 0.448 0.162
Daily Maximum Limitation.................... 0.267 0.769 0.236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 presents the proposed limitations and the preliminary
results of revising end-of-pipe effluent limitations for COD. The
revised limitations reflect additional data submitted by the industry
since proposal. However, as noted previously in this notice, the
supplemented database upon which the revised limitations are based
includes only limited data to determine the need for and magnitude of
end-of-pipe COD allowances for on-site sources other than pulping and
bleaching (e.g., paper machines, semi-chemical pulping). Therefore,
while the revised COD limitations presented in Table 5 have been
developed reflecting only market pulp operations, EPA intends that
final COD limitations reflect integrated mills, both ECF and TCF. Table
5 includes a range of possible LTA values for an integrated mill based
on the market pulp LTA plus a range of paper machine allowances
(presented as such due to limitations of currently available data). EPA
also is concerned that the limited COD data currently available for
market pulp operations may not represent the best performance of BMPs
and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems. Additional details on
these preliminary revised COD limitations and underlying data sets are
provided in the record (see DCN 13958).
Table 5.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory End-of-Pipe COD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As
proposed Option A (kg/ Option B
for kkg) (kg/kkg)
Option B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Average:
Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 21.3 38.2 44-61 a 25.5 31-48 a
Mills.
Monthly Average Limitation:
Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 25.4 45.6 b TBD 30.4 b TBD
Mills.
Daily Maximum Limitation:
Market Pulp Only Integrated NA 35.7 64.0 b TBD 42.7 b TBD
Mills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Market pulp plus range of values for paper machine allowances.
b Derived with same variability factors used for proposed limits.
TBD To Be Developed--insufficient data at this time.
In the proposal, the end-of-pipe ``annual average'' limitation for
non-continuous dischargers was set equal to the long-term average. The
daily maximum limitation applies to both continuous and non-continuous
dischargers. The monthly average limitations apply only to continuous
dischargers.
EPA is considering a change in the regulatory language defining
non-continuous dischargers (see the general definitions section of the
proposed regulation, at Sec. 430.01 (k)). The proposed definition
focuses on wastewaters stored for periods greater than 24 hours and
released on a batch basis. Alternative language being considered by EPA
describes the same non-continuous discharge patterns but focuses on
wastewaters stored for periods as required by NPDES authorities and
released on a variable flow or pollutant loading rate basis to protect
receiving water quality. EPA solicits comments, particularly from NPDES
authorities, on whether this change in emphasis is appropriate.
10. Conventional Pollutant Limitations (BPT and BCT)
EPA proposed to revise effluent limitations based on the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT) for all of the
proposed subcategories, including bleached papergrade kraft and soda.
EPA highlighted several controversial issues concerning the BPT
limitations, their calculation, and their interpretation. EPA also
presented a rationale, methodology, and related controversies for
establishing limitations based on the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
Although the Agency believes that it has the statutory authority to
revise BPT, the Agency also believes that it has the discretion to
determine whether to revise BPT effluent limitations guidelines in
particular circumstances.
For the final rule, the Agency is currently considering exercising
its discretion not to revise BPT. Where more stringent effluent
limitations for conventional pollutants pass the BCT cost test, EPA
would revise BCT in this rulemaking. EPA is likely to apply this same
discretion and reliance on the BCT cost test to final rules for this
entire industry, not just the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and
soda subcategory. EPA solicits comment on this approach.
The Agency also is carefully reviewing comments claiming that
certain of the data sets used to establish the proposed revised
conventional pollutant effluent limitations do not accurately represent
secondary biological treatment technology. EPA also has received a
suggestion from AF&PA regarding a different approach for identifying
mills having secondary treatment for purposes of performing the BCT
cost reasonableness test. This approach suggests that EPA's secondary
treatment regulations applicable to POTWs (see 40 CFR 133.101(m))
provide a basis for determining which mills performing at levels beyond
secondary treatment should be excluded from EPA's BCT analysis. See the
record at DCN 14047. If EPA were to adopt this approach, datasets for
certain mills asserted to represent more stringent performance than
secondary treatment would be removed from the conventional pollutant
database and the ensuing BCT cost reasonableness test. EPA solicits
comments on this possible approach, particularly with respect to the
use of 40 CFR 133.101(m) for this purpose. In response, EPA has made
some adjustments to the data sets used to characterize effluent
loadings of conventional pollutants typical of secondary biological
treatment as applied in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory. Additional discussion of the BCT datasets and calculations
are in the record (DCN 13954). Table 6
[[Page 36843]]
summarizes the changes to the long-term average performance for the BCT
options resulting from these adjustments.
Table 6.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory Long-Term
Average Performance Levels for BCT Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5 TSS
Long- Long-
Term Term
Average Average
(kg/ (kg/
OMMT) OMMT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Option 1 (average of the best 90%)........... 2.65 4.46
Proposal Option 2 (average of the best 50%)........... 1.57 2.72
Revised Option 1 (average of the best 90%)............ 2.73 4.41
Revised Option 2 (average of the best 50%)............ 1.73 2.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Technology Options for NSPS
For New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in the proposed
bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, EPA is considering a
minor revision to the proposed technology option. The likely technology
basis will be Option B, described in Section V.A.3. This option
includes extended delignification generally, including OD and/or
extended cooking to produce softwood pulps with a kappa number of
approximately 15 (approximately 10 for hardwoods) followed by complete
(100 percent) substitution by chlorine dioxide for bleaching.
EPA's data do not indicate performance differences between the
proposed NSPS option (then, Option 5) and the option being considered
today. EPA plans to use performance data from both of these options to
establish NSPS effluent limitations for priority and nonconventional
pollutants for the final rule.
For NSPS for conventional pollutants, EPA proposed effluent
limitations based on best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater
treatment. EPA used the treatment system with the lowest long-term
average BOD discharge to characterize the best demonstrated
performance. EPA's position is that the best existing performance can
be achieved (or surpassed) by new facilities as demonstrated by
recently built mills in Canada and Scandinavia. EPA has reviewed
comments and the supplementary information gathered since proposal and
is now considering the best existing performance as characterized by
the average of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the
subcategory. Based on that review of the supplemented database and
other information available to date, EPA believes this may be a more
appropriate representation of the best existing performance for mills
in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory because
the single best mill does not account for all sources of process-
related variability expected in the entire subcategory, including raw
materials (i.e., furnish), process operations, and final products.
12. Revised Economic Impact Results
a. Revisions to the Economic Analysis. The Agency plans to base its
decisions regarding the economic achievability of BAT and other cost
considerations on several revisions since proposal. First, the revised
economic impacts for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory will be based on the revised mill-specific engineering
costs described in Section V.A.7 of today's notice.
EPA also has revised the economic methodology to account for
changes that have occurred in the industry. Some of these changes are
summarized below; additional discussion is in the record (see Section
27.0). At proposal, EPA used both a financial model, which estimated
facility closures and production changes, and a market model, which was
used to estimate price and production effects. Though not fully
integrated, these models validated each other's results. Between 1989
and 1995, the industry underwent a period of intensive capital
investment, some for pollution control, but mostly to increase
production and to change product lines. During this period, a full
industry cycle was completed, with pulp mill revenues peaking in 1988,
falling through 1992, and reaching new heights in 1995 as the capacity
expansions of 1988-1991 were fully exploited. This same period was also
one of considerable industry consolidation, with almost 15 percent of
the facilities being acquired by others in the industry. In addition,
several facilities ceased operation, while several new ones opened. EPA
plans to update its financial profile of facilities that have changed
ownership and to use those updates in the economic analysis.
As a result of the industry's changes, EPA believes that the market
model used at proposal--based on information obtained in the 1989
survey--no longer provides reliable economic information. EPA does not
plan to update the market model, which would only be possible through a
new survey of every mill and all product lines. Instead, EPA plans to
incorporate some features of the market model, particularly product
supply and demand elasticities, into the financial model.
The financial model will incorporate several additional changes to
bring it up to date. For example, EPA is adjusting the start year of
the model to 1996, which will reflect changes in prices, inflation,
interest rates, and position in the pulp and paper industry cycle.
Additionally, EPA plans to adjust the industry cycle used for the
closure analysis in order to incorporate 1995 financial data. The
revised cycle will be seven years instead of the six year cycle used at
proposal. EPA also plans to adjust interest rates to reflect changes in
industry borrowing costs. EPA used a 7 percent rate in the analyses
reported in this notice.
EPA also plans to incorporate a cost pass-through or price change
parameter into the model to improve estimates of the effects of
closures on pulp and paper production. Although the results presented
in today's notice assume no price increases (as assumed at proposal),
this new feature will provide a more accurate estimate of the degree to
which increased costs are passed through to consumers. Hence, various
assumptions about cost pass-through will be considered when the Agency
makes final decisions about economic impacts.
b. Economic Impacts of BAT Options A and B. The economic impact
analysis will continue to use the three forecasting methods and the
composite scoring technique used at proposal to predict mill closures.
The revised economic impacts discussed in today's notice are based on
an analysis of 85 bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills (76 direct
dischargers and nine indirect dischargers). The compliance costs
summarized here are expressed in 1995 dollars. The Agency has not yet
completed its analysis of the combined impact of all components of the
Cluster Rules (e.g., BAT, BCT, BMP and MACT) for this subcategory. The
Agency plans to estimate economic impacts for the compilation of all
compliance costs and will consider those results in making decisions
for the final rules.
The total annualized costs (expressed as a sum of after-tax, or
private, costs to each mill) for BAT and PSES for Option A are $140
million. One mill is predicted to close with associated losses of
approximately 500 jobs (1.3 percent of bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills and 0.6 percent of subcategory employment).
For Option B, total annualized costs for BAT and PSES are $155
million. Three mills are predicted to close with associated losses of
approximately 4,100
[[Page 36844]]
jobs (3.5 percent of bleached papergrade kraft mills and about 5
percent of subcategory employment).
c. Cost-Effectiveness. The Agency has revised the cost-
effectiveness analysis for BAT and PSES to reflect the revised
estimates of costs and pollutant reductions. In addition, the Agency
has expanded its cost-effectiveness analysis since proposal to include
two cost bases: pre-tax and after-tax compliance costs. The Agency uses
pre-tax costs, which consider industry compliance costs as well as
reductions in state and federal tax revenues occasioned by these costs,
as a measure of direct social costs. After-tax costs are used to
estimate the direct private costs to the regulated industry. While the
after-tax cost basis was the only result presented for cost-
effectiveness at proposal, both sets of results have been calculated
and presented in the revised cost-effectiveness analysis. The
additional set of results responds to comments and to policy
discussions concerning cost-effectiveness ratios. Although AOX is
likely to have an effluent limit in the final rule (see section V.A.5
of this notice), AOX reductions are not included in the cost-
effectiveness ratios. This remains unchanged since proposal. Additional
details about the cost-effectiveness analysis are in the record (See
Section 26).
For BAT, the cost-effectiveness ratios using pre-tax compliance
costs are $12 (Sec. 1981) per pound-equivalent removed for Option A and
$11 per pound-equivalent removed for Option B. For PSES, the cost-
effectiveness ratios are $12 per pound-equivalent removed for Option A
and $16 per pound-equivalent removed for Option B, and $78 per pound-
equivalent for the increment of Option A to Option B.
The cost-effectiveness ratios for Options A and B are very close
and within the bounds of accuracy of EPA's costing analysis and data
available for loadings estimates. The Agency solicits comment on
whether these differences are meaningful for purposes of comparing the
options. The relative costs for implementing Options A and B will
differ among mills. The cost-effectiveness analysis is not presented as
mill-specific results, but instead, the analysis is conducted on
aggregate annualized compliance costs for direct and indirect
dischargers in this subcategory.
When the costs of Options A and B are compared on a pre-tax,
annualized basis, Option B is slightly less expensive than Option A for
the sum of all direct dischargers in this subcategory. Such a result
might appear counter-intuitive because Option B is a more capital
intensive option. This outcome occurs because, compared to industry
process technologies in place in 1995, implementing oxygen
delignification reduces operating costs at certain mills. At some of
these mills, the operation and maintenance cost savings of Option B are
sufficiently large that they outweigh that option's higher capital
costs.
In calculating annualized costs, the Agency used fixed assumptions
about discount rates (OMB's preferred 7 percent real rate) and tax
shields (including depreciation and deductions for operation and
maintenance costs), both of which may differ among mills due to the
firms' differing capital (borrowing) costs. The significantly greater
capital costs for Option B may be unachievable within normal compliance
periods for firms with higher borrowing costs or more limited access to
credit.
The Agency notes that there may be additional impacts associated
with mill closures, such as job losses and related displacement costs
(see Record Section 17, DCN 08587, pp. 5-5 to 5-6) that are not part of
the cost-effectiveness calculation, but which are considered by the
Agency when evaluating the economic achievability of options.
B. Proposed Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
EPA is considering revisions to the proposed papergrade sulfite
subcategory. EPA received comments that criticized the proposed
effluent limitations for their inapplicability to specialty grade pulps
and to ammonium-based pulping processes. Commenters also asserted that
the proposed technology basis, which was totally chlorine-free (TCF)
bleaching, is not feasible for certain products and processes.
1. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Technology Basis for BAT
EPA is carefully reviewing the demonstration and feasibility of
proposed effluent limitations and standards for all mills in the
proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory. Preliminary conclusions are
that certain specialty grade pulps have not been produced using totally
chlorine-free bleaching, and that totally chlorine-free bleaching has
not been demonstrated to be universally applicable to pulps made by
ammonium-based processes. Therefore, the Agency is considering
segmenting this proposed subcategory to better reflect the product
considerations, the variation of manufacturing processes, and the
demonstration and feasibility of pollution prevention process changes.
The segments being considered by EPA are:
(a) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills using
an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite.
(b) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills using
an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite.
(c) Production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills.
Specialty grade sulfite mills are those papergrade mills producing
specialty grade pulp characterized by a high percentage of alpha
cellulose and high brightness. Typical end uses of such pulp include
plastic molding compounds, saturating and laminating products, and
photographic papers.
The technology basis for papergrade sulfite products made by the
first segment (calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based processes) is
likely to be totally chlorine-free bleaching, as proposed.
For the second segment (ammonium-based), EPA has received comments
and data regarding the applicability of TCF bleaching. The Agency's
preliminary conclusion regarding this information is that TCF bleaching
is not demonstrated and may not be feasible for the full range of
products produced by ammonium-based sulfite mills in the United States.
This conclusion is based primarily on the greater difficulty in
bleaching ammonium-based sulfite pulps (especially those pulps derived
from softwood) without the use of chlorine-containing compounds
compared to other sulfite pulps, and the inability to maintain product
specifications for certain products within this segment using TCF
bleaching. TCF bleaching has not been demonstrated for products with a
high percentage of ammonium-based sulfite pulp that also require low
dirt count and high strength. Laboratory scale data have been submitted
by a firm producing such products indicating that such products can be
produced with elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies.
EPA expects to promulgate bleach plant effluent limitations for
dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic compounds for the ammonium-
based segment. EPA anticipates that it will reserve promulgation of
bleach plant chloroform limitations and end-of-pipe AOX limitations for
this segment until such time that sufficient performance data are
available for a mill with the product quality concerns discussed above.
