Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/04/13/04-8311/site-specific-rulemaking-for-packaging-corporation-of-americas-pulp-and-paper-mill-located-in
Timestamp: 2017-08-17 17:47:19
Document Index: 696972022

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

A Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 04/13/2004
This direct final rule will be effective on June 14, 2004 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 2004. If EPA receives adverse comments, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
19733-19742 (10 pages)
FRL-7646-6
A. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP
1. Background of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP Generally
2. The Requirements of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP as Applied to PCA's Tomahawk Mill
B. Overview of the Regulatory Innovation Agreements
1. The Joint State/EPA Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovation (Innovations Agreement)
2. The WDNR/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
3. The WDNR/PCA Environmental Cooperative Agreement
III. The Site-Specific Rule
A. Rationale and Background of the Site-Specific Rule
B. Environmental Benefit of the Site-Specific Rule
C. Overview of the Site-Specific Rule
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-8311 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-8311
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry (Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP). Collectively, these revisions comprise a site-specific rule to control Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) applicable only to the semi-chemical pulp and paper mill currently owned and operated by Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) in Tomahawk, Wisconsin (the Tomahawk Mill). EPA is adopting these revisions pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Joint State/EPA Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation (Innovations Agreement).
The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP currently requires semi-chemical pulp and paper mills to control the HAP emissions from the air stack for the collection of equipment comprising the Low Volume High Concentration (LVHC) system. Neither the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, nor any other Federal or State regulation, requires such mills to control HAPs that may be contained in the liquid condensates from the LVHC system. This site-specific rule allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to control the HAPs generated in the LVHC system by condensing them into a liquid and treating them via anaerobic biodegradation in the facility's wastewater treatment system. In other words, the site-specific rule allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to control the HAPs generated in the LVHC system from an emission point and with a technology not addressed by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP.
As a result, PCA will maintain compliance with the CAA and achieve a reduction in HAPs emitted to the environment significantly superior to that which would have been achieved through compliance with the control methodology currently prescribed by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. Additionally, the revisions are consistent with the Innovations Agreement by allowing PCA's Tomahawk Mill to achieve superior environmental performance through regulatory flexibility.
Comments may be submitted by mail by sending two (2) copies of your comments to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0205. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier, following the detailed instructions as provided in the proposed rule action with the same title located in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register.
EPA is issuing these revisions as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, because we consider the revisions to be noncontroversial and anticipate no significant adverse comments. Additionally, EPA is aware that most persons with an interest in this proposed rule have already been afforded at least two opportunities to comment on its merits. In April 2003, and again in September 2003, PCA sponsored public meetings regarding the project that is described at length in today's rule. EPA believes that PCA made every reasonable effort to invite all potential stakeholders to those public meetings. Nevertheless, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document with the same title that will serve as the proposal to amend the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP if significant adverse comments are filed.
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0205. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information statutorily restricted from disclosure. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
K. Executive Order 12998: Civil Justice Reform
EPA issues this regulation under the authority provided by sections 112 and 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)(1). EPA has determined that this rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d).
Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412 et seq., requires EPA first to identify, by industrial category or subcategory, “major sources” of HAPs, and then to promulgate regulations to control HAPs emitted by such sources. “Major sources” are those that emit (or have the potential to emit) at least 10 tons per year of any single HAP (e.g. methanol), or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. Additionally, section 112 specifies that EPA's regulations promulgated thereunder must require major sources of HAPs to attain the maximum achievable reduction in HAP emissions, taking into consideration cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In essence, regulations promulgated pursuant to section 112 must ensure that all regulated HAP sources achieve the level of control that is already being achieved by the lower (12% lowest) emitting sources in each industrial category or subcategory. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(3). This approach provides assurance to U.S. citizens that regulated sources will employ good control measures to limit their HAP emissions.
