53234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

process and to encourage States to bring

their programs into conformity with the

Federal standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this 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.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Tim L. Dieringer,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 935—OHIO

1. The authority citation for part 935

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 935.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 935.15 Approval of Ohio regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

October 3, 1996 October 14, 1997. .............. OAC 1501:13–6–03, (A)(1) (a) through (f), (B), (1), (2), (F)(2), (a) through (f), (C)(2),

(a), (b), (D)(9), (10), (11).

§ 935.16 Required regulatory program

amendments.

Section 935.16 is amended by

deleting paragraph (a)(3).

[FR Doc. 97–27065 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA–5026a; FRL–5904–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Approval of VOC RACT Determinations

for Individual Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving six State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. These revisions establish and

require volatile organic compound

(VOC) reasonably available control

technology (RACT) on six major sources

of VOCs located in Virginia. The

intended effect of this action is to

approve, as SIP revisions, sourcespecific plan approvals and Consent

Agreements that establish RACT in

accordance with the Clean Air Act (the

Act).

DATES: This action is effective

November 28, 1997 unless notice is

received on or before October 29, 1997

that adverse or critical comments will

be submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Air, Radiation, and

Toxics Division, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53235

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107; the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

and the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristeen Gaffney, (215) 566–2092, at the

EPA Region III office or via e-mail at

Gaffney.Kristeen@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, any comments must be

submitted in writing to the above

Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

12, 21, 26, 30, 1996, September 3, 1996,

and March 27, 1997, the Commonwealth

of Virginia submitted revisions to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions establish source specific VOC

RACT requirements on major sources of

VOCs. Today’s rulemaking approves

those source specific VOC RACT

requirements for six sources because

they meet the requirements of section

182 of the Act. All of the sources are

located in the Richmond moderate

ozone nonattainment area. Plan

approvals and Consent Agreements for

other sources that were also submitted

on the dates listed above that are not a

part of today’s action will be addressed

by separate rulemaking.

I. Background

Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act

(i.e., the Act prior to the 1990

Amendments), ozone nonattainment

areas were required to adopt RACT rules

for VOC sources. EPA issued three sets

of control technique guideline

documents (CTGs), establishing a

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for

various categories of VOC sources. The

Richmond, Virginia area was designated

nonattainment under the pre-amended

Act and was required to adopt RACT for

all CTG categories as well as non-CTG

VOC sources with a potential to emit

100 tons per year (TPY) or more. Under

the 1990 amendments to the Act,

amended sections 172(c)(1) and

182(a)(2), required the Richmond,

Virginia nonattainment area to correct

its RACT requirements in effect prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments.

Virginia submitted those RACT

corrections as SIP revisions on May 10,

1991 and June 20, 1991. Among the

regulations in that SIP revision, was a

provision (Rule 120–04–0407)

establishing the legal basis for imposing

RACT on all individual major VOC

sources subject to RACT in the Northern

Virginia and Richmond nonattainment

areas not covered by an existing state

adopted VOC control regulation.

Virginia’s RACT correction SIP was

approved by EPA on March 31, 1994

(See 59 FR 15117). To implement Rule

120–04–0407, the Commonwealth must

submit to EPA a RACT determination

and enforceable document for all major

VOC sources not otherwise controlled

under existing State VOC RACT

regulations.

Sections 182(b) (2)(A),(B) and (C) of

the Act require moderate and above

areas to adopt standards for all sources

covered by any CTG document issued

by the Administrator after 1990 and

before the area is required to attain the

standard; all sources covered by any

CTG before the date of enactment of the

1990 CAA amendments; and all major

sources of VOC not subject to a CTG. In

addition, areas newly designated under

the 1990 amendments as ozone

nonattainment areas are required to

adopt RACT rules consistent with those

previously designated nonattainment.

This provision of the Act makes

nonattainment areas that were

previously exempt from RACT

requirements ‘‘catch up’’ to

requirements during the earlier period,

and therefore, is known as the RACT

catch-up requirement.

Because Rule 120–04–0407 imposed

RACT on all major VOC sources in the

Northern Virginia and Richmond

nonattainment areas on an individual

basis, this rule partially satisfied the

RACT catch-up requirement. On

November 6, 1992, Virginia submitted a

SIP revision expanding the geographic

boundaries of the VOC emission control

areas to coincide with the revised

boundaries of the Richmond and

Northern Virginia ozone nonattainment

areas resulting from the 1990

amendments. This SIP was approved by

EPA on March 12, 1997 (59 FR 52701).