EPA expects to have data that could serve as the basis of chloroform
and AOX limits for this segment no later than mid-1997.
[[Page 36845]]
For the third possible segment (mills that produce specialty grade
pulps), EPA has received comments and data that indicate key pulp and
product characteristics have not been achieved using TCF bleaching
technologies. Data from a firm producing specialty grade pulps indicate
required product characteristics may be achievable using ECF bleaching
technologies. These results are from limited laboratory scale trials.
The Agency is continuing to work with specialty sulfite pulp
manufacturers as their research efforts progress and therefore does not
expect to promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for this segment of the papergrade sulfite subcategory in
1996. EPA anticipates, however, that alternative bleaching processes
developed as a result of these research efforts should contribute to
substantial reductions from current operating practices in the
generation and release of pollutants including, for example, air
emissions of chloroform and discharge of chlorinated organic compounds
in wastewaters. EPA encourages mills in this segment to undertake and
expeditiously complete developmental work that will facilitate
installation of alternative process technologies that achieve these
pollution prevention goals at the earliest possible date.
2. Technology Options for BAT
For papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of
calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite, the TCF technology option being
considered as the technology basis for limitations is oxygen and
peroxide enhanced extraction, followed by peroxide bleaching. Although
still TCF, the technology sequence is a change from proposal, when TCF
was an oxygen stage with peroxide addition, followed by a peroxide
bleaching stage. This change to the TCF bleaching sequence reflects the
more common approach to TCF bleaching within the proposed papergrade
sulfite subcategory, and also reflects the technology basis of the
FR Doc. 96-17802 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability
mill
from which performance data have been collected.
For papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of
ammonium sulfite, the technology option being considered as the
technology basis for limitations is complete (100 percent) substitution
of chlorine dioxide for chlorine, peroxide enhanced extraction, and
elimination of hypochlorite. This sequence reflects the results of
laboratory trials showing the ability to produce the full range of
products manufactured by mills in the ammonium segment, with acceptable
final product characteristics.
For production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills,
technology development work is still ongoing. The most likely
technology basis for this segment is oxygen delignification, complete
(100 percent) substitution, and oxygen and peroxide enhanced
extraction.
3. Costs
EPA revised its cost estimates for mills in the subcategory by
using the revised bleaching sequences outlined above. EPA also has
updated equipment cost curves and unit operating costs. The detailed
basis of these revised cost estimates are provided in the record (DCNs
13920, 13947). The preliminary estimates of capital costs for mills in
the first two segments of the papergrade sulfite subcategory are $57.9
million. The preliminary annual operating and maintenance costs are
estimated to be $1.3 million per year. Total annualized costs are
estimated to be $6.6 million per year. These estimates do not include
costs for specialty grade sulfite mills.
4. Effluent Reduction Benefits
EPA has updated the calculation of effluent reduction benefits for
each papergrade sulfite mill, adjusting the baseline to mid-1995. EPA
used methodology similar to that used for the proposed bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
5. Revised Effluent Limitations for BAT and PSES
Table 7 presents the preliminary results of revising BAT effluent
limitations for the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, based on
TCF bleaching for the calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based segment
and ECF bleaching for the ammonium sulfite segment. For a discussion of
the pollutants EPA is considering addressing in its final rules for
this proposed subcategory, see Section V.A.5 of today's notice.
Table 7.-- Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory Bleach Plant Daily Maximum
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calcium,
magnesium, Ammonium-
and sodium- based
Proposed based sulfite sulfite
pulping TCF pulping ECF
bleaching bleaching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCDD (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND
TCDF (ng/kkg).................. none....... none......... ND
Chlorinated Phenolics (mg/kkg). none....... none......... ND
Chloroform (g/kkg)............. none....... none......... TBD a
AOX (kg/kkg)................... 0.1 b...... ND b......... TBDa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a To Be Developed (TBD).
b End-of-pipe limitation.
Table 8 presents the proposed effluent limitations for COD.
However, the supplemented database for the proposed papergrade sulfite
subcategory has very limited data to characterize COD loadings either
for on-site sources (including pulping and bleaching and other sources)
or the performance of the best spill prevention (BMPs), process
changes, and end-of-pipe biological treatment systems. As noted
previously, EPA will consider additional data and comments received in
response to this notice in developing final COD limits for TCF
(calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite) and ECF (ammonium-
based sulfite) mills in this subcategory. However, EPA also is
considering deferring developing COD limits until BAT COD limits are
developed for other subcategories in a later rulemaking.
Table 8.--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory End-of-Pipe COD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment Bb
As Segment Aa (kg/kkg)
proposed (kg/kkg) TCF ECF
Bleaching Bleaching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Average............... 63.7 TBD TBD
Monthly Average Limitation...... 71.2 TBD TBD
Daily Maximum Limitation........ 144 TBD TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Segment A:Calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite pulping.
[[Page 36846]]
b Segment B:Ammonium-based sulfite pulping.
6. Conventional Pollutant Limitations
As is the case for the proposed papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory, the Agency is considering promulgating more stringent
effluent limitations for conventional pollutants for the proposed
papergrade sulfite subcategory only if such limits pass the BCT cost
test. EPA solicits comment on this approach. The revised conventional
pollutant limitations would apply to the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-sulfite segment and to the ammonium sulfite segment, but not to
the specialty grade segment. Characteristics of wastewaters from
specialty grade sulfite mills are significantly different than
wastewaters from papergrade sulfite mills in the other two segments.
The Agency does not as yet have sufficient data to establish
performance levels for conventional pollutants for the specialty grade
segment.
EPA has updated and revised its analysis of performance levels in
response to comments and additional data. These changes are detailed in
the record (see DCN 13954). Table 9 summarizes the adjustments to the
proposed BCT options and the revised BCT option.
Table 9.--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory a Long-Term Average Performance
of Proposed BCT Options and Revised BCT Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5 TSS
Long- Long-
Term Term
Average Average
(kg/ (kg/
OMMT) OMMT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Option 1..................................... 4.97 5.46
Proposal Option 2..................................... 3.60 4.74
Revised Option........................................ 7.06 8.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Applicable to Calcium-, Magnesium-, and Sodium-based Sulfite Pulping
Segment, and to Ammonium-based Sulfite Pulping Segment.
7. Technology Options and Revised Effluent Limitations for NSPS
The technology basis of NSPS for the segments of the proposed
papergrade sulfite subcategory is likely to be the same as for the BAT
limitations. For calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite mills,
TCF-based technology is the likely basis for NSPS. TCF bleaching has
not been demonstrated as applicable to the full range of products made
by ammonium-based sulfite mills; therefore, ECF-based technology is
likely to be the basis of NSPS for mills in this segment. EPA plans to
reserve NSPS for specialty grade sulfite mills.
EPA proposed NSPS for conventional pollutants based on best
demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment. The treatment
system with the lowest long-term average BOD5 discharge was used
to characterize the best demonstrated performance. EPA does not
anticipate changing this methodology for developing NSPS for the
proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory. EPA continues to maintain that
any newly constructed mill will be able to achieve the same discharge
load as the best existing mill. Because of the changes since proposal
in the data sets characterizing typical treated effluent loads for
conventional pollutants for the proposed papergrade sulfite
subcategory, the best existing performance has changed, as summarized
in Table 10. The end-of-pipe performance of the single best mill
adequately represents the expected variability in raw materials,
processes, and products for mills in this subcategory.
Table 10.--Papergrade Sulfite NSPS Conventional Pollutants (Long Term
Averages)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5
(kg/ TSS (kg/
OMMT) OMMT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NSPS......................................... 2.69* 2.99*
Revised NSPS.......................................... 5.61 8.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that this is the average load of the best mill identified in the
Technical Development Document for the proposed rule.
8. Economic Impacts
a. Costs and Impacts. The economic analysis for papergrade sulfite
mills was revised and updated in a manner similar to that described in
Section V.A.12 of today's notice for the proposed bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory.
Total annualized BAT and PSES costs for the papergrade sulfite
subcategory are estimated to be approximately $6.6 million (post-tax).
No mills would be expected to close as a result of these costs, with no
related job losses.
b. Cost-Effectiveness. The following results are for the first two
segments of the papergrade sulfite subcategory. Cost-effectiveness
ratios are not yet available for each of these segments, reported
separately.
For direct dischargers, the cost-effectiveness ratio using pre-tax-
costs, is $10 per pound-equivalent removed. For indirect dischargers,
the cost-effectiveness ratio is $284 per pound-equivalent removed.
VI. Environmental Assessment
At proposal, EPA estimated 2,3,7,8 TCDD (``dioxin'') and 2,3,7,8
TCDF (``furan'') concentrations in fish tissue and then used those
concentrations to estimate individual cancer risks and non-cancer
hazards from consuming contaminated fish. EPA calculated estimates for
recreational and subsistence anglers using two water quality models.
One is a simple dilution model that assumes complete mixing and
bioavailability with contaminant accumulation in fish estimated by a
bioconcentration factor (BCF). The other model is EPA's Dioxin
Reassessment Evaluation Model (DRE), which estimates fish tissue
concentrations by equilibrium partitioning between the fish tissue and
contaminants adsorbed to the organic fraction of sediments suspended in
the water column. EPA received comments asserting that EPA improperly
employed the simple dilution model as a basis for predicting the risk
from dioxin and furan discharges. The comments further suggest that EPA
should only use the ``more realistic'' DRE model and not the simple
dilution model to estimate human exposure.
After evaluating these comments and new data related to the water
quality modeling for hydrophobic compounds, such as dioxin and furan,
EPA is considering changing its methodology for estimating dioxin and
furan concentrations in fish and for estimating individual cancer risks
and non-cancer hazards for the final rule. EPA is considering not using
the simple dilution model, which assumes complete mixing and
bioavailability with contaminant accumulation in fish estimated by a
bioconcentration factor, but instead using the DRE model. If EPA uses
the DRE model, however, EPA would replace the Biota to Suspended Solids
Accumulation Factor (BSSAF factor) of 0.09 (based on Lake Ontario data
which is primarily historical sources) with a BSSAF factor of 0.2, a
value considered more appropriate for ecosystems with ongoing impacts
(see ``Estimating Exposures to Dioxin-Like compounds'' Volume III:
Site-Specific Assessment Procedures; EPA 1994; DCN 13955).
EPA is still conducting its reassessment of dioxin and its impacts
on human health and the environment. Results of that reassessment
available prior to completing the Cluster Rules will be considered as
appropriate. EPA also has made available the 1995 database update of
the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories. See
the record at DCN
[[Page 36847]]
14016, Section 20.3. This listing is PC-based and available to the
public free of charge from the Internet through the following URL:
HTTP://www.epa.gov/OW/OST/Tools.
VII. Best Management Practices
In the proposed regulations EPA included provisions for leak and
spill prevention, containment, and control through best management
practices (BMPs). EPA has received comments that generally support the
use of BMPs. However, some commenters challenged the details of these
provisions. EPA continues to believe that leak and spill prevention,
containment, and control through BMPs yield not only increased
environmental benefits but also improved efficiency of operations at
pulp and paper mills. The Agency also intends that BMPs apply in the
final rule both for direct and indirect discharging mills.
The Agency has assessed preliminarily the comments and data
received on BMPs and has held detailed discussions with stakeholders
regarding options for BMPs and associated costs. EPA received a
substantial amount of additional information and data, including costs,
through a survey conducted by AF&PA and NCASI. Based on the information
and data received from mills that have implemented spill prevention and
control programs, EPA has reformulated the scope of BMPs to focus on
spent pulping liquor (i.e., black liquor and red liquor) spill control.
The Agency is also restructuring BMP program requirements to allow for
further flexibility in how BMPs are implemented to achieve meaningful
prevention and control of leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors.
The Agency has prepared and included in the record (DCN 13894) a
document that incorporates EPA's preliminary revisions to its proposed
BMP program.
In response to comments, this document also describes a management
program being considered by EPA for monitoring the implementation of
BMPs. The purposes of this requirement are: (1) To provide a framework
for monitoring the performance and effectiveness of BMPs on a
continuing basis; and (2) to establish an early warning system to
detect trends in spent pulping liquor losses that might otherwise not
be obvious from other sources. The program entails establishing upper
operating control limits on a measure of organic loading at the
influent to wastewater treatment or at another key location or
locations in the mill sewer system, and responding to exceedances of
those control limits with investigative and corrective actions, as
appropriate. EPA does not intend that exceedances of the upper control
limits will constitute violations of NPDES permits or pretreatment
control mechanisms. Failure of the owner or operator to conduct the
required monitoring or failure to conduct investigative or corrective
actions when such limits are exceeded would constitute violations.
EPA believes, consistent with a comment received, that COD is among
the best, if not the best, pulp mill wastewater characteristics to
monitor to meet the requirements of this provision of the BMP
regulation. The test method for COD is highly reproducible and can be
run in a short period of time, unlike BOD5. It also has the
advantage of being responsive to losses of turpentine and soap, unlike
conductivity which is not responsive to these materials. Accordingly,
the revised BMP program incorporates COD as the control parameter to
measure performance of pulping liquor spill controls. The Agency seeks
comments on the revised approach to BMPs and related details, including
costs. EPA also seeks comment on the management program described
above, including its potential effectiveness and any implementation
issues it might present, especially from a permit writer's perspective.
VIII. Pretreatment Standards
In the proposal, EPA discussed three options for pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) for the 13 indirect discharging
facilities in four proposed subcategories, each of which contribute the
majority of flow or pollutant loadings to a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). The option selected for proposal would have set PSES for
these indirect dischargers for the same pollutants controlled by BAT
for direct dischargers; the proposed standards would have applied at
the point of discharge from the bleach plant and at the point of
discharge to the POTW, depending upon the pollutant proposed to be
regulated. EPA also solicited comment on whether pretreatment standards
for BOD5 and TSS were warranted to ensure that pass-through of
these and other pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur.
For the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory and
the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory, EPA's record shows that
both direct-discharging mills in those proposed subcategories and POTWs
accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in those proposed
subcategories generally operate secondary biological treatment systems.
Data now available to EPA suitable for characterizing treatment system
performance at these POTWs still are quite limited. In general, the
data provided by indirect-discharging facilities, POTWs, and other
interested parties lack paired influent and effluent AOX, COD, and
color data points, accompanying information concerning operations (at
either the treatment system or related to pulping and bleaching process
areas of the mills), analytical methods, and quality control/assurance
(QA/QC) associated with sample collection, handling, and laboratory
analysis. In addition, some commenters provided summary information
unaccompanied by individual analytical data points, particularly for
POTW influent. As a result, EPA has been unable to develop a complete
and rigorous database for conducting a pass-through analysis.
Nevertheless, EPA has used the limited information available to the
extent possible in comparing pollutant reductions attained by direct-
discharging mill treatment systems and by POTWs accepting similar
wastewaters in evaluating the potential for pass-through to take place.
Based on the limited data available for the proposed bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and the proposed papergrade sulfite
subcategories, it appears that secondary biological treatment systems
at POTWs and direct-discharging mills generally achieve comparable
reductions of BOD5, TSS, AOX, COD, and color. (See the record at
DCN 13956.) Thus, EPA has concluded preliminarily that the data
reviewed for this analysis do not indicate pass-through of these
pollutants is likely to occur at these POTWs. EPA solicits comments on
this finding.