EPA identified the pulp and paper industry as a major source requiring regulation under section 112 of the CAA. Accordingly, on April 15, 1998, EPA promulgated the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP (See 63 FR 18503). The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, 40 CFR 63.440 through 63.459, subcategorized the pulp and paper industry according to seven different pulping processes (kraft, sulfite, semi-chemical, soda, mechanical wood pulping, secondary fiber pulping, or non-wood pulping), and established different emissions standards for each such process. For a thorough and detailed discussion on the background, development, and promulgation of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, the reader is referred to the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/​ttn/​atw/​pulp/​pulppg.html. The website contains links to all relevant Federal Register notices, background documents, enabling documents, fact sheets, and rule summary documents.
PCA uses a sodium carbonate semi-chemical process to produce unbleached corrugating medium at the Tomahawk Mill. In order to prevent pollution of the air by HAPs generated during semi-chemical pulping processes, the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP requires the collection and control of HAP emissions from a collection of equipment systems. This collection of equipment systems (which includes the digester and evaporator systems) is referred to in the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP as the LVHC system. Semi-chemical mills must enclose the numerous equipment systems comprising the LVHC system, and route the HAP-containing air emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device. The positive pressure portions of the closed vent system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. Regulated mills may choose among four control device options for destroying the collected HAPs. The control device must: (1) Reduce the total HAP emissions by 98 percent or more by weight; (2) reduce total HAP concentration at the outlet of the thermal oxidizer to 20 parts per million or less by volume, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry basis; (3) reduce total HAP emissions using a thermal oxidizer designed and operated at a minimum temperature of 871 degrees Centigrade and a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds; or (4) reduce the total HAP emissions using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace by introducing the HAP emission stream with the primary fuel or into the flame zone. See 40 CFR 63.443(d). Neither the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, nor any other federal or state regulation, requires semi-chemical pulp and paper mills to control the HAPs that may be contained in the liquid condensates generated in the LVHC system (“pulping process condensates”).
EPA announced the Innovations Agreement on May 5, 1998 (63 FR 24874). Through this agreement, EPA and senior State environmental officials jointly committed to encouraging new and innovative approaches to improvement of the nation's environment. The parties to the Innovations Agreement agreed that the following seven principles would guide the process of developing, testing and implementing regulatory innovations: experimentation; environmental performance; smarter approaches; stakeholder involvement; measuring and verifying results; accountability/enforcement; and State-EPA partnership. The Innovations Agreement encouraged “prudent risk taking” as a necessary component of the effort to continue the nation's progress towards protection of human health and the environment.
The Innovations Agreement established a process by which the States would develop innovation Start Printed Page 19736proposals and obtain prompt review and acceptance or rejection by EPA. The success of any innovation project would be measured by its environmental impact, improved efficiency, or other relevant indicator of superior performance.
To carry out the purposes of the Innovations Agreement, on March 25, 1999 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and Region 5 EPA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA recognized that the Wisconsin legislature had established an Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program, which provided WDNR the statutory authority to develop up to ten pilot projects with companies willing to test alternative approaches to traditional command and control regulations. (Wis. Stat. Sec. 299.80). Many of the goals of the Wisconsin pilot program were similar to those articulated in the Innovations Agreement. The Wisconsin pilot program required any participating company to enter into an environmental cooperative agreement with WDNR. In return for operational flexibility and variances from applicable state regulations, participating pilot companies agreed to achieve environmental performance superior to that which would be achieved through compliance with existing regulations. Participating companies further agreed to establish environmental management systems at their facilities to ensure regular auditing and reporting of environmental performance and compliance.
WDNR and Region 5 recognized in the MOA that EPA would not be a party to these state-company agreements, but provided that when Federal involvement was needed or helpful, Region 5 would promptly identify and, when appropriate, take the necessary federal steps to implement a pilot project. WDNR and EPA agreed that when a project undertaken pursuant to a Wisconsin environmental cooperative agreement required a change in the regulatory requirements of a federally authorized or delegated program, the agencies would follow applicable Federal procedures for the necessary rule or program changes. The agencies specifically intended that any such changes would be federally enforceable.