To satisfy the RACT correction and

catch-up requirements under sections

182(a)(2) and 182(b)(2) (A), (B) and (C),

and implement Rule 120–04–0407,

Virginia has submitted source-specific

VOC RACT determinations for the

following six sources in the Richmond,

Virginia ozone nonattainment area:

1. AlliedSignal Inc.—Hopewell Plant

2. AlliedSignal Inc.—Chesterfield Plant

3. Stone Container Corporation

4. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Company—Spruance Plant

5. ICI Americas, Inc.

6. Bear Island Paper Company

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

Detailed decriptions of the RACT

requirements for the source-specific

plan approvals and Consent Agreements

can be found in the docket and

accompanying technical support

document (TSD). Below is a summary of

the facility type and the applicable

RACT requirements for each company.

Each SIP revision consists of a Consent

Agreement signed by the company and

the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality. The Consent

Agreements are enforceable documents

which include a description of the

RACT technologies, control efficiencies,

operating parameters, monitoring and

reporting requirements. For further

details on the sources’ processes and

how RACT was determined, refer to the

TSD associated with this rulemaking.

EPA is approving revisions to the

Virginia SIP pertaining to the

determination of RACT for six major

sources of VOCs. This action is being

taken under section 110 of the Act.

1. AlliedSignal Inc., Hopewell:

AlliedSignal Inc. is a synthetic organic

chemical manufacturing facility in

Hopewell, Virginia that produces

caprolactam. Other chemicals produced

at the site include raw materials for

caprolactam production and other coproducts with commercial value that

include ammonium sulfate, adipic acid,

cyclohexanol, cyclohexanone and oxime

performance chemicals. This facility

includes emission sources subject to

EPA’s CTG entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from

Reactor Processes and Distillation

Operations Processes in the Synthetic

Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI)’’ (EPA–450/4–91–031,

August 1993), as well as non-CTG

sources. The specific process areas with

VOC emissions are:

Area 6—Phenol Hydrogenation

Area 7—Caprolactam Purification

Area 8/16—Crude Caprolactam

Production

Area 9—Hydroxylamine Production

Area 11—Ammonium Sulfate

Production

Area 13—Adipic Acid Production

Area 14—Performance Chemicals Plant/

Area

Kellogg/Girdler—Ammonia Plant

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement for AlliedSignal—Hopewell,

Registration Number 50232, dated

March 26, 1997, is as follows:

(1) VOC emissions from the

Hydrogenation Reaction Catalyst

Centrifuges, designated as CT–48, 53,
53236 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

55, all of which are located in the

Cyclohexane Production Area (Area 6)

shall be controlled by a nonassisted

combustion flare at 98 percent reduction

efficiency. Annual emissions will be

reduced from 131.1 tons/year to 2.6

tons/year.

(2) VOC emissions from the overheads

product recovery condensers in Areas 8

and 16, the Toluene/Sulfate Stripping

Column (CL–15) and the Toluene/

Caprolatam Stripping Column (CL–62)

shall be controlled by a thermal oxidizer

having a VOC reduction efficiency of at

least 98 percent by weight or shall

reduce the VOC emissions to a

concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry

basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen,

whichever is less stringent. Annual

emissions will be reduced from 134.4

tons/year to 2.7 tons/year.

(3) VOC emissions from the Methyl

Ethyl Ketoxime distillation column in

Area 14 shall be controlled by a

scrubber operating with a Total

Resource Effectiveness Value of greater

than 1.0, as described in EPA’s SOCMI

CTG. Annual emissions will be reduced

from 107 tons/year to 25 tons/year.

(4) VOC emissions resulting from

desorbtion of the Natural Gas

Desulfurization Carbon Drums in the

Girdler Area, shall be reduced by use of

an alternative, non-regenerative

adsorbent or an alternative technology

which must first be submitted to EPA

for review and approval. Annual

emissions will be reduced from 206

tons/year to 6 tons/year.

(5) The vacuum jet ejectors in Area 6

(CL–26 and CL–65) which control the

pressure on the Cyclohexanone

Distillation Columns will be controlled

with product recovery condensers.

Combined annual emissions will be

reduced from 81.5 tons/year to 24.4

tons/year.

(6) Fugitive VOC emissions resulting

from equipment leaks in Areas 6, 8, 14

and 16 shall be controlled by instituting

a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)

program which is equivalent to the

requirements set forth in 40 CFR part

60, subpart VV, ‘‘Standards of

Performance for Equipment Leaks of

VOC in the Synthetic Organic

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry’’.