Accordingly, EPA anticipates that it will not promulgate national
pretreatment standards for new or existing sources for BOD5, TSS,
AOX, COD, or color for the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory or the proposed papergrade sulfite subcategory. Any new
data received on these pollutants, particularly for POTWs that did not
submit data usable for this analysis, will be considered in preparing
the final rules and will be placed in the record. Notwithstanding EPA's
preliminary decision not to set PSES or PSNS for those pollutants for
these subcategories, other regulatory authorities may determine, based
on a site-specific review of treatment system performance, that pass-
through of these or other pollutants does indeed occur and that locally
imposed limits are appropriate.
Concerning the pollutants discharged from the bleach plant, EPA
continues to
[[Page 36848]]
believe that sludge contamination occurs and therefore is likely to
promulgate PSES and PSNS for the same pollutants controlled at the
bleach plant by BAT limitations, as included in the proposal and as now
being considered in this notice, for direct-discharging facilities. See
Sections V.A and V.B, supra, for discussion of pollutants selected for
BAT regulation at the discharge from the bleach plant.
IX. Implementation Issues
A. Permit Limits for Multiple Subcategory Mills
The Agency has structured the revised effluent limitations
guidelines and standards to be used in a building block approach. This
means that the applicable NPDES permit limitations for mills with
production in more than one subcategory will be the sum of the mass
loadings based on the appropriate production in each subcategory and
the respective subcategory effluent limitations guidelines or
standards. In some cases, such any BCT limitations for conventional
pollutants, this may entail the use of two distinct subcategorization
schemes, revised and current. Where the Agency has revised effluent
limitations guidelines or standards, the appropriate production
encompassed in the revised subcategories will be utilized for the
calculation of mass limitations, with all remaining production
categorized and mass loadings calculated according to the current
subcategory scheme.
B. New Sources
In the proposed rule, EPA included definitions of types of
facilities that would be considered new sources. EPA received comments
that asserted that EPA had no basis for changing the definition of new
sources as provided in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program regulations (found at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29).
EPA is considering clarifying its definitions such that only new
``greenfield'' mills and new capacity increases at existing mills would
be considered new sources. Any existing mills that renovate existing
fiber lines at existing production levels for purposes of complying
with either BAT or PSES effluent limitations or standards or any
existing mills that voluntarily accept more stringent BAT limitations
as part of the incentives program would not be considered new sources.
C. Monitoring
EPA proposed specific minimum monitoring requirements in the
regulation (at Sec. 430.02) with monitoring frequencies for pollutant
parameters included in both bleach plant effluent limitations and end-
of-pipe effluent limitations. EPA is considering retaining these
minimum monitoring requirements as proposed at least for the two
proposed subcategories covered by this notice, and possibly also for
remaining bleaching subcategories to be covered in a later rulemaking.
However, EPA acknowledges that this approach would be a change from
past effluent guidelines practice where EPA issued only guidance with
respect to monitoring. EPA therefore welcomes comment--particularly
from permitting authorities--regarding the appropriateness of
promulgating specific minimum monitoring requirements. EPA also
acknowledges that specific minimum monitoring requirements may be at
odds with the Agency's recent initiative to tailor monitoring
requirements to particular circumstances, notably compliance records.
EPA has received a suggestion from the industry that if mills
certify that elemental chlorine is not being used in bleaching
operations (i.e., ECF--complete substitution with chlorine dioxide and
elimination of hypochlorite), monitoring should not be required for
dioxin, furan, or any other chlorinated organic pollutant parameters
proposed to be regulated (i.e., AOX, chloroform, chlorinated phenolic
compounds, etc.). EPA does not agree with the industry's assertion that
substitution of chemicals alone (changing to and ECF process), without
regard for operational controls, is sufficient to warrant such an
approach. There are data available for ECF operations indicating, for
example, that detectable concentrations of dioxin still can be
generated in bleach plant effluents. Contrary to the industry's
assertion, this finding reflects the need for careful control of
chemical (e.g., chlorine dioxide) application rates. Further,
chloroform concentrations in wastewater, and also air emissions, can be
expected to exhibit considerable variability reflecting pulp washing
and other operational practices. Therefore, without meaningful
monitoring data to reflect a range of operational practices, as well as
raw materials and final products, there is no assurance that changes in
process technologies that are installed are being properly operated or
that bleach plant limits or end-of-pipe limits are being achieved
consistently.
D. BMPs as NPDES Permit Special Conditions
EPA proposed that specific BMP requirements be fully implemented
within thirty months from the effective date of the final rules,
separate from the normal NPDES reissuance process. This structure would
be retained for indirect dischargers because the BMPs would be
promulgated as part of PSES. For direct dischargers, however, EPA is
now considering requiring implementation of BMPs as special NPDES
permit conditions and to require implementation of the BMPs within
thirty months from the effective date of the final rule or the date the
mill's next NPDES permit is issued, whichever is later. However, EPA
expects that the compliance date for implementation shall not extend
beyond five years from the effective date of the final rule, because
EPA expects NPDES permit for those mills to be reissued on a timely
basis.
E. Relationship Between the Cluster Rules and Project XL
As described in the May 22, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR
27282), EPA is participating in the development of regulatory
reinvention excellence and leadership (Project XL) pilot projects. Such
projects would involve the exercise of regulatory flexibility by EPA in
exchange for a commitment on the part of the regulated entity to
achieve better environmental results than would have been attained
through full compliance with all applicable regulations. One bleached
papergrade kraft mill is participating in Project XL. Many of the
incentives listed in Section X of this notice provide regulatory
flexibility in exchange for superior environmental benefits. EPA
solicits comments on how, if at all, project XL should be reflected in
this rulemaking.
F. Summary of Changes to Methods for Analysis of Pulp and Paper
Industry Wastewaters
The pulp and paper industry and other commenters have provided
suggestions for improvement of methods for analysis of pulp and paper
industry wastewaters. Where these suggestions are expected to have a
positive effect on the reliability of analytical data produced, EPA
will incorporate the suggestions into the final versions of methods
incorporated by reference into the final rule to be promulgated at 40
CFR part 430. Methods for which changes are anticipated and a summary
of these changes are given below. This summary is not intended to be
all-inclusive, but to be indicative of the
[[Page 36849]]
type of changes anticipated. Detailed revisions to these methods will
be added to the record at a later date.
1. Method 1624, Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Suggested changes focused mostly on clarification of the language
in Method 1624 rather than on substantive modifications of the method.
These clarifications will be made when Method 1624 is revised, updated,
and re-promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136. This update is expected in late
1996 or in 1997. No changes will be made to Method 1624 for
promulgation of the pulp and paper industry Cluster Rules.
2. Method 1650, AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration
EPA expects that changes will be made in Method 1650 as part of
this rulemaking to improve the ease of use and the reliability of this
method. Among the possible changes, EPA expects that the breakthrough
specification will be adjusted based on data provided by the industry;
that a 25-mL adsorption volume will be allowed, provided the
sensitivity requirements in the method are met; that greater
flexibility will be allowed in the apparatus cited in the method; that
2-mm columns only will be allowed; and that a minimum integration time
of 10 minutes will be added to assure that all AOX is measured.
3. Method 1653, Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and Isotope
Dilution GC/MS
EPA expects that changes will be made to Method 1653 as part of
this rulemaking to improve the reliability of the method and to lower
costs of measurements. Among the possible changes, EPA anticipates
lowering the spiking levels of the labeled compounds to reduce
interferences with trace levels of the analytes of interest and to
lower the cost of labeled compounds; allowing the use of solvents more
appropriate to the particular analyte being dissolved; the addition of
the labeled compounds to the sample prior to pH adjustment; and a
reduction in method flexibility in certain critical areas.
4. Method NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253, Color
Changes anticipated as part of this rulemaking are: Removal of
extraneous tables; revision of text of interferences; use of a
prefilter and/or centrifugation to reduce turbidity; and allowance of
use of a buffer solution and prefiltration so long as these changes do
not result in lower color values.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
At the time of proposal, EPA examined the potential economic impact
of the proposed Cluster Rules on small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., Pub. L. 96-354). See 58 FR
66077, 66154, (December 17, 1993). As part of this analysis, EPA
estimated the economic impact of the proposed integrated regulatory
alternative on small mills and small companies involved in pulp, paper
and paperboard manufacturing. See 58 FR 66154. The analysis also
presented the Agency's consideration of alternatives that might
minimize the impacts of the proposed Cluster Rules on small entities.
See 58 FR 66165. EPA did not analyze the alternative represented by
Option A at proposal because it lacked the data and information
necessary to perform that analysis. Based on the information and data
EPA has received since proposal, EPA believes that Option A represents
a significant alternative to the proposed BAT option. Because that
alternative, if adopted, would afford more flexibility to small
businesses than the proposed option and because the original analysis
addressed what EPA regards as the most stringent set of regulatory
alternatives, EPA believes that the original analysis continues to
provide an adequate basis by which to evaluate the impact of the
proposed Cluster Rules on small entities. Moreover, mills in the
proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
subcategories typically are not small businesses, whereas the proposed
Cluster Rules included other subcategories in which small businesses
are more likely to be operating. As described earlier in this notice,
these other subcategories will not be included in this initial phase of
final rulemaking but in a later phase of rulemaking. For this reason,
EPA believes that no further regulatory flexibility analysis is
necessary at this time. However, EPA will perform a final regulatory
flexibility analysis in compliance with all applicable laws at the time
it promulgates the Cluster Rules.
X. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
As noted earlier in this notice, EPA's vision of long term
environmental goals for the pulp and paper industry includes continuing
research and progress toward environmental improvement. The Agency
believes that individual mills could be encouraged to explore and
install technologies that could achieve further pollutant reductions
through a voluntary incentives program designed to complement the
baseline BAT. This industry's participation in the 33/50 program and
its progress toward reducing toxic discharges in advance of the
proposed BAT revisions indicate that such an approach may be widely
accepted and utilized by individual mills.
Further, EPA recognizes that technologies exist, and are currently
employed by some mills, that have the ability to surpass the
environmental protection that would be provided by compliance with
limits and standards based on the final rules. These technologies
include extended delignification (e.g., extended cooking and/or oxygen
delignification) in conjunction with complete substitution (if Option A
is selected), and TCF bleaching technologies. Some mills also are
investigating and developing advanced technologies that achieve major
reductions in water use and process wastewater flow through treatment
and recycle of pulping and evaporator condensates and bleach plant
filtrates to recovery systems.
EPA has received suggestions for an incentives program from a
number of stakeholders. In addition to the suggestions EPA has
incorporated into its preliminary incentives program, EPA also received
ideas for other incentives; these ideas are summarized later in this
notice. From these and other stakeholder suggestions, EPA has developed
a preliminary program, presented below, that is intended to provide
incentives for further long term environmental improvements. EPA is
considering several types of incentives to encourage further
environmental improvements by mills that have yet to decide on an
approach to comply with BAT effluent limitations. Because mill-specific
factors, including product specifications and existing equipment, may
affect the technical approach taken or the environmental goal
attainable by an individual mill, EPA is considering several tiers of
performance-based incentives. The appropriate limits and standards for
each of tier would be codified as an alternative BAT and, as
appropriate, NSPS for any mill choosing to participate in the
incentives program at that tier. Under this approach, greater
incentives would be available for greater reductions in pollutant
discharge.
EPA recognizes that there are mills in the proposed bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory that have already installed, have
committed to install or may yet decide to install, advanced
technologies that are achieving or have the potential to achieve
effluent limitations more stringent than those
[[Page 36850]]
likely to be adopted in the final rules (particularly if Option A is
selected). These mills would qualify for the incentives program, and
the incentives would actually serve as rewards for actions already
taken.
A key tenet of this program is that mills would voluntarily chose
an incentives-related BAT/NSPS as the basis for their technology-based
NPDES permit limits (e.g., inclusion in NPDES permits of AOX effluent
limitations more stringent than those based on the baseline BAT as well
as condensate and bleach plant wastewater flow reduction limitations)
in order to qualify for these incentives. Mills would not be required
to enter this program. A mill choosing not to accept incentives-related
BAT limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT
limitations or NSPS would be subject to the baseline BAT limatations on
NSPS of the type discussed in today's notice in Section V.
Any mill could voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate to its
individual circumstances. Further, mills that enter either at Tier I or
Tier II could decide, after making such a commitment in permits but
before termination of the appropriate compliance period (i.e., not
later than five years--Tier I, or not later than ten years--Tier II),
to commit to the requirements of a more stringent tier (i.e., Tier II
or Tier III). The limitations and standards corresponding to those
tiers would then be BAT for that mill. Threshold requirements at Tier I
being considered for mills to qualify would include unbleached pulp
characteristics typical of extended delignification technologies (e.g.,
oxygen delignification) and recycle of pulp mill filtrates to recovery
systems (for purposes of this discussion using Option A as the BAT
baseline). For NSPS, the entry tier would probably be Tier II (as
tentatively defined in this Notice), assuming that the baseline NSPS is
codified as discussed in Section V.A.11 above.
Mills that operate a single fiber line and that achieve performance
reflective of advanced technology on that line will be considered
eligible as a whole mill for the incentives described below (except for
operations outside of the pulp, paper and paperboard industrial
category and the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory). At mills with more than one fiber line, only those fiber
lines that achieve performance reflective of advanced technology
performance standards will be eligible for the incentives described
below.
A preliminary list of possible incentives along with the Agency's
preliminary structure of these advanced technology program tiers
follows below. This structure consists of three tiers that would apply
if Option A is selected as the baseline BAT in the final rule.
A. Advanced Technology Tiers
1. Definition of Incentives-Related BAT Limitations or NSPS by Tier
EPA is considering including in the final regulation three tiers of
BAT limitations and two tiers of NSPS applicable to the proposed
bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory, each of which would be
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the possible
limitations and standards described below, each tier also would include
as limitations and standards for other parameters the bleach plant
limitations EPA is considering promulgating as part of the baseline
BAT/NSPS.
a. Tier I BAT Limitations. To qualify for this tier, a mill would
need to operate its advanced technology (AT) fiber line(s) to achieve a
final effluent AOX long term average (LTA) of 0.30 kg/kkg. AT fiber
lines must also achieve reduced lignin content in unbleached pulps as
measured by a kappa number of 20 for softwoods and 13 for hardwoods.
Finally, AT fiber lines must recycle to recovery systems all filtrates
up to the point at which the unbleached pulp kappa numbers are measured
(e.g., brownstock into bleaching).
b. Tier II BAT Limitations and NSPS. To qualify for this tier, a
mill would need to operate its AT fiber line(s) to achieve a final
effluent AOX LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, and total pulping area
condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow of
10 m3/kkg or less.
c. Tier III BAT Limitations and NSPS. To qualify for this tier, a
mill would need to operate its AT fiber line(s) to achieve a final
effluent AOX LTA of 0.05 kg/kkg, and total pulping area condensate,
evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg or
less.
