Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Total Reduced Sulfur From Pulp and Paper Mills
Posted Date: 2007-07-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 36413-36415]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-23]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012; FRL-8333-9]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Total Reduced Sulfur From Pulp and 
Paper Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to a Section 111(d) 
regulation submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality. The revisions pertain to amendments to an 
existing regulation to control total reduced sulfur (TRS) from pulp and 
paper mills. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012, Christopher Cripps, Acting 
Chief, Air Quality and Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2005-VA-0012. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.

[[Page 36414]]

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814-2113, 
or by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2005, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia submitted revisions to its plan for Pulp and Paper mills. The 
revisions pertain to the control total reduced sulfur (TRS) (9 VAC 5, 
Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13).

I. Background

    The revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations that 
implement emission standards for particulate matter from pulp and paper 
mills (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13.) The changes will 
control total reduced sulfur from stationary sources.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The following provisions consist of changes to the Commonwealth of 
Virginia's regulation for the control and abatement of air pollution (9 
VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). The modifications below are 
the subject of this rulemaking.
    Revision 1: 9 VAC 5-40-1660. Applicability and designation of 
affected facilities. Section A is revised to read as follows: The 
affected facilities in pulp and paper mills to which the provisions of 
this article apply are: Each recovery furnace, each smelt dissolving 
tank, each lime kiln, each slaker tank, and each kraft wood pulping 
operation. For the purpose of this article, a kraft wood pulping 
operation is comprised only of any combination of the following units: 
Recovery furnaces, lime kilns, digester systems, multiple-effect 
evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems and smelt dissolving 
tanks.
    Revision 2: 9 VAC 5-40-1670. Definitions. Section C: The definition 
of agreement is deleted and the following terms are added: (1) Neutral 
sulfite semichemical pulping operation means any operation in which 
pulp is produced from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a 
solution of sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, followed by 
mechanical defibrating (grinding); (2) new design recovery furnace 
means a straight kraft recovery furnace that has both membrane wall or 
welded wall construction and emission control designed air systems. A 
new design furnace shall have stated in its contract a TRS performance 
guarantee or that it was designed with air pollution control as an 
objective; (3) pulp and paper mill means any kraft pulp mill or any 
paper mill using a semichemical pulping process; and (4) semichemical 
pulping process means any pulp manufacturing process in which the 
active chemicals of the liquor used in cooking (digesting) wood chips 
to their component parts in a pressurized vessel (digester) are 
primarily a liquor of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. The major 
difference between all semichemical techniques and those of kraft and 
acid sulfite processes is that only portion of the lignin is removed 
during the cooking (digesting), after which the pulp is further reduced 
by mechanical disintegration. In addition, these terms were amended: 
Cross recovery furnace; straight kraft recovery furnace; and total 
reduced sulfur.
    Revision 3: 9 VAC 5-40-1690. Standard for total reduced sulfur. 
Section A is revised to read as follows: No owner or other person shall 
cause or permit to be discharged into the atmosphere from any kraft 
wood pulping operation unit specified below any total reduced sulfur 
emissions in excess of the following limits. Section B is deleted and 
replaced by Section C. In addition, Section D is deleted.
    Revision 4: 9 VAC 5-40-1750. Compliance. In Section A, the letter A 
is deleted and the provision remains the same. Sections B through D are 
deleted and no longer relevant to the regulation.
    Revision 5: 9 VAC5-40-1770. Monitoring. Section B clarifies that 
the owner of a kraft pulp mill shall comply with monitoring provisions 
by October 1, 1990. Section C(1) has been revised to include the 
language ``Part'' to reference information used in the regulation.
    Revision 6: 9 VAC5-40-1810. Permits. The paragraph which states the 
permit requirements shall read as follows: A permit may be required 
prior to beginning any of the activities specified below if the 
provisions of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 (9 VAC 5-50-10 et seq.) apply. Owners 
contemplating such action should review those provisions and contact 
the appropriate regional office for guidance on whether those 
provisions apply. Also, under the numeric rationale for permits, an 
additional activity, which is number ``6'' is added to read as follows: 
Operation of a facility.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law,Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore,

[[Page 36415]]

documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement 
under one of these programs could not be privileged because such 
documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a 
manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, 
authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because 
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law 
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's 111(d) 
Plan submitted on June 20, 2005 to control total reduced sulfur (TRS) 
from stationary sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the 
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered 
before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). 
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
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.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the 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 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the (Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order.
    This proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's control of total 
reduced sulfur from pulp and paper mills, does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, 
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, 
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E7-12854 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P