As explained at greater length below, when PCA began to investigate what changes would be necessary at its Tomahawk Mill to comply with the then recently-enacted Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, the company discovered that, due to its unique process configuration, the vast majority of HAPs generated in the LVHC system partition to the pulping process condensates. PCA used these condensates as process water in other facility operations, which allowed the HAPs in the condensates to be emitted to the air. Recognizing the opportunity to destroy a far greater quantity of HAPs by treating the condensates instead of the LVHC air stack emissions, PCA proposed an environmental pilot project to WDNR. In lieu of treatment of the LVHC air stack emissions via thermal destruction (as contemplated by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP), PCA proposed to treat the condensed HAPs via biodegradation in the Tomahawk Mill's anaerobic wastewater treatment system.
WDNR concurred with PCA's conclusions about the environmental benefits of the proposed project and, on August 27, 1999, submitted PCA's proposal to Region 5 as one appropriate for evaluation under the terms of the MOA. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) thereafter requested PCA to conduct a full-scale study of the ability of its anaerobic wastewater treatment system to achieve a level of HAP destruction superior to that which would be achieved through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. The full-scale treatability study successfully established that PCA's anaerobic system could: (1) Destroy the same HAPs as are required to be controlled under the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP; and (2) destroy a significantly greater quantity of those HAPs than would be destroyed through compliance with the Pulp and Paper NESHAP. In June 2001, OAQPS and Region 5 approved PCA's innovation project as one appropriate to pursue.
On September 10, 2002, pursuant to the Wisconsin Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program, and with Region 5 EPA's support under the MOA, WDNR and PCA entered into an Environmental Cooperative Agreement (WDNR/PCA Agreement). The WDNR/PCA Agreement required PCA's Tomahawk Mill to achieve approximately double the destruction of HAPs over what would be achieved through compliance with 40 CFR 63.443(c) and(d) (as explained below, EPA actually believes the facility will achieve a greater than five-fold increase in HAP destruction over what would have been achieved through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP.) In lieu of controlling the HAPs from the LVHC system at the LVHC air stack, the WDNR/PCA Agreement allowed PCA to route the LVHC air emissions at its Tomahawk Mill through a series of indirect contact condensers and hardpipe the resulting pulping process condensates to an anaerobic digester for biodegradation. Additionally, the WDNR/PCA Agreement required PCA to conduct a second full-scale performance test of its wastewater treatment system in order to identify and develop enforceable operating parameters and a monitoring plan, acceptable to EPA, that would ensure continuous compliance with the more stringent level of HAP destruction. Finally, the WDNR/PCA Agreement identified certain provisions of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP with which PCA's Tomahawk Mill would be required to comply regardless of, or because of, its use of an alternative treatment technology. See 68 FR 7706, 7707-7708 (February 18, 2003), where EPA adopted a similar amendment to the Pulp and Paper NESHAP.
Pursuant to the WDNR/PCA Agreement, during October of 2002, PCA performed the second full-scale performance test of the Tomahawk Mill's anaerobic wastewater treatment system. The test further verified that PCA's anaerobic wastewater treatment system was capable of achieving a more stringent level of HAP destruction than would be accomplished through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. Importantly, through the test results, PCA, EPA and WDNR identified enforceable operating parameters, and also developed a monitoring plan that ensures continuous achievement of the more stringent level of HAP destruction.
The WDNR/PCA Agreement specified that in the event a site-specific rule for PCA's Tomahawk Mill was not finalized, the WDNR/PCA Agreement would terminate. EPA agreed to take no enforcement action against PCA for violations of the requirements of 40 CFR 63.443(c) and (d) at the Tomahawk facility until EPA either revised the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP to include a Federal site-specific rule for PCA's Tomahawk Mill, or notified the company that EPA had decided that a site-specific rule was inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Finally, the WDNR/PCA Agreement specified that, provided certain conditions were satisfied and subject to the approval of U.S. EPA and WDNR, PCA's rights and obligations under the agreement could be transferred to any subsequent owner of the Tomahawk Mill. Among other things, a transferee would be obligated Start Printed Page 19737to demonstrate that it had the financial and technical capability to assume the obligations of the WDNR/PCA Agreement.