For each tier described above, EPA would also promulgate
appropriate limitations (maximum monthly average and maximum for any
one day) that account for variability around the long term average
(LTA) limits presented above. See the record for discussion of limits
and standards defining these tiers (DCN 13957).
2. Basis for Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and NSPS
For Tier I (if complete substitution is chosen as the baseline
BAT), the BAT model technology would be that represented by BAT Option
B. EPA is not selecting a model technology for Tiers II and III (under
the present structure) because these Tiers are intended to reflect
evolution of advanced technologies that cannot be specified today.
However, EPA expects that those technologies would move mills toward
minimum impacts and closed loop operations. EPA has chosen to use AOX
as a performance standard for each of the three incentives-related BAT
tiers and the two NSPS tiers because AOX is a measure of progress in
reducing the total chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting
from the bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use of AOX rather than
other measures of organic matter (e.g., BOD) will further encourage a
pollution prevention approach instead of end-of-pipe treatment
technologies. EPA seeks comment on including COD as a performance
criterion in addition to AOX, and seeks comment on and data supporting
the performance-based COD value that would be appropriate for each of
the tiers in terms of mass-loading or percent reduction beyond BAT/NSPS
levels.
In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA is considering establishing
BAT limitations for Tier I that include kappa numbers measured prior to
bleaching and a narrative limitation calling for recycling of the
filtrates generated prior to the point at which that kappa is achieved.
By meeting the kappa number and recycle limitations, Tier I mills would
achieve substantial reductions in precursors for chlorinated organic
pollutants found in lignin (measured as kappa number values) beyond
reductions achieved by mills with conventional pulping processes.
Further, Tier I mills would be bleaching pulps with less lignin and
would realize significant reductions in the amount of unrecoverable
bleaching chemicals required to achieve their target brightness. By
using less bleaching chemical, Tier I mills would further increase the
margin of safety by reducing the formation and discharge of chlorinated
organic pollutants generated by bleaching pulps with chlorine-
containing compounds, including chlorine dioxide. By recycling the
bleaching filtrates, Tier I mills also would be implementing an
important building block for long-term flow reduction goals.
By defining Tier I with parameter values (AOX, kappa numbers) and
recycle requirements as presented above, EPA intends to provide maximum
encouragement to as many mills as possible to achieve the performance
of at least the initial threshold of the advanced technology
[[Page 36851]]
program. Adopting threshold performance criteria that are too stringent
could discourage mills from making additional capital investments
beyond those necessary to achieve the baseline BAT. This could
undermine one goal of the incentives program, which is to achieve the
greatest environmental results possible consistent with mills' capital
investment cycles. Conversely, setting threshold criteria at levels
that could be met by some mills that only comply with the baseline BAT
limitations and do not employ advanced technologies could serve as a
disincentive to invest in advanced technologies that achieve dramatic
reductions in pollutant loadings and flow. The kappa numbers defined
above for Tier I, while at the upper end of the range of values
achieved by these technologies, nonetheless appear to separate mills
that employ them from mills that would use conventional pulping
technologies and achieve the BAT effluent limitations now being
considered by EPA. EPA seeks comment on this finding.
EPA is considering setting the incentives-related BAT limitations
and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a more stringent philosophy
than for Tier I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III should reflect
movement toward the long-term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in
all environmental media through partially or fully closed loop
processes. For Tier II, EPA is considering an AOX limit based on a
long-term average (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being achieved by
some of the best mills in the industry. For Tier III, EPA is
considering an AOX limit based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/kkg)
that is being achieved only by a very few mills, including one ECF
mill. While this ECF mill achieved the AOX limit only with hardwood
furnish, it did so without the level of flow reduction anticipated for
Tier III. It is the Agency's judgment, based on trends in ECF
technology development to date, that with recycle of pulping and
evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates necessary to achieve
a wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg and removal of chlorides from
filtrates (or at other points in the recovery cycle), commensurate
reductions in the mass of chlorinated organic pollutants contained in
wastewaters discharged also are likely to occur. For this reason, it is
EPA's judgment that the Tier III AOX limit would be achievable by
advanced ECF mills for both hardwood and softwood furnishes. It is also
important to note that recently gathered data from TCF mills indicate
that end-of-pipe AOX levels below detection limits can be achieved. For
this reason, EPA expects that all TCF mills should be eligible to
participate in this program (based solely on AOX performance) and that
separate BAT/NSPS AOX limitations would be unnecessary. Therefore, it
is the Agency's judgment that either advanced ECF or TCF mills will be
capable of achieving this AOX limit for Tier III.
Flow reduction and progress toward closed loop mill operations are
very important long-term environmental goals because releases to all
environmental media would be minimized. Review of currently available
data and literature indicates that the numerical values set forth to
define Tiers II (10 m3/kkg) and III (5 m3/kkg) are
appropriately stringent reduced flow targets by comparison to current
wastewater flow for mills with extended delignification technologies.
Moreover, EPA indicated in the March 8, 1996 notice that the industry's
``clean water alternative'' could be a MACT compliance alternative that
conceptually will facilitate segregation, treatment, and reuse of
condensates. Inclusion of pulping and evaporator condensates in these
reduced flow targets is therefore both consistent with this potential
alternative and appropriate in that it will foster even greater flow
reduction through recycle and reuse of the greatest possible volume of
process wastewater. While completely closed loop operations offer a
theoretically desirable goal, EPA is concerned that without
considerably more research and mill trials, the potential exists for
cross-media transfers or product quality concerns.
As EPA presently conceives the incentives program, a mill would
qualify for incentives only if it agrees to accept permit limitations
corresponding to the tier it selects (e.g., for Tier II, an AOX
limitation of 0.10 kg/kkg and condensate and bleach plant wastewater
flow of 10 m3/kkg) including all applicable bleach plant
limitations (e.g., those corresponding to BAT Option B and the proposed
NSPS). Those limitations would constitute BAT/NSPS for that mill. The
permit developed for a mill participating in the incentives program
also would need to contain all other permit limitations and conditions
otherwise applicable to the mill, including any conventional pollutant
limitations and standards established by these Cluster Rules, any water
quality-based effluent limitations required under CWA section
301(b)(1)(C), and best management practices (BMPs) provisions.
3. Legal Authority to Establish Incentives-Related BAT Limitations and
NSPS
EPA believes it has the legal authority to establish incentives-
related BAT limits for Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III applicable solely
at the election of the regulated entity. (Similar arguments support
EPA's preliminary NSPS determination.) Under CWA section 304(b)(2), EPA
is authorized to identify a technology as BAT after taking into account
a variety of factors, including the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, non-water quality environmental impacts and such other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. In this instance, EPA
believes the limits corresponding to each of the tiers would reflect
BAT for any participating mill for the following reasons.
First, having voluntarily agreed to make these limits enforceable
in its permit, the mill represents to EPA that there is a technology
that is the best available and economically achievable for that mill to
achieve the limits. Thus, the costs of achieving the desired effluent
reductions--evaluated against the mill's own choices--support the BAT
finding. Second, EPA would conclude that a less stringent baseline BAT
(e.g., for purposes of this discussion based on complete substitution)
would not be BAT for such a mill on the date of promulgation because
the mill is making investment and engineering decisions that would make
a process focused solely on complete substitution technically and
financially inappropriate (such as by over designing chlorine dioxide
generation capacity). In other words, that process technology would not
be ``best'' for those mills committed to moving beyond complete
substitution to more stringent incentive-based limitations. Moreover,
avoiding such over design would avoid unnecessary capital investments,
with those investments possibly applied to projects to prevent other
environmental impacts. Finally, application of incentives-related BAT
limits would be completely voluntary; an Advanced Technology mill
participating in the incentives program would always be free to forgo
the incentives and to meet the baseline BAT limits instead.
The same analysis justifying the various pollutant parameter limits
for the baseline (i.e., non-incentives) BAT applies equally to the
incentives-related BAT limits for those parameters, with the addition
of progressively more stringent end-of-pipe AOX limits, limits
pertaining to lignin content in
[[Page 36852]]
unbleached pulp and recycle of filtrates for Tier I, and reductions in
condensate and bleach plant wastewater flows for Tiers II and III. See
Section V.A.5 and 9. EPA believes, for the reasons discussed in Section
X.A.2, above, it has the authority to establish incentive-based BAT
limits for lignin content in unbleached pulp, for recycle of filtrates,
and for reduced condensate and bleach plant wastewater flows. Kappa
numbers limits (representing the lignin content of unbleached pulp) can
be used to reduce the presence of precursors for chlorinated organic
pollutants in a mill's wastewater. Recycle of filtrates to chemical
recovery processes reduces the mass of precursors for chlorinated
organic pollutants, as well as all other pollutants in these
wastewaters, that would otherwise be discharged. Limits for condensate
and bleach plant wastewater flows move mills toward closed loop
operations, thereby dramatically reducing chlorinated organic
pollutants and all other pollutants otherwise found in mill wastewater
discharges. The basis for these limits is discussed in Section X.A.2
above. EPA solicits comment on this approach, including the reasoning
EPA offers in support of it.
B. Incentives Available Prior to Achievement of Incentives-Related BAT
1. Extended Compliance Schedules
A major obstacle to implementing advanced technologies in this
industry is the disjunction between the statutory requirement that
mills comply immediately with BAT and the longer time frames usually
associated with a mill's investment plans. While the immediate
compliance requirements of the Act promote, in the short term, prompt
implementation of proven BAT technologies--and hence deliver over the
long term the environmental benefits associated with achieving the BAT
limits--EPA is concerned that the statutory deadlines also can
discourage mills in this industry from implementing technologies
superior to the BAT technology. EPA believes that many mills, were it
not for the BAT time constraints, would choose to invest in more
advanced technologies than BAT because the long-term environmental,
operational, and market competitiveness benefits would be
correspondingly greater. Such investments, however, typically require
more time than the statute allows, especially in this industry where
capital investment cycles are five years or longer. Mills wishing to
implement--or to design and pilot--more advanced technologies are often
faced with an unattractive choice: either achieve BAT immediately with
the risk that that technology will be overtaken imminently in whole or
in part by more advanced technologies, or risk extended noncompliance
with BAT in pursuit of superior performance levels. This is
particularly the case here, where mills can design their bleach plants
either to achieve BAT, such as that represented by Option A, or to
adopt a long-term approach that includes more advanced extended
delignification processes (such as those anticipated under Tier I) or
TCF processes. For example, if immediate compliance with baseline BAT
limitations (for purposes of this discussion Option A) were to be
required, these mills may be compelled to expand chlorine dioxide
generating capacity to meet those limitations immediately even though
that expanded capacity would be unnecessary once their advanced systems
are in place. See also 61 FR 9383, 9395 (March 8, 1996) where EPA
discussed a similar quandary regarding how short-term compliance with
MACT could create a disincentive to adopt more advanced wastewater
control technology alternatives.
EPA is considering addressing this tension through an incentive.
Under this possible incentive, mills selecting an incentives-related
BAT requiring immediate compliance with the limits corresponding to the
chosen tier would receive additional time through an enforcement order
to meet those limits. In this way, EPA hopes to give mills an incentive
to implement advanced technologies and to accommodate the realities of
capital investment cycles and complex implementation tasks such as flow
reduction. Because the Clean Water Act requires immediate compliance
with BAT limitations (including those contemplated by the incentive
tiers), the permitting authority is foreclosed from establishing a
longer deadline for compliance in the permit. However, the permitting
authority is authorized to exercise its enforcement discretion to issue
an accompanying enforcement order that includes a schedule by which the
mill must achieve full compliance, including interim milestones as
appropriate. This could also be accomplished through negotiated consent
decrees under CWA section 309(a)(3). Extended compliance schedules
established pursuant to this possible incentive would apply only to the
BAT limitations and standards for Tiers I, II or III, including the
baseline BAT bleach plant limits applicable to the mill. These extended
compliance schedules would not govern compliance with other permit
limitations and conditions, including those based on BCT, water quality
concerns, or BMP requirements. Rather, any appropriate compliance
periods pertaining to those requirements would need to be established
under the authorities applicable to them.
When EPA is the permitting authority, EPA would exercise its
enforcement discretion to extend BAT compliance periods for mills that
accept incentives-related BAT limitations and standards in their NPDES
permit. In addition, at the time the proposed Advanced Technology
permit is made available for public comment, EPA would also make
available the proposed enforcement order in order to give the public
adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on the length of time
contemplated by the compliance schedule and the proposed interim
milestones. When EPA is not the permitting authority, EPA would issue
guidance to States strongly urging States to issue similar compliance
orders to Advanced Technology mills and to follow the public notice
procedures described above.
EPA also would issue guidance strongly urging States to impose
enforceable interim milestones as part of the compliance order that
would incrementally benefit the environment during the interim period
that would ensure that participating mills make reasonable progress
toward achieving the superior performance represented by the various
Advanced Technology Alternative BAT tiers. Where EPA is the permitting
authority, EPA would impose such interim milestones itself. Milestones
could include intermediate pollutant load and wastewater flow
reductions in addition to research schedules, construction schedules,
mill trial schedules, or other milestones appropriate to the advanced
technology and the participating mill. EPA would encourage these
interim milestones to be tailored to circumstances and process
technologies at individual mills. The compliance order would also need
to specify interim limits that function as the starting point for the
mill's compliance schedule. EPA would issue guidance providing that the
starting point for the in-plant limits and advanced technology AOX
limit contained in the compliance orders would be no less stringent
than existing effluent quality or the effluent limits imposed in the
last permit, whichever are more stringent.
EPA recognizes that compliance orders also would be available for
mills choosing not to participate in the incentives program. Typically
[[Page 36853]]
compliance orders for baseline BAT limitations require compliance no
later than three years from the date the permit imposing such
requirements is issued. In this possible incentive, EPA contemplates an
approach that would be different from this typical practice in two
respects: First, the compliance schedules would be longer, ranging from
five to fifteen years; second, the extended compliance period would
commence on the date the Cluster Rules are promulgated, not on the date
the permit incorporating the relevant limits is issued.
With respect to the length of a compliance schedule for achieving
incentives-related BAT limits and standards, EPA believes that the
following time frames would be reasonable: Tier I--not later than five
years beyond the effective date of the final rule; Tier II--not later
than ten years beyond the effective date of the final rule; and Tier
III--not later than fifteen years beyond the effective date of the
final rule.
EPA regards five years as a reasonable time frame to achieve the
incentives-related BAT limitations and standards corresponding to Tier
I (including the bleach plant BAT effluent limitations) if Option A is
the selected BAT because Tier I limitations could be achieved using
known technologies (Option B technologies) within that timeframe
without the closures predicted for Option B. In addition, premature
compliance with certain BAT limitations could lead to counterproductive
outcomes (e.g., installation of either excess or completely unnecessary
chlorine dioxide generating capacity).
EPA regards ten years as a reasonable timeframe to achieve the
incentives-related BAT limitations corresponding to Tier II because
substantial flow reduction, to 10 m3/kkg, is the most difficult
and time consuming element of this tier. Recycle of a substantial
portion of pulping and evaporator condensates and bleach plant
filtrates, with the attendant complexities of total mill balances for
very large volumes of process water and wastewater, requires
considerable time before it can be implemented successfully at mill-
scale. Nonetheless, achievement of enforceable interim milestones,
including the BAT bleach plant limitations, in a period shorter than
ten years is likely and should be required by the enforcement
authority.