Implementation of this control program

will reduce annual emissions from 665

tons/year to 392 tons/year.

(7) RACT for volatile organic liquid

(VOL) storage tanks in Areas 6 and 14

shall be continued use of existing

control technologies. VOL storage tanks

are subject to Virginia SIP approved rule

120–04–25, ‘‘Volatile Organic

Compound Storage and Transfer

Operations’.

2. AlliedSignal—Chesterfield:

AlliedSignal, Inc. operates a nylon

fibers and plastics manufacturing

facility in Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Total pre-RACT emissions from the

facility were calculated to be 580.23

tons/year from eleven (I–XI) different

emission source processes and

including fugitive emissions. After

RACT emissions are estimated to be

295.02 tons/year, or a 49% reduction in

VOC emissions. EPA has not published

a CTG document for this source

category.

Pursuant to the Consent Agreement

for AlliedSignal—Chesterfield,

Registration Number 50233, dated May

20, 1996, RACT is the installation of

absorption (scrubbing) systems for

emissions from Groups I and II

(spinning lines 5–12) by November 15,

1996, that have a control efficiency of

80% on a mass basis. The one-hour

pressure losses of the gas stream

through each absorption system may not

be less than 6 inches and the one-hour

average liquid flow rates to each

absorption system shall not be less than

40 gallons/minute. Pressure losses and

liquid flow rates must be monitored

continuously and recorded.

RACT for the Group IX emissions

(distillate systems exhaust) is

installation of a condenser by July 1,

1997, that has a control efficiency of

99% on a mass basis. The one-hour

average temperature of each condenser

exhaust vent is not to exceed 100°F.

Exhaust vent stream temperatures must

be continuously measured and

recorded.

The facility is required to conduct

performance tests within 180 days of

installation of control technology to

demonstrate compliance with the

control efficiency requirements. Records

of all data necessary to demonstrate

compliance and maintain operating

parameters must be kept on site.

RACT was determined to be no

control for the following sources that

have exhaust streams with low

concentrations of VOCs or negligible

VOC emissions contribution: Group V,

Group VIII, Buildings 5 and 25 Vent

Fans, VOL Storage Tanks and the

Industrial Wastewater Stream. Analysis

has determined that it is not reasonably

cost effective to control VOC emissions

from source processes for Group III,

Group IV, Group VI, Group VII, Group

X and Group XI and fugitive emissions

from the Process Operations/Open

Buildings.

The Consent Agreement allows the

facility to use alternate controls or

control strategies, upon approval by the

Commonwealth and EPA, in place of

controlling emissions from Group I, II or

IX if the new VOC control efficiencies

exceed those in the Consent Agreement

and the overall VOC emission

reductions are equivalent to those

resulting from implementation of RACT

as defined in the Consent Agreement.

3. Stone Container Corporation: Stone

Container is a kraft pulp and paper mill

located in the city of Hopewell. Process

operations include wood storage and

handling, kraft pulp mill, paper mill,

chemical recovery, co-product

production and power and steam

production. Pre-RACT emissions based

upon the maximum annual throughput

of the mill, after considering existing

enforceable controls, were calculated by

Virginia to be 1393 tons/year, including

fugitives. Post-RACT maximum

emissions calculate to 1065 tons/year, a

24% additional reduction in total VOC

emissions. EPA has not published a

CTG document for this source category.

Total VOC emission sources in the

mill are grouped into process areas: the

Kraft Pulp Mill area, the Paper Mill area,

the Co-product Recovery area, the

Chemical Recovery area, the Power

Generation Area, the Non-condensible

Gas (NCG) System, and non-quantifiable

point and fugitive emissions of the

Wood Handling and Storage area.

Pursuant to the Consent Agreement

for Stone Container Corporation,

Registration Number 50370, dated May

30, 1996, RACT is determined as

follows:

1. Wood storage and handling

operations, the paper mill and power

and steam generation areas—no

additional controls.

2. Chemical recovery area—existing

level of control, use of city/river water

as the sole source of make-up water.

3. Pulp mill area—no additional

controls with the exception of the

noncondensible gases sent to the NCG

collection system and the requirement

to replace the existing weak black liquor

filter with a new, no-emissions filter by

December 1997.

4. RACT for VOC sources within the

NCG collection system is existing

control technology—thermal oxidation

accomplished by venting the gases to

the lime kiln while the kiln is operating.

