[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57781-57784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26853]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[PA022-4089a; FRL-6456-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Pennsylvania; Control of Total
Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action approves the section 111(d) plan submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of controlling total
reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from existing kraft pulp mills. The plan
was submitted to fulfill requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act).
The Pennsylvania plan establishes emission limits for existing Kraft
Pulp Mills, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of
those limits.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 1999 unless by
November 26, 1999 adverse or critical comments are received. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Harold A. Frankford, Office of Air
Programs, Mail Code 3AP20, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the following locations: Air Protection
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Pennsylvania
[[Page 57782]]
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814-2108,
or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. This portion of this document poses and provides
responses to the following questions:
What Action is EPA Taking?
What does the plan consist of?
What EPA Administrative Requirements was Pennsylvania required
to meet?
What actions did the State take to satisfy these requirements?
What is EPA's Evaluation?
What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are approving Pennsylvania's section 111(d) plan for the control
of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from kraft pulp mills.
What Does the Plan Consist of?
Pennsylvania's section 111(d) plan consists of the following
elements:
1. Emissions Standards for five source points: recovery furnaces,
lime kilns, digesters, evaporators, smelt dissolving tanks. Among the
recovery furnaces, there are emissions standards for two separate
designs. These standards are described in Section 129.17(a) of
Pennsylvania's air quality control regulations. The standards are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPM
Source point (volume) Condition
dry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery furnace--old construction 20 12 hour average--
design (without welded wall or corrected to 8%
membrane wall construction or oxygen by volume
emission-control designed air
systems).
Recovery furnace--new design (with 5 12 hour average--
both welded wall or membrane wall design corrected to
construction or emission-control 8% oxygen by volume
designed air systems).
Lime kiln (a rotary or fluosolid unit 20 Never to be exceeded--
used to calcine calcium carbonate corrected to 10%
into calcium oxide). oxygen by volume
Digester systems (continuous or batch 5 Never to be exceeded
process for cooking wood chips in
sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide
to produce cellulosic material).
Multiple effect evaporator system 5 Never to be exceeded
(vapor heads, heating elements, hot
wells, condensers and associated
equipment used to concentrate spent
pulp mill cooking liquid).
Smelt dissolving tank (the vessel 20 Never to be exceeded
used to produce an aqueous solution
from the molten mixture discharged
from the floor of a recovery
furnace).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. TRS emissions are to be monitored continuously at the recovery
furnaces, digester systems, and multiple effect evaporator systems
unless emissions are incinerated at 1,200 deg.F.
3. Provisions for compliance testing: provisions are found in
Pennsylvania Regulations 129.17(b), 139.13(3) & (4), 139.15,
139.102(3), and 139.108 (except for 1994 amendment--parenthetical
expression at end of Sec. 139.108(1)). These provisions cross-reference
EPA Methods 16, 16A and 16B found in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. (Last
revision: May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18545) for emissions monitoring, February
14, 1990 (55 FR 5212) for test methods and procedures.)
4. Compliance schedule: All sources except for new source recovery
furnaces were to be in final compliance with Section 129.17(a) by May
7, 1991. All new source recovery furnaces were to be in final
compliance with Section 129.17(a) by May 7, 1994.
5. Identification of kraft pulp mills subject to this plan:
Pennsylvania has identified three sources which are subject to the
plan's provisions:
Appleton Papers--Blair County
P.H. Gladfelter--York County
Penntech Papers--Elk County
6. Expected reduction in TRS Emissions: Pennsylvania estimates that
TRS emissions from the three kraft pulp mills totaled about 640 tons
per year. Pennsylvania further states that the requirements of the
State TRS regulations would reduce TRS emissions by about 80% (640
tons/year), thus reducing total TRS emissions to about 120 tons per
year.
What EPA Administrative Requirements Was Pennsylvania Required To Meet?
Public Hearings, as per 40 CFR 60.23(d)
Submittal by designated official, as per 40 CFR 60.23(a)(2)
Evidence of legal authority, as per 40 CFR 60.26
What Actions Did the State Take To Satisfy These Requirements?
1. Hearing and Submittal Requirements
Original submittal:
Public Hearings held: 7/24/97
Submitted by designated official: 7/19/88
Revision No. 1:
Public Hearings held: 9/21/89, 9/25/89, 9/27/89
Submitted by designated official: 1/11/91
Revision No. 2:
Public Hearings held: 7/25/90, 7/30/90, 8/1/90
Submitted by designated official: 8/15/91
2. Evidence of Legal Authority
Pennsylvania cites Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control
Act (35 P.S. Sec. 4005).