EPA regards fifteen years as a reasonable timeframe to achieve the
incentives-related BAT limitations corresponding to Tier III. As for
Tier II, flow reduction again is the most difficult and time consuming
task. However, because achieving or surpassing flow reduction to 5
m\3\/kkg for pulping and evaporator condensates and bleach plant
filtrates approaches a closed mill configuration, even more technically
difficult and time consuming tasks must be successfully completed. This
probably would include removal of metals and chlorides by ``kidney''
technologies in order to control system scaling and corrosion problems
while maintaining product quality and minimizing cross-media impacts.
Successful completion of these tasks at individual mills will involve
extensive research and mill trials. Nonetheless, achievement of interim
milestones, including the BAT bleach plant limitations and intermediate
levels of flow reduction, in a period shorter than fifteen years is
likely and should be required by the enforcement authority.
EPA also believes that it has a reasonable basis to measure the
extended time periods from the promulgation date of the Cluster Rules
rather than from the date a participating mill's NPDES permit is
issued. First, EPA wants to promote implementation of advanced
technologies as soon as possible; if EPA were to measure the extended
compliance period from the date of permit reissuance, compliance with
Tier I limits could be deferred by as much as ten years from the date
of promulgation. Second, EPA has determined that many mills in the
proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory are discharging
under permits that have already expired, that will expire soon after
the promulgation of the Cluster Rules, or that have reopener clauses to
allow the permitting authority to adjust the permit to reflect the new
effluent guideline limitations. EPA expects that permit writers will
reissue these permits promptly after the Cluster Rules are published.
Thus, the decision to measure an extended compliance period from the
date of promulgation rather than from the date of permit issuance
should have little practical effect on most mills. Third, mills in the
proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory have been on
notice since at least 1993 that EPA was considering basing some portion
of its Cluster Rules on extended delignification technologies. (In its
1993 proposal, EPA proposed to base BAT limitations on a process that
included oxygen delignification and 100 percent substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine.) In some cases, that proposal
has already influenced investment decisions at some mills. Finally,
with the issuance of this notice detailing EPA's possible incentives
program, mills potentially interested in participating can plan
accordingly with little prejudice.
EPA acknowledges that a mill choosing not to participate in the
advanced technology incentives program in some cases could obtain a
three-year compliance schedule that, depending on the date its permit
was reissued, could allow that mill to achieve BAT limits (including a
less stringent AOX limit) at a later date than Advanced Technology
mills would be required to achieve a lower AOX value and lower kappa
numbers and filtrates recycling. However, EPA cannot foresee any
circumstances in which such relief would be deemed necessary by the
permitting authority.
Although EPA is considering implementing this incentives program
through enforcement orders, EPA also recognizes that mills may be
discouraged from participating in the program by the uncertainty
inherent in obtaining additional time to comply through enforcement--
rather than permitting--mechanisms. In order to address this
uncertainty, EPA also is considering establishing an Alternative BAT at
the Tier I level that would be effective five years from the date of
promulgation, a second Alternative BAT at the Tier II level that would
be effective ten years from the date of promulgation, and a third
Alternative BAT at the Tier III level that would be effective fifteen
years from the date of promulgation.
If EPA were to adopt a structure of Alternative BAT limitations at
the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III levels, EPA would codify ``Tier I
Alternative BAT limits,'' ``Tier II Alternative BAT limits,'' and
``Tier III Alternative BAT limits'' in addition to the incentives-
related BAT limitations for those tiers that would be effective
immediately. Those Alternative BAT limits would apply--on a purely
voluntary basis--to any mill in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft
and soda subcategory choosing to gain additional time for compliance
with the selected tier alternative BAT limits through a permitting
rather than enforcement mechanism. Any mill that voluntarily chooses
this Alternative BAT approach would qualify for any incentives
applicable to the appropriate tier once it achieves the Alternative BAT
limits for that tier.
The Alternative BAT limits would probably consist of two phases.
The first phase would commence on the date the Cluster Rules are
promulgated and would terminate five years from the date of
promulgation for Tier I, ten years
[[Page 36854]]
from the date of promulgation for Tier II, and fifteen years from the
date of promulgation for Tier III. During the first phase, any permit
issued to a participating mill would need to include, as BAT
limitations, interim effluent limits that would be equivalent either to
the limits in the mill's last permit or to the mill's current effluent
quality, whichever is more stringent. These first phase interim BAT
limits would be effective immediately. The permit also would need to
include any water quality-based effluent limitations required under CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C) and any other applicable requirements including
any BMPs required by these rules. The purpose of the interim BAT limits
in the first phase would be to ensure that, at a minimum, current
effluent quality is maintained while the mill moves toward achieving
limits corresponding to the tier selected by the mill. During the
second phase, the permit limits would be made more stringent to
correspond to the tier limits the mill has committed to achieve. Those
limits would be effective five years from the date the Cluster Rules
are promulgated for Tier I, ten years for Tier II, and fifteen years
for Tier III. Thus, mills electing to accept Alternative BAT at Tier I
would have the appropriate limits and standards and any appropriate
interim milestones leading toward achievement of the ultimate
Alternative BAT Tier I limits incorporated into its permit as soon as
it is reissued; the Tier I limits and standards, however, would not be
``effective'' until five years from the date of promulgation of the
Cluster Rules. Mills electing to accept Alternative BAT Tier II limits
would be required to meet interim BAT limits reflecting, at a minimum,
existing effluent quality for the first five year permit term and any
appropriate interim milestones leading toward achievement of the
ultimate Alternative BAT Tier II limits selected by that mill. The
second five year permit term would incorporate those interim limits,
any further interim milestones, and the ultimate Alternative BAT Tier
II limits which would become effective ten years from the date of
promulgation of the Cluster Rules. Similarly, mills electing to accept
Alternative BAT Tier III limits would maintain limits reflecting, at a
minimum, existing effluent quality for the first and second five year
permit terms (total of ten years), with any appropriate interim
milestones leading toward achievement of the ultimate Alternative BAT
Tier III limits selected by that mill. The third five year permit term
would incorporate those interim limits, any further interim milestones,
and the Alternative BAT Tier III limits, which would become effective
fifteen years from the date of promulgation of the Cluster Rules.
The only practical difference between the Alternative BAT structure
with delayed effective dates and the other incentives-related BAT
limitations, effective immediately, is the mechanism by which the
participating mill receives additional time to achieve the tier limits.
Under the Alternative BAT approach, the mechanism is the permit; under
the other approach, the mechanism is an enforcement order. Mills
choosing either approach will be required to maintain, at a minimum,
existing effluent quality during the interim period before the date the
ultimate BAT limits become enforceable. Mills under either approach
also would be subject to interim milestones as appropriate. Finally, at
the end of either five or ten or fifteen years from the date of
promulgation of the Cluster Rules, every mill participating in the
incentives program would be expected to achieve the final BAT limits
represented by Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III. Thus, the only difference
between the enforcement approach and the Alternative BAT structure
would be the mechanism, not the result.
EPA believes it has the authority to adopt the Alternative BAT
approach for the incentive tiers, which includes delayed effective
dates. The delayed effective dates are intended to make the underlying
tier technologies the best available technologies economically
achievable for mills willing to go beyond the baseline BAT by allowing
those mills more time to develop and implement technologies and plan
for capital expenditures. EPA solicits comment on the alternative BAT
approach. EPA also solicits comment regarding the applicability of this
incentives-related program to new sources, including the
appropriateness of ``Alternative NSPS.''
C. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations and NSPS
1. Greater Certainty Regarding Permit Limits and Requirements
Some industry stakeholders have suggested to EPA that mills could
be encouraged to implement advanced technologies if they had a
reasonable assurance that all limitations and conditions in their
permits would remain constant over a specified period of time, once
compliance with the Advanced Technology limits and standards is
achieved. EPA seeks comment on this incentive and on the details
described below.
Under this incentive, EPA would issue guidance urging states, where
allowed by state law, to administratively extend the permits of
Advanced Technology mills for up to five years past the date the
Advanced Technology permit would otherwise expire, subject to the
following conditions. First, this incentive would be available only for
the first permit issued after the facility achieves full compliance
with its incentives-related BAT limits or NSPS, as appropriate. Second,
as part of the permitting process, the permitting authority would
inform the public that it regards the AT facility as a low priority for
permit reissuance in the next permitting cycle and that it will
consider allowing the permit (after it expires five years hence) to
continue to be administratively extended for up to five additional
years provided that the permittee has filed a timely application and
that the permitting authority possesses no new water quality or
facility-related data that would justify new or different permit
conditions and limits. In EPA's view, the permitting authority could
reasonably conclude at the time the AT permit would ordinarily be
reissued, that the permit is a low priority for permit reissuance if
there is no new water quality- or facility-related data or information
that would justify new or different limits. Under these circumstances,
EPA believes it would be reasonable for a permitting authority to
conclude that the AT facility is a lower priority for permit reissuance
because the mill is voluntarily achieving reductions greater than
otherwise required by the effluent guidelines and hence presents a
lower risk to water quality than other mills. Moreover, EPA expects
that the permit eligible for an administrative extension already would
contain BMPs and any water quality-based effluent limits necessary to
achieve applicable water quality standards. Thus, EPA would not expect
any adverse effect on the environment during the period the permit is
administratively extended, in the absence of specific information
indicating that more stringent water quality effluent limits need to be
imposed.
EPA would also issue guidance urging states, when they reissue AT
permits, to reissue without changing the terms and conditions contained
in the initial AT permit, unless the permitting authority receives new
facility- or watershed-specific information indicating that more
stringent effluent limits are necessary to achieve applicable water
[[Page 36855]]
quality standards. In that case, EPA is considering issuing guidance to
urge states to develop priorities for allocating any necessary load
reductions in a way that gives preference to AT mills, particularly
where AT mills contribute a small portion of the total pollutant loads
to the stream. Moreover, where more than one AT mill discharges in a
watershed, these priorities would further give preference first to Tier
III mills, then to Tier II, and finally to Tier I mills. EPA seeks
comment on this possible incentive.
2. Reduced Effluent Monitoring
EPA believes that reduced monitoring provisions would be
appropriate to include in the final water regulation for mills that
achieve incentives-related BAT limitations or NSPS, as appropriate. In
EPA's view, consistent and successful implementation of the advanced
technologies will make it increasingly less likely that the pollutants
controlled by incentives-related BAT will be present in the wastewater
from advanced technology fiber lines in levels of concern. Because of
these reductions and because in-plant monitoring for these pollutants
tends to be costly, EPA believes it is reasonable to allow mills
achieving the incentives-related BAT limits or NSPS, as appropriate, to
monitor less frequently for those pollutant parameters after
establishing a reliable baseline of consistent achievement of those
incentives-related BAT limits/NSPS. (This incentive would be adopted
only if EPA decides to retain the monitoring requirements appli
FR Doc. 96-17802 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Availability
cable to
the entire proposed subcategory regardless of the BAT option selected.)
As part of an initiative separate from the incentives program being
considered solely for the pulp and paper industry, EPA also has issued
interim guidance on a performance-based schedule of reductions in the
frequency of monitoring in NPDES permits. This separate initiative
would be applicable to all industrial point sources, including pulp and
paper mills choosing to comply with baseline BAT and not participate in
the incentives program, where a facility consistently performs better
than its permit limits. Under that initiative, facilities become
eligible after passing through a set of entry criteria based on
compliance history and review of two or more years of data
demonstrating better than BAT performance. On a parameter by parameter
basis, the greater the percentage of ``beyond BAT'' performance, the
greater the reductions in required monitoring frequency. A statistical
model was used to determine the reductions in monitoring frequencies
that would lead to little or no increase in the potential of detecting
discharges in excess of permit limits. See the post-proposal rulemaking
record for additional details of this emerging performance-based
monitoring program, as set forth in interim guidance dated April 19,
1996.
The reduced monitoring incentive being considered specifically for
this effluent limitations guideline would be incorporated in the Code
of Federal Regulations, and is summarized as follows:
a. For any TCF process under Tiers I, II, and III, particularly for
facilities with newly established TCF processes, the final regulation
would require weekly end-of-pipe monitoring for AOX for the first six
months to confirm that AOX is not present in detectable levels, and
thereafter no monitoring for any pollutant controlled by the
incentives-related BAT at the bleach plant or end-of-pipe AOX, provided
that such facilities certify annually that they are using only totally
chlorine-free processes. EPA seeks comment on any monitoring
alternatives and invites suggestions regarding the content of such
certification. EPA also particularly welcomes suggestions regarding
indicators of totally chlorine-free processes, such as raw materials,
process chemicals used and process variables, and products generated.
EPA also seeks comment on how this incentive could apply at mills that
swing from TCF to non-TCF processes.
b. For any ECF process under Tiers I, II, and III, an Advanced
Technology mill would be required to perform in-plant monitoring of all
pollutants controlled by incentives-related BAT, as applicable, on a
monthly basis for one year. The mill would also be required for a year
to perform weekly monitoring at the end of the pipe for at least AOX.
That one year period must include ``worst case'' conditions for
generation of chlorinated organic pollutants. In the event that
reasonably anticipated ``worst case'' conditions do not occur in the
first year but occur later on during a period of certification, limited
monitoring of those ``worst case'' conditions would be required to
confirm compliance with the incentives-related BAT limitations, with
certification thereafter. If after one year of monitoring the advanced
technology mill demonstrates that it is discharging pollutants at
levels at or below the applicable BAT limits and standards, then it
would not be required to monitor at the bleach plant for any pollutant
controlled by BAT and would be authorized to monitor AOX at the end-of-
pipe on only a monthly basis, provided that the facility submits an
annual certification.
EPA invites suggestions regarding the content of such certification
and particularly seeks comment on relevant indicators of Tier I
processes, such as raw materials used (e.g., softwood), process
chemicals used and process variables (e.g., complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide and elimination of hypochlorite at all times,
bleaching chemical application factors such as active chlorine
multiple), and products generated (notably, their ISO brightness),
that, when taken together, lead to worst case circumstances for
potential generation of chlorinated organic pollutants (e.g., TCDD,
TCDF, chloroform, etc.). Minimum monitoring as stringent as that
proposed to be required by the rules for BAT and PSES would resume if a
violation occurs on the Advanced Technology fiber line and would
continue until the correction and compliance is confirmed.
As an alternative to performing annual monitoring for pollutants
regulated at the bleach plant is not done to verify a certification
(for any Tier), mills could elect to implement the principles of
environmental management systems (EMS) in order to qualify for this
incentive. Weekly end-of-pipe monitoring would be required for AOX, and
monthly monitoring would be permitted after compliance is established.
EPA seeks comments on this possible incentive, in particular with
respect to the nature of a certification, the frequency of reduced
monitoring, and methods of insuring the regulatory authorities and
citizens have adequate information regarding the mill's environmental
practices.