5. RACT for the co-product recovery

area is installation of a packed tower

scrubber for the tall oil batch reactor

vent, which must be installed by August

1996. The VOC removal efficiency of 15

percent will be verified and related

operating parameters will be determined

through performance tests after start-up.

The Consent Agreement also provides

that all processes not subject to

additional controls are to be operated in

a manner consistent with minimizing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53237

VOC emissions and good air pollution

control practices.

4. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Company—Spruance Plant: DuPont

operates a synthetic fiber production

and coating facility located in

Chesterfield, Virginia. There are eight

air-emission producing units at the

facility: the Kevlar plant, the Nomex

plant, the Nylon plant, Dowtherm

operations, the Teflon plant, the Mylar

plant, the Tyvek plant and the

wastewater treatment plant. There is no

CTG document for this source category.

According to Virginia’s RACT submittal,

plant-wide pre-RACT emissions of

VOCs, including fugitives, based on

1991 emissions data and including

existing enforceable control

technologies, were 846.4 tpy. This

source had already installed controls on

several emissions units prior to 1991.

Implementation of additional RACT

controls do not result in any emission

reductions at the facility. However, VOC

emissions were reduced by 73.3 tpy

from 1991 RACT baseline levels because

the Nylon Plant was destroyed by fire in

1992, and its operations were replaced

with the Zylar plant. The Zylar plant

was subject to lowest achievable

emission rate (LAER) review under the

New Source Review provisions of the

Act. Post-RACT emissions are 773.1 tpy.

VOC emissions from the DuPont facility

were previously controlled using

technologies described in the following

table. In addition to the existing controls

on the table, RACT requirements for the

DuPont facility pursuant to the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50397,

dated May 30, 1996, require

implementation of a LDAR program:

Plant operations Control efficiency RACT technology Emissions (tons/year)

Kevlar ................................. 98.3% 6 month rolling average.Existing Control (Solvent Recovery System and chloroform quench stack scrubber) and Implementation of

LDAR program.

Uncontrolled emissions*:

6,627.99.

Pre-RACT 33.2.

RACT 33.2.

Nomex ................................ 98.3% 6 month rolling average.Existing Control (Solvent Recovery, ventilation scrubber, chloroform scrubber stack and scrubber for the

wash/draw lines) and Implementation of LDAR program.

Uncontrolled emissions*:

19,410.7.

Pre-RACT 594.7.

RACT 594.7

Dowtherm ........................... N/A ..................................... Implementation of LDAR program ................................. Pre-RACT 10.5.

Nylon .................................. N/A ..................................... Plant shutdown—replaced by Zytel operations ............. Pre-RACT 82.8 RACT 0.

Zytel .................................... N/A ..................................... RACT is no control ......................................................... Pre-RACT 20 RACT 20.

Teflon ................................. N/A ..................................... RACT is no control ......................................................... Pre-RACT 6.5 RACT 6.5.

Mylar ................................... 98.3% 6 month rolling average.Existing control (Carbon bed adsorbers, solvent recovery and LDAR program).Uncontrolled emissions*:

7,791.

Pre-RACT 117.3 RACT

117.3.

Tyvek .................................. N/A ..................................... New plant subject to NSR/LAER controls; plus implementation of LDAR program.Pre-RACT N/A.

RACT 110.

Wastewater Treatment

Plant.

N/A ..................................... RACT is no control ......................................................... Pre-RACT 1.4.

RACT 1.4.

*Uncontrolled emissions are the total estimated amount of VOC emissions that would be emitted if the pre-RACT existing control equipment

had not been installed.

Compliance for the fugitive LDAR

programs being implemented at the

Kelvar, Zytel, Tyvek and Nomex plants

requires procedures to correspond with

the standards set in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart VV, including record keeping

requirements, except for the reporting

requirements of 60.487. The second

exception is that equipment shall be

considered to be leaking when a reading

is above 500 ppm using an approved

measurement technique. The amount of

emission reductions achieved through

implementation of LDAR has not been

determined for any of the plants. The

RACT determination assumes the same

amount of VOCs will continue to be

emitted at each plant even though the

LDAR program is being instituted.

The Nylon plant was closed in

November 1992 due to a fire and is not

anticipated to reopen. Emissions from

the Nylon Plant were part of the RACT

analysis document because the RACT

analysis was performed prior to

destruction of the plant. However, since

the fire, RACT for the Nylon plant is

permanent shutdown. The Nylon Plant

was replaced by the Zytel Plant, which

underwent NSR, including LAER, prior

to construction.

