June
27,
2005
(
Via
Email)

EPA
Docket
Center
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
4101T)
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
Water
Docket
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.
725
17th
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Washington,
DC,
20503
Attn:
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2004­
0025
Re:
AF&
PA
Comments
on
Agency
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
on
EPA
Minimum
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Direct
and
Indirect
Discharging
Mills
in
the
Bleached
Papergrade
Kraft
and
Soda
Subcategory
and
the
Papergrade
Sulfite
Subcategory
of
the
Pulp,
Paper
and
Paperboard
Point
Source
Category
(
Renewal),
EPA
ICR
Number
1878.02,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0243:
70
Fed.
Reg.
30439
(
May
26,
2005)

To
Whom
it
May
Concern:

The
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)
is
pleased
to
submit
these
comments
on
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
renewal
for
Minimum
Monitoring
Requirements
referenced
above.
AF&
PA
is
the
national
trade
association
of
the
forest,
paper
and
wood
products
industry.
AF&
PA
represents
more
than
200
companies
and
related
associations
that
engage
in
or
represent
the
manufacture
of
pulp,
paper,
paperboard
and
wood
products.
AF&
PA
members
own
and
operate
mills
subject
to
the
minimum
monitoring
requirements.

As
discussed
below,
AF&
PA
suggests
that
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
make
its
approval
of
these
requirements
contingent
on
EPA
reminding
State
water
division
directors
and
EPA
regions
about
the
ability
of
permit
writers
to
reduce
monitoring
frequencies,
and
encouraging
them
to
do
so.
We
base
this
request
on
the
fact
that
all
mills
subject
to
the
monitoring
requirements
have
already
converted
to
Elemental
Chlorine
Free
(
ECF)
bleaching­­
which
is
the
technology
basis
of
the
underlying
rule­­
and
those
mills
have
exemplary
compliance
histories
using
that
technology.
Continued
monitoring
at
the
required
frequency
would
simply
yield
thousands
more
sample
results
showing
continued
compliance
and
would
have
no
practical
utility.
AMERICAN
FOREST
&
PAPER
ASSOCIATION
GROWING
WITH
AMERICA
SINCE
1861
2
Background
Minimum
Monitoring
Frequencies
The
minimum
monitoring
requirements
were
originally
promulgated
on
April
15,
1998
as
part
of
the
final
effluent
guidelines
(
known
as
the
Cluster
Rule)
applicable
to
the
mills
referenced
above.
40
CFR
Sections
430.02(
a)
and
(
b).
Monitoring
was
required
for
dioxin,
furan,
AOX,
chloroform,
and
12
chlorinated
organic
substances,
and
specified
minimum
testing
frequencies
were
provided
for
these
parameters,
ranging
from
daily
to
monthly.
The
rule
also
included
a
provision
stating
that
the
specified
monitoring
frequencies
were
required
for
five
years
(
i.
e.,
the
permit
term),
commencing
on
the
date
of
the
first
permit
to
include
Cluster
Rule
requirements
for
direct
dischargers,
from
April
16,
2001
until
April
17,
2006
for
existing
indirect
dischargers,
and
5
years
for
new
indirect
dischargers,
commencing
on
the
start
of
operations.
EPA
indicated
that
the
five­
year
period
"
will
provide
data
useful
for
establishing
appropriate
monitoring
requirements
during
future
permit
renewals."
63
Fed.
Reg.
18572.

Typically,
effluent
guidelines
do
not
include
minimum
monitoring
requirements
and
mandatory
testing
frequencies,
but
instead
leave
those
decisions
up
to
the
permit
writer.
However,
when
promulgating
the
Cluster
Rule,
EPA
indicated
in
the
Preamble
several
reasons
for
doing
so
here.
63
Fed.
Reg.
18571­
18572.

 
The
nature
of
the
regulated
pollutants;
 
"[
P]
rocess
related
variability;"
 
The
need
for
sufficient
data
to
ensure
permitting
authorities
"
have
an
adequate
basis
to
verify
compliance"
with
the
limits
in
the
rule;
and
 
The
need
for
"
sufficient
information
to
evaluate
mill
compliance 
over
the
long
term."

Reduced
Monitoring
Frequency
The
Cluster
Rule
also
included
a
provision
allowing
the
permit
writer
to
require
less
frequent
monitoring
after
the
compulsory
five­
year
monitoring
period.
EPA
included
factors
the
permit
writer
should
consider
when
writing
the
next
permit
to
developing
reduced
monitoring
frequency
(
e.
g.,
the
mill's
compliance
history).
63
Fed.
Reg.
18572.
The
agency
also
referenced
existing
guidance
on
performance­
based
reductions
of
NPDES
permit
monitoring
frequencies
(
EPA­
883­
B­
96­
001)
to
help
guide
the
permit
writer
in
determining
new,
reduced
monitoring
frequencies.
Finally,
similar
provisions
were
included
in
EPA's
"
Permit
Guidance
Document"
for
the
Cluster
Rule,
issued
in
May
2000
(
EPA­
821­
B­
00­
003).