3. Reduced penalties
In recognition of the considerable capital expenditures that mills
participating in the incentives-related Alternative BAT program will
make to implement advanced technologies and to achieve pollutant
reductions superior to those achievable through the baseline BAT, EPA
is considering encouraging enforcement authorities to take into account
those investments as appropriate when assessing penalties against these
mills for violations of environmental statutes. EPA believes existing
EPA settlement policies can be interpreted to provide consideration of
advanced technology investments, where the evidence of environmental
good faith is clear and unequivocal and circumstances are such that
failing to take such investments into account would be a manifest
injustice. See
[[Page 36856]]
Spang & Company, EPCRA Appeal No. 94-3 & 94-4 at 27-30 (Oct. 20, 1995).
In EPA's view, if a facility has installed and is operating the
advanced technology in good faith, reports violations in a prompt
manner to EPA or the State, and either corrects the violations in a
timely manner or agrees to and complies with reasonable remedial
measures concurred on by the primary enforcement authority, then the
enforcement authority would be justified in taking the AT investment
into account in determining economic benefit and in reducing the
gravity portion of the penalty up to 100 percent. EPA assumes that the
installation and operation of any advanced technology will be more
expensive than the installation and operation of the technology
underlying the baseline BAT and therefore the advanced technology
facilities will derive no economic benefit (i.e., zero BEN) from the
violation associated with the advanced technology. This would be the
case even when the advanced technology fails, as long as the design,
operation and installation are within applicable engineering standards
and operational procedures are within industry norms. The decision
whether to take such AT investments into account in determining
economic benefit would be left to the State's discretion when the State
is the enforcing authority. EPA would issue guidance to clarify
application of this incentive.
Mills also can take advantage of the recently issued audit policy
providing they meet the criteria specified in that policy. (See the
Federal Register for December 22, 1995, 60 FR 66706.) Moreover, EPA
also is considering issuing guidance to interpret EPA's existing media-
specific settlement policy in cases where advanced technology does not
perform as well as initially required by limits included in NPDES
permits but where interim milestones have been met and good faith
efforts have been demonstrated. EPA welcomes comments on this possible
incentive.
4. Reduced inspections
As another possible incentive, EPA is considering issuing guidance
to the Regions indicating that mills with advanced technology fiber
lines should be a lower priority for routine inspections in all media.
Under this incentive, facilities achieving advanced technology limits
would be targeted by EPA for routine inspections not more than once
every two years. This incentive would reflect EPA's view that mills
installing and operating advanced technologies at levels to meet the
appropriate tier effluent limits are likely to be complying with the
other permit requirements applicable to that fiber line. EPA already
has redirected Federal NPDES inspections away from annual inspections
of all major dischargers to focus on high risk facilities on priority
watersheds. Targeted efforts in these priority watersheds focus on such
factors as facility compliance status and rates, location and affected
population, citizen complaints, etc. Nonetheless, under this incentive,
EPA would reserve the authority to conduct multi-media inspections
without prior notice, and to inspect advanced technology fiber lines
for cause, whether or not there is an ongoing violation. EPA would also
reserve its right to inspect an advanced technology mill in the
connection with watershed or airshed concerns. EPA seeks comment on
this possible incentive. EPA is particularly interested in comments on
the question whether reduced inspections should apply mill-wide and
across various media and, if so, why.
5. Public Recognition Programs
While EPA public recognition programs already exist, the Agency
believes that it would be appropriate to develop and implement a
program unique to this industry as an incentive to advanced technology
investments. As part of a public recognition program, EPA would
establish criteria for mills to qualify for public recognition on an
annual basis. In addition to commitments leading to and achievement of
the limits specified in the selected tier, such criteria could include
the use of the principles of environmental management system (EMS)
programs. EPA would then recognize the qualifying mills each year
through a public event. EPA would describe this program in greater
detail in the preamble to the final Cluster Rules. EPA solicits comment
on this possible incentive, the applicable criteria, the type of
recognition accorded, and the period of recognition.
6. Fast-Track Permit Modification
EPA is considering issuing guidance encouraging states to accord
permit process priority for advanced technology mills where it is
consistent with watershed-based permitting strategies and air
permitting policies. EPA solicits comment on whether this is an
appropriate policy and on the availability of resources for
implementing such a policy.
D. Solicitations of Comments on Incentives Program
In addition to all of the specific comment solicitations above, EPA
seeks comment on the entire concept of establishing a voluntary program
of advanced technology tiers with incentives-related BAT limits/NSPS
unique to those tiers. EPA also seeks comment on the criteria defining
each tier, including both the type of criteria and the numeric values
ascribed to each. EPA also seeks comment regarding the philosophy EPA
should adopt in establishing the incentives-related BAT limits and NSPS
being considered to define the advanced technology tiers, and how these
incentives-related alternative BAT limits/NSPS could be adapted to
mills with indirect discharge to POTWs. EPA seeks comments and welcomes
suggestions regarding the incentives offered and alternatives that
might be included, and other ways of implementing the program. EPA
seeks comments on defining and implementing such a program for other
bleached chemical pulp subcategories, including the papergrade sulfite
subcategory, the dissolving sulfite and dissolving kraft subcategories,
and other subcategories for which EPA may develop revised effluent
limitations based on BAT.
E. Alternative Incentives Programs and Provisions Suggested by
Stakeholders
One of the principal objectives of this proposed incentives program
is to promote pollution prevention technologies and practices. In EPA's
view, each of the advanced technologies has a significant pollution
prevention component with respect to effluent discharges. Nevertheless,
in comments on the proposed regulations, industry voiced concerns that
operation of technology options could produce increased emissions to
the air and consequently trigger major New Source Review (``NSR'')
under the Clean Air Act.
In its March 8, 1996, Federal Register Notice discussing the MACT
portion of the Cluster Rules, EPA acknowledged concerns about the
interaction between the installation of MACT emission controls and the
NSR requirements. (See 61 FR 9383, 9396). In particular, EPA noted that
commenters expressed concern that EPA had not accounted for the impacts
that would be incurred in triggering major NSR such as costs associated
with permitting and implementation requirements, the burden imposed on
state air quality offices, or the risk that delays in receiving major
NSR preconstruction
[[Page 36857]]
permits might jeopardize timely compliance with the MACT portion of the
Cluster Rules. Id. EPA considered those comments and the air pollutant
reductions, environmental and energy impacts of implementing the MACT
technologies. In response, EPA stated in its March Notice that it
considers projects implemented to comply with the MACT portion of the
Cluster Rules to be environmentally beneficial from an air quality
perspective and hence eligible for exemption from major NSR as air
pollution control projects under policy guidance issued by EPA on July
1, 1994. Id. EPA also noted that it expects such projects to qualify as
pollution control projects under the NSR reform regulations, signed on
April 3, 1996. EPA solicited comment on these determinations and on the
question whether EPA should provide a specific exclusion in the major
NSR rules for controls installed to comply with the MACT portion of the
Cluster Rules. (See 61 FR 9396.)
Some members of the pulp and paper industry have suggested to EPA
that controls installed to achieve incentives-related Alternative BAT
limits corresponding to Tiers I, II or III should also be excluded from
major New Source Review and have suggested that such an exclusion would
be a significant incentive to encourage mills to install advanced water
technologies. EPA is not prepared to offer such an incentive at this
time. Unlike the MACT-related controls that EPA considers to be
eligible for exemption from major NSR, advanced water technologies may
not have a consistently positive effect on air emissions. EPA intends
to address these cross-media issues in the context of its NSR Reform
rulemaking proposal, which was signed on April 3, 1996. In that
rulemaking proposal, EPA is soliciting comment on the broader issue of
whether applicability of the pollution control project exemption should
be extended to ``cross media'' pollution control projects generally and
whether and how they should be required to meet the ``environmentally
beneficial'' test typically required for pollution prevention projects.
EPA recognizes that resolution of this issue is of particular interest
to mills in the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
because of the possible value of this exemption as an incentive to
implement advanced water technologies. EPA nevertheless believes that
the question whether the pollution control project exemption should be
extended to ``cross media'' pollution control projects should be
resolved on a broad, rather than industry-specific, basis. Accordingly,
EPA is not including as a possible incentive in today's notice a
provision that would exempt advanced water technologies from major NSR.
In order promote full consideration of this issue, however, EPA
welcomes comments in connection with today's notice on whether advanced
water pollution control technology implemented by the pulp and paper
industry should be eligible for an exclusion from major NSR (assuming
that such technology increases air emissions in significant amounts at
an existing major source) and, if so, whether the exclusion should be
implemented under the provisions of the pollution control projects
exclusion under the NSR proposed regulations. Specifically, EPA
solicits comments on whether there are pollutant increases from such
water pollution control projects, the nature of any such pollutant
increases in terms of process conditions and equipment changes, and the
types of air pollutants likely to increase that would warrant this
special treatment. EPA also solicits comment on the type of criteria
that should be used to evaluate the cross-media impacts of pollution
control projects to determine whether the overall environmental
benefits to one media are sufficient to waive environmental reviews and
requirements otherwise applicable for other media and, if so, whether
the project should be allowed to qualify under the proposed major NSR
exclusion. EPA also solicits comments, with supporting rationale, on
whether an exemption for cross-media pollution control projects should
be extended to any project that achieves the required levels of control
or whether, because of the cross-media nature of the controls, the
exemption should be available only for controls that achieve greater
than the required levels of treatment.
In addition to recommendations for incentives submitted by one
group of four industry stakeholders (see the record at DCN 13930), an
alternative set of recommendations for an incentives program was
submitted by a group of seven companies in the pulp and paper industry
(see the record at DCN 13937). Among other things, the latter proposal
recommended that the incentives program be: broad-based, applicable to
mills regulated under the Cluster Rules and available on a mill-by-mill
basis and that it be extended throughout the individual mills
participating in the program; available for mills using any processes
or practices (with no restrictions) that achieve reductions of 25-30
percent (Tier I), and 55-60 percent (Tier II) for at least any two
water pollutants (an eighth company recently endorsing this proposal
also suggested that the two pollutants selected could be water or air
pollutants; see the record at DCN 13965) regulated under the effluent
guidelines portion of the Cluster Rules (excluding dioxin, furan, and
the chlorinated phenolic pollutants), with Tier II mills also
committing to achieving mill-wide process water usage of 12,000-14,000
gallons/short ton (50-58 m3/kkg) of pulp; and that it be expanded
beyond the proposed bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
Among the incentives suggested in this alternative program were:
extended compliance period of five years for Tier I mills and 15 years
for Tier II mills; extended permit terms, including an administrative
presumption of additional time during which incentive-based effluent
limits are not changed, for five years (total of ten years) beyond the
prevailing statutory permit term for Tier I mills, and ten years (total
of 15 years) beyond the prevailing statutory permit term for Tier II
mills; and other provisions similar in principle but often differing in
details to those in the program discussed above (e.g., fast track
permitting, exemptions from PSD/NSR, reduced penalties, etc.). This set
of alternatives also proposed a similar incentives program for mills
that elect to achieve more stringent control of air emissions than
required by the MACT standards.
Another set of alternative recommendations was submitted by a
vendor of process technologies and raw materials used in the pulp and
paper industry (see the record at DCN 13932). This set of alternative
recommendations suggested that, in addition to achieving pollutant
reductions greater than required by limits based on BAT, mills would be
required to demonstrate that they achieve minimization in resource use
(i.e., fiber, water, and energy consumption) and reduction (or at a
minimum no increase) in air emissions or solid wastes. This alternative
set of recommendations suggested as criteria for participation in the
program a 10 percent reduction below COD limits (rather than AOX
limits) promulgated by EPA, a bleach plant flow of 20 m3/ADMT (air
dry metric tons), and use of process simulation techniques to identify
practices that go beyond the minimum BMPs incorporated in the final
rule.
Another suggested component of an incentives program involves
Federal procurement. The President's Executive Order 12873, ``Federal
Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention'' (58
[[Page 36858]]
FR 54911, October 22, 1993), establishes a Federal policy for
procurement of environmentally friendly products. EPA solicits comment
on whether it also is appropriate and effective public policy to
provide a Federal procurement advantage to paper products containing
pulp or paper from mills that achieve incentives-related BAT
limitations or NSPS, as appropriate, corresponding to the Advanced
Technology tiers or that otherwise demonstrate performance more
stringent than that which is based on the baseline BAT/NSPS. Such an
advantage might be a Federal agency preference for such paper products,
consistent with other Federal preferences (e.g., recovered materials
content) and Federal procurement law. EPA also solicits comment on the
mechanics of implementing this type of a procurement preference.
EPA solicits comments on these alternate incentives programs,
particularly regarding those components which differ from the
incentives program described Section X through X.C of this notice, and
how the most useful components of these alternate programs may be
incorporated into an incentives program in the final rules.
Dated: July 2, 1996.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 96-17802 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17460 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36858-36860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17460]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5534-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Pomona Oaks Well contamination
(Pomona Oaks) and the Vineland State School (currently known as the
Vineland Developmental Center) Superfund sites from the National
Priorities List: request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II Office
announces its intent to delete the Pomona Oaks and the Vineland State
School Superfund sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on these actions. The NPL constitutes Appendix
B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey
have determined that no further fund-financed remedial actions are
appropriate at these sites and actions taken to date are protective of
public health, welfare, and the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning these sites may be submitted on or before
August 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Kathleen Callahan, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007.
Comprehensive information on these sites is available through the
EPA Region II public docket, which is located at EPA's Region II Office
in New York City, and is available for viewing, by appointment only,
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Requests for appointments should be directed to: Mr. Matthew Westgate,
Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007, (212) 637-4422.
Background information from the Regional public docket related to
the Pomona Oaks site is also available for viewing at information
repository noted below: Galloway Township Municipal Building, 300 East
Jimmie Leeds Road, Absecon, New Jersey 08201.
Background Information from the Regional public docket related to
the Vineland State School is available for viewing at the repository
noted below: Vineland City Library, 1058 East Landis Ave, Vineland, New
Jersey 08360.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Westgate, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway,
19th Floor, New York, NY 10007, (212) 637-4422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletions
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II announces its
intent to delete the Pomona Oaks site, Galloway Township, Atlantic
County, New Jersey, and the Vineland State School site, City of
Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comment on these actions. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. The EPA identifies sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on
the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to
section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if conditions at the site
warrant such action.
The EPA will accept comments concerning the Pomona Oaks and the
Vineland State School sites for thirty days after publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
these actions. Section IV discusses how the sites meet the deletion
criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria the Agency uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR Section 300.425(e), sites may
be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, EPA will consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
(i) EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that
responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate response
actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that no further cleanup by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) Based on a remedial investigation, EPA, in consultation with
the State, has determined that the release poses no significant threat
to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate.
III. Deletion Procedures
The NCP provides that EPA shall not delete a site from the NPL
until the State in which the release was located has concurred, and the
public has been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed
deletion. Deletion of a site
[[Page 36859]]
from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede
agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. The
NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist
Agency management.
EPA Region II will accept and evaluate public comments before
making a final decision to delete. The Agency believes that deletion
procedures should focus on notice and comment at the local level.
Comments from the local community may be the most pertinent to deletion
decisions. The following procedures were used for the intended deletion
of the Pomona Oaks and the Vineland State School sites:
1. EPA Region II has recommended deletion and has prepared the
relevant documents.
2. The State of New Jersey has concurred with the deletion
decisions.