What Is EPA's Evaluation?
Prior to Pennsylvania's July 19, 1988 formal submittal, we
evaluated a draft submittal dated December 31, 1985 under the parallel
processing procedures. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
published on September 4, 1987 (52 FR 33605), we announced that we
would approve Section 129.17 if Pennsylvania's rules establish a 12-
hour averaging limit which is consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR part 60. During the public comment period, we had received comments
indicating that Pennsylvania's proposed standard for lime kilns had not
contained a 10% correction factor for oxygen by volume as allowed by 40
CFR part 60, Appendix B (the new source performance standard for kraft
pulp mills).
The 1991 provisions of Section 129.17 and Chapter 139 incorporate
the revisions suggested by the commenters of EPA's parallel process
NPR. Since Pennsylvania's current version of Section 129.17 and Chapter
139 differs than that on which our proposal action was based, we are
evaluating Pennsylvania current TRS requirements
[[Page 57783]]
in a direct final rulemaking action and concurrent proposed rulemaking
action.
We have determined that Pennsylvania's current limits for the
various individual process facilities listed in Section 129.17(a) are
in compliance with EPA guidelines except for the smelt dissolving
tanks. Pennsylvania's standard for smelt dissolving tanks is 20 ppm,
while the NSPS limit is 16 ppm. Nevertheless, EPA considers
Pennsylvania's 20 ppm limit to be a reasonable limit for existing
sources.
Section 129.17(b)(3) allows Pennsylvania to use data from alternate
monitoring systems in order to determine compliance with the applicable
emissions standards set forth in Section 129.17(a). According to
Pennsylvania's November 7, 1987 proposed rulemaking package, this
provision was meant to provide the targeted sources with flexibility to
obtain compliance. We do not interpret this provision as giving
Pennsylvania the discretion to approve an alternative monitoring system
for the targeted sources. Rather, we interpret the State's discretion
as being limited to the data obtained from alternative systems
prescribed in Chapter 139. Therefore, we have determined that the
provision set forth in Section 129.17(b)(3) meets the applicable Agency
requirements. However, the use of any alternate monitoring system other
than that which is prescribed in Chapter 139 of Pennsylvania's
regulations must be approved by both the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) and EPA.
II. Final Action
Based upon the rationale discussed above and in further detail in
the Technical Support Document (TSD) associated with this action, we
are approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Kraft Pulp Mill 111(d)
plan for the control of TRS emissions from affected facilities. Copies
of the TSD are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES portion of this document.
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal
to approve Pennsylvania's Section 111(d) plan for controlling TRS
emissions from kraft pulp mills if adverse comments are filed. This
rule will be effective on December 27, 1999 without further notice
unless we receive adverse comment by November 26, 1999. If we receive
adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Orders on Federalism
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule. On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued
a new executive order on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255
(August 10, 1999)] which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the
interim, the current Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30,
1987)] on federalism still applies. This rule will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 12612. The rule affects only one State, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
C. Executive Order 13045
E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is ``economically
significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject
to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by E.O. 12866, and it does not address an
environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate
effect on children.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
[[Page 57784]]
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because approvals under section
111(d) of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning section 111(d) plans on
such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that
the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under
State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 27, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action to approve Pennsylvania's section 111(d)
plan controlling TRS emissions from existing kraft pulp mills may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Total reduced sulfur.
Dated: September 30, 1999.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Under the following undesignated centerhead, Sec. 62.9611 is
added to read as follows:
Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
* * * * *
Sec. 62.9611 Identification of plan--Pennsylvania
(a) Title of Plan. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Plan under section
111(d) for Designated Pollutants from Existing Facilities--Kraft Pulp
Mills.
(b) The plan was officially submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources on July 19, 1988, with revisions
submitted on January 11, 1991, and August 15, 1991.
(c) Identification of sources. The Plan includes the following
kraft pulp mills:
(1) Appleton Papers--Roaring Spring, Blair County
(2) P.H. Gladfelter--Spring Grove, York County
(3) Penntech Papers--Johnsonburg, Elk County
[FR Doc. 99-26853 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P