Mill
Performance
EPA
currently
is
undertaking
a
review
of
the
Pulp
and
Paper
Point
Source
category
for
potential
effluent
guidelines
revision.
As
part
of
that
review,
the
Agency
provided
us
its
data
used
to
evaluate
industry
discharges,
including
data
on
dioxin
discharges,
and
provided
an
opportunity
to
correct
the
data.
As
indicated
in
Enclosure
I,
based
on
corrected
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
data,
there
were
no
discharges
of
dioxin
in
calendar
year
2002,
the
year
for
which
the
analysis
was
conducted.
3
This
is
consistent
with
information
from
AF&
PA
member
companies'
own
compliance
records.
Enclosure
II
is
a
compilation
of
letters
from
4
AF&
PA
members,
discussing
the
compliance
records
of
their
bleached
kraft
mills
with
Cluster
Rule
permits
 
a
total
of
20
mills
out
of
the
approximately
39
mills
that
we
believe
have
Cluster
Rule
permits,
based
on
an
analysis
of
EPA's
database.
Not
only
were
these
mills
in
compliance
with
the
dioxin
limitations,
but
also
with
all
the
other
parameters
regulated
under
the
minimum
monitoring
requirements,
with
one
exception.
1
The
records
described
in
these
letters
encompass
over
37,000
sampling
events
occurring
over
a
period
of
542
months
(
we
believe
this
is
a
conservative
estimate).
Moreover,
company
representatives
are
confident
that
their
mills
were
in
compliance
in
the
years
before
those
represented
by
the
enclosed
records,
but
obtaining
the
relevant
documentation
within
the
comment
period
was
not
possible.

These
20
mills
are
representative
of
the
industry's
other
bleached
kraft
mills
in
terms
of
bleaching
technology.
As
we
indicated
in
our
comments
to
EPA
in
Enclosure
I,
all
of
the
industry's
bleached
kraft
mills
had
installed
Cluster
Rule
compliant
technology
(
i.
e.,
ECF)
by
April
2001,
the
same
technology
used
by
these
mills.
The
only
exceptions
were
the
four
mills
enrolled
in
EPA's
VATIP
program.
Those
mills
were
provided
more
time
to
achieve
even
better
performance
than
that
required
by
the
Cluster
Rule
limitations.
All
four
of
them
also
now
have
ECF
technology,
as
well.
(
see
e.
g.,
Glatfelter
letter,
included
in
Enclosure
II).

Utility
of
Information
Collection
Activity
As
indicated
above,
the
industry
mills
for
which
we
have
data
have
an
exemplary
record
of
compliance
with
the
limitations
for
these
regulated
parameters,
with
only
one
minor
violation
in
over
37,000
sampling
events.
Other
Cluster
Rule
mills
have
the
same
or
better
bleaching
technology.
There
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
compliance
records
for
the
other
mills
would
be
any
different
than
the
records
represented
in
Attachment
II.
There
also
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
these
records
will
change
in
the
future.
Therefore,
there
is
no
utility
in
continuing
to
monitor
for
these
parameters
at
the
required
frequencies.

Steps
to
Minimize
the
Burden
of
This
Information
Collection
Activity
By
EPA's
own
calculation,
the
required
minimum
monitoring
costs
over
$
15
million
a
year
 
costs
incurred
by
the
mills,
EPA,
and
state
permitting
agencies.
Currently,
all
of
these
entities
face
serious
financial
and
budgetary
challenges,
and
a
significant
portion
of
these
funds
could
be
better
spent
elsewhere
addressing
other
environmental
priorities.
It
is
appropriate
to
consider
ways
to
minimize
the
burden
of
this
activity
for
all
three
entities.

We
believe
the
minimum
monitoring
frequencies
should
be
removed
from
the
Cluster
Rule
requirements.
We
understand,
however,
that
this
can
only
be
accomplished
through
a
rulemaking,
that
EPA
has
not
budgeted
for
such
a
rulemaking,
and
that
it
could
be
several
years
before
such
a
rulemaking
would
be
completed,
given
other
competing
priorities
in
the
Office
of
Water.

The
next
best
step
to
minimize
this
significant
burden
is
for
EPA
specifically
to
encourage
permitting
agencies
when
renewing
Cluster
Rule
permits
to
take
advantage
of
the
provisions
in
the
1
That
lone
exception
was
slightly
above
the
minimum
level
for
a
regulated
chlorinated
phenolic
and
was
not
indicative
of
routine
operating
conditions.
4
existing
rule
and
guidances
allowing
reduced
monitoring
frequencies
after
five
years.
The
concerns
cited
by
EPA
for
imposing
the
minimum
frequencies
(
e.
g.,
variability,
need
to
evaluate
compliance
over
the
long
term)
have
been
addressed.

We
request
that
OMB
approve
this
ICR,
contingent
upon
EPA
issuing
guidance
to
EPA's
regions
and
State
water
permitting
directors.
The
guidance
should
highlight
the
existing
rule
and
guidance
allowing
reduced
monitoring
frequency,
encourage
the
use
of
these
provisions
to
significantly
reduce
monitoring
frequencies
as
permits
for
Cluster
Rule
mills
are
renewed,
and
indicate
that
EPA
will
not
object
to
permits
with
reduced
monitoring
requirements.
This
should
ensure
that
most
mills
receive
significantly
reduced
monitoring
frequencies
in
their
renewed
permits,
thereby
minimizing
the
unnecessary
burden
of
continuing
to
monitor
at
the
frequencies
required
by
the
rule.
Of
course,
if
there
should
be
the
rare
case
where
a
mill­
specific
issue
indicates
that
reduced
monitoring
is
not
appropriate,
the
existing
rule
and
guidance
allow
permit
writers
to
renew
the
permit
with
the
frequencies
required
by
the
Cluster
Rule.

Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
ICR.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(
202)
463­
2581,
if
you
have
any
questions
about
these
comments.

Sincerely,

Jerry
Schwartz
Senior
Director,
Water
Quality
Programs
Enclosure
Cc:
Don
Anderson,
EPA
(
w/
o
enclosure)
Ahmar
Siddiqui,
EPA
(
w/
o
enclosure)
Jack
Faulk,
EPA
(
w/
o
enclosure)
Jim
Lahity,
OMB
(
w/
enclosure)