No RACT determination was

completed for the Tyvek Plant because

1991 was used as the baseline for

determining RACT controls and the

former Tyvek operations at that time did

not emit any regulated VOCs. Freon11,

an exempt VOC, but a

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) which

contributes to stratospheric ozone

depletion, was used in the plant

operations. To comply with the national

phase-out of ozone depleting CFCs,

DuPont replaced Freon11 with a

regulated VOC, which required major

plant modifications. The plant was

issued a NSR modification permit in

October 9, 1992, which imposed LAER

requirements on the plant. The NSR

permit for the new plant imposes LAER

controls which are described in the

RACT Determination document and

include, catalytic incineration and

condenser absorption. In addition to

LAER controls, Virginia has imposed as

RACT the Tyvek Plant a LDAR program

to reduce fugitive emissions.

5. ICI Americas, Inc. Films

Divisions—Hopewell Site: ICI films, a

division of ICI Americas, Incorporated,

currently operates a polymer film and

manufacturing plant in Hopewell,

Virginia. Polyester film is produced as

a final product to be used in a variety

of applications including packaging,

window sun screens, and audio/video

cassette tapes. Production operations

results in the emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs).

According to the RACT

determination, plant-wide pre-RACT

maximum calculated emissions,

including fugitives, of VOCs were

290.29 tons/year. Maximum facilitywide post-RACT emissions are 223.3

tons/year, a 25% reduction.

EPA has not published a CTG

document for this source category.

RACT analysis was completed for the

following VOC emission source

processes: VOL storage tanks, chip

driers, heat setting ovens, methanol

loading of rail cars, batch reactors,

process cooling tower, fuel burning

equipment, industrial wastewater
53238 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

streams, biotreatment plant, and fugitive

emissions.

The Consent Agreement for ICI,

Registration Number 50418, dated May

30, 1996, limits the production rate for

the ICI films facility as follows:

Polymer Plant: 13,600 DMT batches of

polymer per year; 1,000 TA batches of

polymer per year.

Film Plant: 150,000 tons of polymer

chip throughput per year

RACT for the volatile organic liquid

storage tanks was determined to be in

compliance with SIP approved Rule 4–

25 of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Regulations for the Control and

Abatement of Air Pollution for the VOL

storage tanks.

RACT for VOC emissions from the

cooling tower is replacement of the

ethylene glycol (EG) Still Vacuum

System direct contact spray condensers

with non-contact shell and tube

condensers and diverting 100 percent of

the condensate to the Biotreatment

aeration basin for remediation instead of

sending it to the cooling tower hotwell.

A 99 percent reduction of VOCs

attributed to the EG stills (50 percent of

total cooling tower emissions) is

anticipated through the replacement of

the direct contact condensers serving

the EG still vacuum system with noncontact condensers.

The fugitive emissions from the

polymer and film manufacturing

processes leaks and heat transfer fluid

systems will follow the procedures from

the LDAR program as specified in 40

CFR Part 60, Subpart VV, including

record-keeping and test procedures.

This will account for an approximately

86 percent overall reduction in fugitive

emissions. The LDAR program will be

implemented within 180 days of the

effective date of the Consent Agreement.

6. Bear Island Paper Company, L.P.:

Bear Island Paper Company, L.P.

(BIPCO) operates a pulp and paper mill

in Ashland, Virginia. The pulp is used

for the manufacture of newsprint.

According to the Consent Agreement,

the maximum potential to emit before

RACT was 1134.8 tons per year. With

the application of RACT, the maximum

annual emissions are 623.7 tons per year

of VOCs, a 45% reduction.

VOC emissions result from the

following source processes: Nebraska

Package Boiler, the Babcock & Wilcox

(B&W) Boiler, the Sludge Dryer Burner,

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP),

and four Thermomechanical Pulp (TMP)

process lines. The bulk of the VOC

emissions are terpenes that are emitted

from the TMP process lines. The

Nebraska Package Boiler was closed in

May of 1994 and replaced by a new

Package Boiler which began operations

in January 1996. The Package Boiler has

a permitted maximum emissions cap of

3.7 tpy of VOCs.

The Consent Agreement for Bear

Island, Registration Number 50840,

dated July 12, 1996, determines RACT

for VOCs from the B&W and package

fossil fuel boilers and the sludge burner

dryer to be good combustion practices

and periodic maintenance. Proper

combustion practices include periodic

maintenance of the burner system and

maintaining combustion temperature

and air/fuel ratio according to the

manufacturer’s specifications.