For a copy of the WDNR/PCA Agreement, and associated fact sheets and public notices, the reader is referred to the following Web site: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/​org/​caer/​cea/​ecpp/​agreements/​pca/​.
Existing semi-chemical mills subject to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, including PCA's Tomahawk Mill, were required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP by April 16, 2001. In 1999, while preparing to comply with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP at its Tomahawk Mill, PCA recognized that to properly design and operate a Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP-compliant incineration control device, it needed to condition the air emissions from the digester system. Accordingly, PCA installed two in-series indirect contact condensers following the digester system, which conditioned the air emissions by reducing the moisture content.
Before designing the incineration control device, PCA next sought to characterize (for HAP content, flow rate, moisture content, etc.) the air emissions from the two new indirect contact condensers. PCA's testing surprisingly revealed that the HAP content in the LVHC air emissions was far less than the company had expected. The air emissions from the digester system at the Tomahawk Mill contained approximately 0.4 pounds of HAPs, as methanol, per Oven Dried Ton of Pulp (ODTP). Background studies for the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP had led PCA to believe that these air emissions would contain greater than two pounds of HAPs, as methanol, per ODTP.
PCA then undertook a study to determine why the HAP content of the digester system's air emissions was far less than expected. PCA determined that, because of the unique process configuration at its Tomahawk Mill, the vast majority of the HAPs contained in the air emissions from the digester system partitioned to the condensate stream produced by the indirect contact condensers. Under the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP (or any other Federal or State regulation), the Tomahawk Mill is not required to treat any pulping process condensates and, at that time, the Tomahawk Mill mixed the pulping process condensates with other reuse water streams and routed them to other uncontrolled production processes at the mill. Testing conducted by PCA revealed that the condensates from the two indirect contact condensers following the digester system contained approximately 2.5 pounds of HAPs per ODTP—in other words, approximately six times the quantity of HAPS, as methanol, that could potentially be treated as LVHC air emissions, as currently prescribed by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP.
EPA, WDNR, and PCA concluded that the destruction of HAPs contained in the pulping process condensates from the Tomahawk Mill's LVHC system— rather than destruction of HAPs contained in the air stack emissions from the LVHC system—would result in greater overall reduction of HAPs emitted to the environment. EPA, WDNR, and PCA further reasoned that PCA's Tomahawk Mill would be able to treat the HAPs contained in the pulping process condensates by hardpiping them to the basins of PCA Tomahawk's state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant for anaerobic biodegradation. Such alternative treatment would yield significant cost savings to PCA, since the company would not need to design and install an incinerator to control the HAPs contained in the air emissions from the LVHC system at the Tomahawk Mill.
EPA then authorized PCA to proceed to implement the project for the entire LVHC system (as opposed to just the digester system), and requested PCA to conduct full scale testing upon completion of the project. PCA proceeded thereafter to install a third indirect contact condenser, and collect and route the HAP-containing air emissions from the entire LVHC system through the third indirect contact condenser.
