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

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