3. Concurrent with this Notice of Intent to Delete, a notice has
been published in local newspapers and has been distributed to
appropriate Federal, state and local officials, and other interested
parties. This notice announces a thirty-day public comment period on
the deletion package, which starts July 15, 1996, and will conclude on
August 14, 1996.
4. The Region has made all relevant documents available in the
Regional Office and local site information repositories.
The comments received during the notice and comment period will be
evaluated before any final decision is made. EPA Region II will prepare
a Responsiveness Summary, which will address the comments received
during the public comment period.
The deletion will occur after the EPA Regional Administrator places
a notice in the Federal Register. The NPL will reflect any deletions in
the next final update. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness
Summary will be made available to local residents by the Region II
Office.
IV. (A). Basis for Intended Deletion of the Pomona Oaks Site
The Pomona Oaks Site includes a residential subdivision and an
adjacent shopping center in the Pomona area of Galloway Township,
Atlantic County, New Jersey. The residential subdivision contains about
200 single family homes built in the 1970s and has a population of
approximately 800 to 1000 people. It is surrounded by undeveloped
wooded areas, scattered residences and small ``strip'' type shopping
areas. Some of the outlying areas are farms. Southwest of the
subdivision is a combination gas station-convenience store and a
``strip'' mall containing a dry cleaner. Another gas station and a
salvage yard are located to the west and northwest. The Pomona Oaks
subdivision has both municipal water and sewers.
Construction of homes in the Pomona Oaks subdivision began in 1972.
Initially, homes within the subdivision relied upon private wells as
the source of potable water and upon individual septic systems for
wastewater disposal. By 1982, all of the homes in the subdivision were
connected to the public sewer system.
In June 1982, residents complained to the Atlantic County Health
Department (ACHD) of foul tasting well water. Extensive testing of
residential wells revealed high levels of organics including benzene
and 1,2-dichloroethane. As a result the ACHD advised residents not to
use their well water for drinking or cooking.
Over the next few years additional testing of individual wells was
performed by the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) and the EPA.
The results of these sampling events in the Pomona Oaks subdivision
indicated widespread contamination of the drinking water aquifer with
organic compounds. As a result in August 1985, all 193 homes within the
subdivision were connected to the Absecon water supply.
The Pomona Oaks site was formally added to the National Priorities
List on June 1, 1986. In December 1986, EPA initiated a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The remedial investigation
was designed to determine the nature, extent and source of the ground
water and soil contamination at the site, which includes the Pomona
Oaks subdivision, Pomona Plaza Shopping Center, and those residents
downgradient of the subdivision. The RI fieldwork, conducted from
October 1988 to March 1989, included a soil gas survey, subsurface soil
sampling, sediment sampling, monitoring well and piezometer
installation, one round of sampling from the monitoring wells,
residential well sampling (outside the subdivision), aquifer slug
testing, and gamma logging of wells.
The sources of contamination were not identified during the RI.
There was not enough contamination present in the soil or the ground
water to give an indication of its origin. Potential sources include
two nearby gas stations, a local automobile salvage yard, and the now
closed septic systems of the Pomona Plaza Shopping Center and the
residences in the subdivision.
Data obtained during the extensive RI has shown that the ground
water contamination in the Pomona Oaks subdivision no longer exists
above health risk or drinking water standard levels. On September 26,
1990, the EPA Regional Administrator, with the concurrence of the
NJDEP, signed a Record of Decision for the Pomona Oaks site. The
selected remedy was to take no remedial action.
This decision was based on the following facts:
--The immediate threat to the residents of the Pomona Oaks subdivision
was removed by the installation of the alternate water supply in 1985;
--The RI indicated that the high concentrations of chemicals that were
present during the 1982 to 1985 period had significantly decreased to
below drinking water standards suggesting dispersion and/or
biodegradation of contaminants over time; and
--The contamination was not present in the Pomona Oaks subdivision and,
therefore, did not come from a continuous source, but most likely
discrete events, such as spills.
(B). Basis for Intended Deletion of the Vineland State School Site
The Vineland State School, currently known as the Vineland
Developmental Center (VDC), is located to the northeast of the
intersection of Main Road (State Highway 555) and Landis Avenue (State
Highway 56) in the City of Vineland, New Jersey. The Vineland
Developmental Center is a residential treatment facility for mentally
handicapped women operated by the New Jersey Department of Human
Services. It has been in existence since the late 1800's. The 195 acre
site is comprised of numerous buildings to house, feed, educate and
care for the needs of approximately 1300 residents. Also on the grounds
are administration and maintenance facilities, as well as large open
fields for recreational purposes. The surrounding area is primarily
residential, on land that was formerly orchards and agricultural
fields.
As a result of allegations of improper disposal of hazardous
materials made by VDC employees, investigations were conducted
beginning in March 1980 on behalf of the New Jersey Department of
Health Services (NJDHS). These investigations were carried out by the
NJDEP, the City of Vineland and the EPA. The VDC site was added to the
National Priorities List in September 1983. Based on the allegations by
VDC employees that five separate areas of the VDC property were
potential hazardous waste disposal areas, five distinct subsites were
investigated within the facility.
[[Page 36860]]
A significant amount of investigation work prior to and during the
RI performed at the VDC site. The investigative activities were
performed in order to determine the nature and extent of contamination
at the suspected subsites. The major investigative activities included
potable well sampling, installation and sampling of monitoring wells,
performing a conductivity survey, conducting exploratory excavations
and collecting subsurface soil samples.
The results of these investigations failed to detect any
significant contamination in four of the five subsites. Only subsite 2
was found to be contaminated to any meaningful degree. This area was
remediated by the NJDEP in October 1988. The cleanup included the
removal of nearly 4,000 tons of soils contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Also, a public water supply was extended to service
homes in the vicinity of the site.
In summary, although there were allegations of illegal dumping,
investigations of the four other areas failed to detect any significant
contamination. In fact, the risks associated with the low levels of
contamination in these areas are within the acceptable range as
determined by EPA and NJDEP.
In view of the above, the selected remedy in the September 30, 1989
Record of Decision (ROD) was to take no further remedial action.
However, because sporadic low levels of subsurface soil contamination
exist at the site, a program to monitor groundwater and the existing
disposal areas has been implemented. A review will be performed within
five years to ensure that the selected remedial action provides
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Having met the deletion criteria, EPA proposes to delete this site
from the NPL. EPA and the State have determined that the response
actions are protective of human health and the environment.
Dated: May 14, 1996.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA Region II.
[FR Doc. 96-17460 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16673 Housing Improvement Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36829-36835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16673]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 256
RIN 1076-AD52
Housing Improvement Program
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposing to amend the
regulations governing the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) by
clarifying the terms and conditions under which the program is
operated.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 13, 1996.
Comments will be available for inspection at the address below from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday beginning approximately
July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to June Henkel, Division of Housing, Office of
Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
1849 C St. NW, Mail Stop 4603-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; OR, hand
deliver them to Room 4603 at the above address.
[[Page 36830]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Henkel, Office of Tribal
Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs at telephone (202) 208-3707.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The proposed rule reflects the recommendations of the Joint Tribal/
BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization,
various tribal and Federal workgroups, and the Department of the
Interior Office of the Inspector General. The proposed rule contains
simplified administrative guidelines and makes the program more
flexible and responsive to the needs of tribes.
On April 7, 1994, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing amendment of 25 CFR
Part 256, Housing Improvement Program (59 FR 16726). One proposal
concerned changing the HIP funding distribution methodology from one
based on housing inventory to one based on documented eligible
applicants. Proposed technical corrections were for the elimination of
Category C, Downpayments, and elimination of eligibility for applicants
whose dwellings were acquired under HUD through an Indian Housing
Authority. The comment period closed on June 6, 1994 and on June 10,
1994, was extended to July 6, 1994. Public comment on the funding
distribution methodology provided only a 1% margin of difference
between those for and against the proposed change. As a result of the
lack of clear direction on the funding distribution methodology, the
numerous comments received on the proposed technical corrections and
the need to improve the program, the program was recommended for
reinvention. In July 1994 the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Indian
Affairs agreed to a recommendation by the Office of Audit and
Evaluation to place HIP in the National Performance Review (NPR)
Reinventing Government Projects program. The HIP was approved as an NPR
lab project by October 1994. Along with accommodating administrative
corrective action tasks, the NPR lab was established to ensure tribal
representation throughout the reinvention process resulting in a
program that would be more responsive to tribal needs.
Evaluation and Certification
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
Publication of the proposed rule by the Department of the Interior
(Department) provides the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Interested persons may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule to the location identified in the
``addresses'' section of this document.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has determined that this proposed rule meets the
applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have
``significant'' takings implications. The proposed rule does not
pertain to ``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact
private property.
Executive Order 12612
The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have
significant federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights and
responsibilities of states.
NEPA Statement
The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This proposed rule imposes no unfunded mandates on any governmental
or private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The information collection requirements contained in Sec. 256.9
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3507 et seq. and assigned clearance number 1076-0084. The
information is collected to determine applicant eligibility for
services and eligibility to participate in the program based on the
criteria referenced in 256.10 and in Table B. Response is required to
obtain a benefit. The public reporting burden for this form is
estimated to average thirty minutes per response, including the time
for reviewing the instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and
completing and reviewing the form.
Drafting Information
The primary author of this document is June Henkel, Office of
Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 256
Housing, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons given in the preamble, Part 256 of Title 25,
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be revised
as set forth below.
PART 256--HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Sec.
256.1 Purpose.
256.2 Definitions.
256.3 Policy.
256.4 Information collection.
256.5 What is the Housing Improvement Program?
256.6 Am I eligible for the Housing Improvement Program?
256.7 What are the Housing Improvement Program categories for which
I am eligible?
256.8 Who administers the Housing Improvement Program?
256.9 How do I apply for the Housing Improvement Program?
256.10 What are the steps that must be taken to process my
application for the Housing Improvement Program?
256.11 How long will I have to wait for the improvement, repair, or
replacement of my dwelling to be done?
256.12 Who is responsible for identifying what work will be done on
my dwelling?
256.13 What will the servicing housing office do to identify what
work is to be done on my dwelling?
256.14 How will I be advised of what work is to be done?
256.15 Who performs the improvements, repairs, or replacement of my
dwelling?
256.16 How are these repairs or construction trades persons and
home building contractors selected and paid?
256.17 Will I have to vacate my dwelling while repair work or
replacement of my dwelling is being done?
256.18 How can I be sure that the work that is being done on my
dwelling meets minimum construction standards?
256.19 How will I be advised that the repair work or replacement of
my dwelling has been completed?
[[Page 36831]]
256.20 How many times can I receive improvements, repairs, or
replacement services under the Housing Improvement Program?
256.21 Will I need flood insurance?
256.22 Is my Federal Government assisted dwelling eligible for
services under the Housing Improvement Program?
256.23 Are mobile homes eligible for services under the Housing
Improvement Program?
256.24 Can Housing Improvement Program resources be supplemented
with other available resources?
256.25 What can I do if I disagree with actions taken under the
Housing Improvement Program?
Authority: 42 Stat. 208. (25 U.S.C. 13).
Sec. 256.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to define the terms and conditions
under which assistance is given to Indians under the Housing
Improvement Program (HIP).
Sec. 256.2 Definitions.
As used in this part 256:
Agency means the current organizational unit of the Bureau that
provides direct services to the governing body or bodies and members of
one or more specified Indian Tribes.
Appeal means a written request for review of an action or the
inaction of an official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that is claimed
to adversely affect the interested party making the request, as
provided in part 2 of this chapter.
Applicant means an individual or persons on whose behalf an
application for services has been made under this part.
Application means the process through which a request is made for
services.
Area Director means the officer in charge of a Bureau of Indian
Affairs area office, or his/her authorized delegate.
Bureau means the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Child means a person under the age of 18 or such other age of
majority as is established for purposes of parental support by tribal
or state law (if any) applicable to the person at his or her residence,
except that no person who has been emancipated by marriage can be
deemed a child.
Family means one or more persons maintaining a household.
Handicapped means legally blind; legally deaf; lack of or inability
to use one or more limbs; chair or bed bound; inability to walk without
crutches or walker; mental disability in an adult of a severity that
requires a companion to aid in basic needs, such as dressing, preparing
food, etc.; or severe heart and/or respiratory problems preventing even
minor exertion.
Household means persons living with the head of household who may
be related or unrelated to the head of household and who function as
members of a family.
Indian tribe means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation,
pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to Public Law 103-
454, 108 Stat. 4791.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
Service area means reservations (former reservations in Oklahoma),
allotments, restricted lands, and Indian-owned fee lands (including
lands owned by corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act) within a geographical area designated by the
tribe and approved by the Area Director to which equitable services can
be delivered.
Servicing housing office means the Tribal Housing Office or Bureau
Housing Assistance Office administering the Housing Improvement Program
in the service area in which the applicant resides.
Superintendent means the Bureau official in charge of an agency
office.
Sec. 256.3 Policy.
(a) The Bureau of Indian Affairs' housing policy is consistent with
the objectives of the national housing policy that declares that every
American family should have the opportunity for a decent home and
suitable living environment. To the extent possible, the program will
serve the neediest of the needy Indian families.
(b) Every Indian as defined in Sec. 256.2 who meets the basic
eligibility criteria defined in Sec. 256.6 is entitled to participate
in the program. Participation is based on priority of need, regardless
of tribal affiliation, provided services can be delivered to the
geographic area within which the participant resides.
(c) Tribal participation in and direct administration of the
Housing Improvement Program is encouraged to the maximum extent
possible. Tribal involvement is necessary to ensure that the services
provided under the program are responsive to the needs of tribes and
the program participants.
(d) Partnerships with complementary improvement programs are
encouraged to increase the basic benefits derived from the Housing
Improvement Program fund. An example is the agreement with Indian
Health Services to provide water and sanitation facilities for Housing
Improvement Program houses.
Sec. 256.4 Information collection.
The information collection requirements contained in Sec. 256.9
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3507 et seq. and assigned clearance number 1076-0084. The
information is collected to determine applicant eligibility for
services and eligibility to participate in the program based on the
criteria referenced in Sec. 256.10 and in Table B to this part.
Response is required to obtain a benefit. The public reporting burden
for this form is estimated to average thirty minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing the instructions, gathering and
maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form.
Sec. 256.5. What is the Housing Improvement Program?
The Housing Improvement Program provides funds to repair or replace
houses that fail to meet basic building standards for the neediest of
the needy Housing Improvement Program applicants.
Sec. 256.6 Am I eligible for the Housing Improvement Program?
You are eligible for the Housing Improvement Program if:
(a) You are a member of a Federally-recognized American Indian
tribe or Alaskan Native village; and
(b) You are living in an approved tribal service area; and
(c) Your annual income does not exceed 125% of the Department of
Health and Human Services Poverty Income Guidelines. These guidelines
are available from your servicing housing office.
Sec. 256.7 What are the Housing Improvement Program categories for
which I am eligible?
(a) Category A. You are eligible to receive up to $2,500 in housing
repairs and improvements if the dwelling in which you are living cannot
be brought to applicable building code standards.