RACT for the four TMP lines has been

determined to be the installation of 2

heat exchangers/condensers and 1

scrubber/heat exchanger, with a

combined control efficiency of 40.5

percent. Specifically, emissions from

the steam tubes, primary refiners, and

secondary refiners, from all four TMP

lines will be controlled by a double

pass, plate and frame water heat

exchanger/condenser. The two stage

heat exchanger/condenser will use

water as the heat transfer medium,

except for the latency transfer chest and

the rejects latency chest, which will use

water as a heat transfer medium for the

first stage of the heat exchanger/

condenser and glycol as the heat

transfer medium for the second stage of

the condenser. The condensate will be

discharged to the wastewater treatment

plant.

For the wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP), test results confirm negligible

amounts of EPA Method 624 VOCs in

the effluent wastewater stream, and

system modeling showed that wood

organic species not analyzed by Method

624 are emitted at a rate of 5.6 tons/year.

Because the WWTP does not emit a

significant quantity of VOCs, the

Consent Agreement establishes RACT

for the WWTP as maintaining the

standard operating procedures.

III. Final Action

The provisions in these plan

approvals and Consent Agreements,

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia as revisions to the SIP, are

being approved by EPA. The Consent

Agreements were effective on the date of

signature by both signatory parties. The

Consent Agreements do not contain

expiration dates.

EPA is approving these SIP revisions

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective November

28, 1997 unless, by October 29, 1997,

adverse or critical comments are

received. If EPA receives such

comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on November 28, 1997. If

adverse comments are received that do

not pertain to all documents subject to

this rulemaking action, those documents

not affected by the adverse comments

will be finalized in the manner

described here. Only those documents

that receive adverse comments will be

withdrawn.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

Commonwealth is already imposing.

Therefore, because the federal SIP

approval does not impose any new

requirements, the EPA certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53239

due to the nature of the federal-state

relationship under the CAA, 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 SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 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 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 federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

D. 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 15,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Regional

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 VOC RACT determinations for

a number of individual sources in

Virginia as a revision to the

Commonwealth’s SIP may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 27, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2420 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(121) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted on

August 12, 21, 26, 30, 1996, September

3, 1996 and March 27, 1997 by the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality regarding non-CTG VOC RACT

requirements for six sources:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters submitted by the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality

transmitting source-specific VOC RACT

determinations in the form of Consent

Agreements on the following dates:

August 12, 21, 26, 30, 1996, September

3, 1996 and March 27, 1997.

(B) Consent Agreements:

(1) AlliedSignal Inc.—Hopewell Plant,

City of Hopewell, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50232,

effective March 26, 1997;

(2) AlliedSignal Inc.—Chesterfield

Plant, Chesterfield County, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50233,

effective May 20, 1996;

(3) Bear Island Paper Company, L.P.,

Hanover County, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50840,

effective July 12, 1996;

(4) Stone Container Corporation

Hopewell Mill, City of Hopewell,

Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50370, effective

May 30, 1996;

(5) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and

Company, Spruance Plant, Chesterfield

County, Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50397, effective

May 30, 1996;

(6) ICI Americas, Inc. Film Division—

Hopewell Site, Chesterfield County,

Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50418, effective

May 30, 1996.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Technical Support Documents

submitted as part of the RACT

determinations in paragraph (c)(121)(i)

of this section by the Commonwealth of

Virginia on August 12, 21, 23, 26, 30,

1996, September 3, 1996 and March 27,

1997.

[FR Doc. 97–27122 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN40–03–6988; FRL–5906–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Minnesota;

Evidentiary Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final action approves the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Minnesota. The State’s revision clarifies

the types of testing and monitoring data,

including stack and process monitoring

data, that can be used directly for

compliance certifications and

enforcement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective November 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available

forpublic inspection during normal

business hours at the following

location:U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Regulation

Development Branch, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Aburano, Regulation

Development Section 2, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604. Telephone: (312) 353–6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1990, section 114 of the Clean Air

Act (Act) was amended to require the

Administrator of EPA to promulgate

rules implementing an enhanced

monitoring and compliance program for

major stationary sources of air pollution.

EPA determined that certain SIPs may

preclude EPA and the States from

implementing such a program because

these SIPs may be interpreted to limit

the types of testing and monitoring data