(b) Category B. You are eligible to receive housing repairs and
improvements if the cost to bring the dwelling to applicable building
code standards does not exceed $35,000, and:
(1) You are the owner of the dwelling in which you are living;
(2) The estimated cost of repairs and improvements, as determined
by the Housing Improvement Program servicing office will result in
making the dwelling meet applicable building code standards; and
(3) You sign a written agreement that if you sell the dwelling
within five (5) years following the date of completion of the repairs,
the grant will be voided
[[Page 36832]]
and you will repay the full amount of the cost of repairs to the Bureau
of Indian Affairs at the time of settlement.
(c) Category C. You are eligible to receive a modest (see Table A
to this part, Occupancy and Square Footage Chart) replacement home, if:
(1) You are the owner of the dwelling in which you are living;
(2) The dwelling in which you are living cannot be brought to
applicable code standards within the Category B cost limit of $35,000;
or you do not own a home but have ownership of sufficient land suitable
for housing, with adequate ingress/egress rights; and
(3) You sign a written agreement that if you sell the house within
the first ten (10) years from the date of ownership, the grant is
voided and you will repay the full amount of the cost of the house to
the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the time of settlement. If you sell the
house after the first ten years, you can retain ten (10) percent of the
original cost of the house per year, beginning in the eleventh year,
with the remaining amount payable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If
the sale occurs twenty (20) years or more after the date of ownership,
you will not have to make repayment.
Sec. 256.8 Who administers the Housing Improvement Program?
The Housing Improvement Program is administered by a servicing
housing office operated:
(a) By a tribal housing office under a Public Law 93-638 contract
or a self-governance annual funding agreement; or
(b) By the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Sec. 256.9 How do I apply for the Housing Improvement Program?
(a) First, you must obtain an application, BIA Form 6407, and a
Privacy Act Statement from your nearest servicing housing office.
(b) Second, you must complete and sign BIA Form 6407 and the
Privacy Act Statement.
(c) Third, you must submit your completed application and signed
Privacy Act Statement to your servicing housing office. Submission to
the nearest BIA housing office does not preclude tribal approval of the
application.
(d) Fourth, you must furnish documentation proving tribal
membership. Examples of acceptable documentation include a copy of your
Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) or a copy of your tribal
membership card.
(e) Fifth, you must provide proof of income from all members of the
household.
(1) You must submit signed copies of current 1040 tax returns from
all members of the household, including W-2's and all attachments.
(2) You must provide proof of all other income from all members of
the household. This includes unearned income such as social security,
aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), retirement and
unemployment benefits.
(3) If you or other household members did not file a tax return,
you must submit a signed, notarized statement explaining why a tax
return was not filed.
(f) Sixth, you must furnish a copy of your trust income statement,
such as for royalty and lease monies, from your home agency. If you do
not have an account, you must ask your agency to provide a statement to
that effect.
(g) Seventh, you must provide proof of ownership (sole possessory
interest) of the residence and/or land:
(1) For fee property, you must provide a copy of a fully executed
Warranty Deed, Gift Deed, or other exclusive possessory agreement,
which is available at your local county court house; or
(2) For trust property, you must provide a copy of certification
from the Agency Realty Office; or
(3) For tribally-owned land, you must provide a copy of a properly
executed tribal assignment; or
(4) For multi-owner property, you must provide a copy of a properly
executed lease of not less than twenty-five (25) years.
(h) Eighth, you must furnish a copy of a map and a letter from an
official source indicating whether your residence and/or land is in an
area having special flood hazards:
(1) If your land is held in trust, you must obtain this information
from your servicing housing office.
(2) If your land is fee land, you must obtain this information from
the county in which your land is located.
Sec. 256.10 What are the steps that must be taken to process my
application for the Housing Improvement Program?
(a) The servicing housing office must review your application for
completeness. If your application is incomplete, it will be returned to
you along with a written explanation and advice on how to complete and
resubmit your application.
(b) The servicing housing office will use your completed
application to determine if you are eligible for the Housing
Improvement Program.
(1) If you are found ineligible for the Housing Improvement Program
or otherwise do not qualify for the program, the servicing housing
office will advise you in writing within 45 days of receipt of your
completed application. Your application may be placed in a file with
the applications of other ineligible applicants for a period of not
less than two (2) years. Your application may be used to develop
workload and housing needs information by the servicing housing office.
(2) If you are found eligible for the Housing Improvement Program,
the servicing housing office will inform you in writing within 45 days
of receipt of your completed application.
(c) If you are found eligible for the Housing Improvement Program,
the servicing housing office will assess your application for need,
according to the factors and numeric values shown in Table B to this
part.
(d) Based on the total numeric value assigned to each application,
the servicing housing office will develop the List of Eligible Housing
Improvement Program Applicants (LEHIPA), ranked in order of need, from
highest to lowest. In the case of a tie, the family with the lower
income will be served first.
(e) The servicing housing office will develop and include on the
LEHIPA the estimated cost of improvements, repairs or replacement for
each application.
(f) The servicing housing office will compare the LEHIPA with the
total amount of funds available for the program. Starting with the most
needy applicant, the amount of available funds is reduced by the amount
of estimated, allowable costs to improve, repair or replace the
applicant's dwelling. This process is repeated for the next applicant
on the list until there are no more funds.
(1) The servicing housing office will advise you in writing within
45 days of completion of the LEHIPA whether funds are available for the
improvement, repair or replacement of your dwelling.
(2) If funds are available to meet the estimated cost of
improvement, repair, or replacement of your dwelling, the servicing
housing office will identify your application as ``active'' on the
LEHIPA.
(3) If there are no available funds for improving, repairing or
replacing your dwelling, your application will be identified as having
``no available funds'' on the LEHIPA.
(g) Your application will be held for an indefinite period of time
during which your servicing housing office will request, in writing,
annual written confirmation from you that your application is still
accurate.
[[Page 36833]]
(1) Your written confirmation will permit your application to be
included in the next annual ranking of eligible applicants.
(2) Your servicing housing office will advise you in writing and
provide written explanation should you need to submit a new or updated
application.
(3) Should your circumstances change appreciably during the time
that your application is pending funding, you are encouraged to submit
an updated application at your earliest convenience.
(h) Your servicing housing office will prepare an annual report
identifying construction work undertaken during the fiscal year and
related construction expenditures. The annual report is due on October
15 of each year for fiscal year tribes and on January 15 of each year
for calendar year tribes. The report, at a minimum, will contain:
(1) Number of Eligible Applicants;
(2) Number of Applicants Provided Service;
(3) Names of Applicants Provided Service;
(4) For Each Applicant Provided Service:
(i) Date of Construction start;
(ii) Date of Construction Completion, if applicable;
(iii) Cost; and.
(iv) HIP Category.
Sec. 256.11 How long will I have to wait for the improvement, repair,
or replacement of my dwelling to be done?
The length of time that it takes to accomplish the work to be done
on your dwelling is dependent on:
(a) Whether funds are available;
(b) The type of work to be done; and
(c) The climate and seasonal conditions where your dwelling is
located.
Sec. 256.12 Who is responsible for identifying what work will be done
on my dwelling?
The servicing housing office is responsible for identifying what
work is to be done on your dwelling or whether your dwelling will be
replaced.
Sec. 256.13 What will the servicing housing office do to identify
what work is to be done on my dwelling?
(a) First, a trained and qualified representative of your servicing
housing office must visit your dwelling to identify what improvements
or repairs are to be done under the Housing Improvement Program. The
representative must ensure that flood, National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) and earthquake requirements are met.
(b) Second, based on the list of improvements or repairs to be
done, the representative must estimate the total cost of improvements
or repairs to your dwelling. Cost estimates must be based on locally
available services and product costs, or other regional-based,
industry-recognized cost data, such as that provided by the MEANs or
MARSHAL SWIFT. If the dwelling is located in Alaska, documented,
reasonable and substantiated freight costs, in accordance with Federal
Property Management Regulations (FPMR 101-40), not to exceed 100% of
the cost of materials, can be added to the cost of the project.
(c) Third, the representative must determine which Housing
Improvement Program category the improvements to your dwelling meet,
based on the estimated cost of improvements or repairs. If the
estimated cost to repair your dwelling is $35,000 or more, the
representative must approve your dwelling for replacement.
(d) Fourth, the representative must develop a detailed, written
report, also called ``bid specifications,'' that identifies what and
how the improvement, repair and construction work is to be accomplished
at the dwelling.
(1) When the work includes new construction, the ``bid
specifications'' will be supplemented with a set of construction plans.
The plans must not exceed the occupancy and square footage criteria
identified in Table A of this part, Occupancy and Square Footage Chart.
The plans must be sufficiently detailed to provide complete
instructions to the builder for the purpose of construction.
(2) ``Bid specifications'' are also used to inform potential
bidders of what work is to be done.
Sec. 256.14 How will I be advised of what work is to be done?
You will receive written notice from the servicing housing office
of what work is being scheduled under the Housing Improvement Program.
You will be requested to concur with the scheduled work by signing a
copy of the notice and returning it to the servicing housing office. No
work will be started until the signed copy is returned to the servicing
housing office.
Sec. 256.15 Who performs the improvements, repairs, or replacement of
my dwelling?
Independent repair and construction trades persons and home
building contractors will perform the improvements, repairs or
replacement of your dwelling.
Sec. 256.16 How are these repair or construction trades persons and
home building contractors selected and paid?
(a) The servicing housing office must provide the prepared ``bid
specifications,'' also called a statement of work, to the local Bureau
or tribal contracting office. The office will use the statement of work
to advertise the work. Advertising will be accomplished by two or more
of the following means: local or national newspapers; various tribal
publications; physical or electronic bulletin boards; any other
generally-recognized advertising media.
(b) Based on the statement of work, interested parties are invited
to bid on the job.
(c) The winning bidder will be selected by the local Bureau or
tribal contracting office, after technical review by and written
recommendation from the servicing housing office. Prior to selection,
bidders must be determined to be qualified contractors capable of
completing the contract as advertised.
(d) Payments to the winning bidder are negotiated in the contract.
Payments are based on specified delivery of services.
(1) Partial payments will not exceed 80 percent of the value of the
completed work.
(2) Final payment will be made after final inspection and after all
provisions of the contract have been met, including punch-up items.
Sec. 256.17 Will I have to vacate my dwelling while repair work or
replacement of my dwelling is being done?
(a) You will be notified by the servicing housing office that you
must vacate your dwelling only if:
(1) It is scheduled for major repairs requiring that all occupants
vacate the dwelling for safety reasons; or
(2) It is scheduled for replacement which requires the demolition
of your current dwelling.
(b) If you are required to vacate the premises for the duration of
the construction, you are responsible for:
(1) Locating other lodging;
(2) Paying all costs associated with vacating and living away from
the dwelling; and
(3) Removing all your belongings and furnishings prior to the
scheduled, beginning work date.
Sec. 256.18 How can I be sure that the work that is being done on my
dwelling meets minimum construction standards?
(a) At various stages of construction, a trained and qualified
servicing housing office representative or building inspector will
review the construction to ensure that it meets applicable minimum
construction standards and
[[Page 36834]]
building codes. Upon completion of each stage, further construction is
prohibited until the inspection occurs and approval is granted.
(b) Inspections are, at a minimum, made at the following stages of
construction:
(1) Footings;
(2) Closed in, rough wiring and rough plumbing; and
(3) At final completion.
Sec. 256 19 How will I be advised that the repair work or replacement
of my dwelling has been completed?
You will be advised in writing by the servicing housing office that
the work has been completed in compliance with the project contract.
Also, you will have a final walk-through of the dwelling with your
servicing housing office representative. You will be requested to
verify that you received the notice of completion of the work by
signing a copy of the notice and returning it to the servicing housing
office representative.
Sec. 256.20 How many times can I receive improvements, repairs, or
replacement services under the Housing Improvement Program?
(a) Under Category A you can receive services under the Housing
Improvement Program more than one (1) time, for improvements to the
dwelling in which you are living to improve the safety and sanitation
of the dwelling:
(1) For not more than a total cost of $2,500; and,
(2) For not more than one dwelling; and,
(b) Under Category B, after October 1, 1986, you may receive
services one (1) time, for repairs to the dwelling that you own and
occupy that requires not more than $35,000 to make the dwelling meet
applicable building code standards; or,
(c) Under Category C, after October 1, 1986, you may receive
services one (1) time, for a modest replacement home.
Sec. 256.21 Will I need flood insurance?
You will need flood insurance if your dwelling is located in an
area identified as having special flood hazards under the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 977). Your
servicing housing office will advise you.
Sec. 256.22 Is my Federal Government assisted dwelling eligible for
services under the Housing Improvement Program?
No. Housing purchased with Federally subsidized funds are not
eligible for services under the Housing Improvement Program.
Sec. 256.23 Are mobile homes eligible for services under the Housing
Improvement Program?
No. A mobile home with an integral steel frame, also referred to as
a manufactured home, is not eligible for any services under the Housing
Improvement Program.
Sec. 256.24 Can Housing Improvement Program resources be supplemented
with other available resources?
Yes. Housing Improvement Program resources may be supplemented
through other available resources for the purpose of:
(a) Increasing the number of Housing Improvement Program
recipients. Supplemental funds cannot be used to increase Housing
Improvement Program limits or the scope of an individual project; or
(b) Increasing the basic benefits derived from the Housing
Improvement Program, such as, but not limited to, providing sanitation
facilities, water or road access.
Sec. 256.25 What can I do if I disagree with actions taken under the
Housing Improvement Program?
You may appeal action or inaction by an official of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, in accordance with 25 CFR part 2. You may appeal action
or inaction by tribal officials through the appeal process established
by the servicing tribe.
Table A To Part 256.--Occupancy and Square Footage Chart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total house
Number of square
Number of occupants bedrooms footage
(maximum)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4........................................... 2 900
5-7........................................... 3 1050
8+............................................ \1\4 \1\1200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adequate for all but the very largest families.
Table B to Part 256.--Priority Ranking Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor--Ranking factor and Ranking
definition descriptors Point descriptors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Annual Household Income Income/125%/FPIG* Points
(% of 125% of (Maximum=40)
FPIG).
Must include 0-25............. 40
income of all persons
counted in Factors 2, 3,
and 4.
26-50............ 30
51-75............ 20
Income includes 76-100........... 10
earned income, royalties,
and one-time income.
101-125.......... 0
2. Aged Persons Years of Age Points
For the benefit of Less than 55..... 0
persons age 55 or older,
and.
Must be living in 55 and over...... 1 point per year of
the dwelling. age over 54
3. Handicapped Individual % of Handicap Points
(A%+B%/2)........ (Maximum=20)
Any one (1) 100%............. 20
handicapped person living
in the dwelling.
(The percentage of handicap or less than 100% 10
must be based on the
average (mean) of the % of
disabilities identified
from two (2) sources (A+B)
of statements of condition
which may include a
physician's certification,
Social Security or
Veterans Affairs
determination, or similar
determination.).
4. Dependent Children Dependent Child Points
(Number of (Maximum=5)
Children).
[[Page 36835]]
Must be under the 1................ 0
age of 18 or such other
age established for
purposes of parental
support by tribal or state
law (if any).
2................ 1
3................ 2
Must live in the 4................ 3
dwelling and not be
married.
5................ 4
6 or more 5................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FPIG means Federal Poverty Income Guidelines
Dated: June 17, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16673 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.