PCA's subsequent full-scale testing demonstrated that, with the installation of the third indirect contact condenser, approximately 85 percent of the HAPs in the entire LVHC system partition to the pulping process condensates. While the air emissions from the entire LVHC system contain approximately 0.6 pounds of HAPs per ODTP, the pulping process condensates contain approximately 3.0 pounds of HAPs per ODTP. Full-scale testing at PCA's Tomahawk Mill further verified that between 96 and 100 percent of the HAPs contained in the pulping process condensates and hardpiped to the wastewater treatment plant are destroyed by anaerobic biodegradation.[1]
The maximum quantity of HAPs available for destruction at PCA's Tomahawk Mill through compliance with 40 CFR 63.443(d) is approximately 0.6 pounds of HAP per ODTP. The Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP requires that 98 percent of the approximately 0.6 pounds (i.e. 0.59 pounds HAPs/ODTP) be destroyed. As indicated above, by hardpiping the pulping process condensates to the anaerobic basins of the wastewater treatment plant, approximately 3.0 pounds of HAPs per ODTP are available for destruction and, in actuality, more than 96 percent of the approximately 3.0 pounds (i.e. at least 2.9 pounds/ODTP) are destroyed. In short, by condensing the HAPs from the entire LVHC system and routing them to the anaerobic wastewater treatment system for treatment, PCA is able to destroy approximately five times the mass of HAPs that it would otherwise destroy through compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP.
EPA's rule allows PCA, in lieu of controlling HAPs in the Tomahawk Mill's LVHC air stack emissions, to control the HAPs partitioning from those air emissions to the pulping process condensates. More particularly, EPA's rule allows PCA to: (1) Install a closed-vent system to collect the HAP-containing air emissions from the LVHC system; (2) route the emissions through a series of indirect contact condensers; and (3) hardpipe the resulting pulping process condensates to the anaerobic basins of the facility's wastewater treatment plant. The anaerobic basins of the wastewater treatment plant must achieve a destruction efficiency of at least 1.0 pound of HAPs per ODTP by anaerobic biodegradation, i.e. approximately twice the quantity of what would have been achieved by the facility under the current Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. EPA and PCA actually anticipate that the HAP destruction in the wastewater treatment plant anaerobic basins will significantly exceed the 1.0 pound per ODTP requirement. As stated above, the average HAP destruction efficiency of the wastewater treatment system is approximately 3.0 pounds per ODTP.
To allow PCA to achieve this superior environmental performance and remain in compliance with the CAA, EPA is promulgating limited revisions to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, Subpart S, 40 CFR 63.440 though 63.459. The revisions collectively comprise a site-specific rule applicable only to PCA's Tomahawk Mill. Under the site-specific rule, PCA's Tomahawk Mill may comply with either the otherwise applicable control technology requirements of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, or the control technology requirements of the site-specific rule.
Like the otherwise applicable provisions of the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, the site-specific rule requires PCA's Tomahawk Mill to enclose the LVHC system and vent the air emissions to a closed-vent system. The standards and monitoring requirements for the enclosures and closed-vent system included in the rule are equivalent (except for formatting and reference changes) to the otherwise applicable Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP requirements.
The site-specific rule allows PCA's Tomahawk Mill to use an alternative treatment technology to control the HAPs collected in the closed-vent system. The rule allows PCA to treat its HAPs at an emission point not addressed by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. PCA may route the collected air emissions through a series of indirect contact condensers and hardpipe the resulting pulping process condensates in a closed collection system to the wastewater treatment plant for anaerobic biodegradation. The standards and monitoring requirements for the closed collection system are equivalent (except for formatting and reference changes) to those required by the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP for kraft mills (which must collect and treat pulping process condensates).
The site-specific rule establishes a minimum destruction efficiency standard of 1.0 pound of HAPs per ODTP, and further requires PCA to monitor, and maintain within specified limits, several operating parameters to ensure continuous compliance with the HAP destruction efficiency standard. PCA must conduct quarterly performance testing of the anaerobic wastewater treatment system to verify compliance with the minimum HAP destruction efficiency standard. Finally, PCA's Tomahawk Mill must continue to comply with all applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the general provisions at subpart A, 40 CFR 63.10.
Under the site-specific rule (and analogous to the excess emission allowance of 40 CFR 63.443(e)(1)), PCA's Tomahawk Mill will be deemed in compliance with the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP so long as it complies with all applicable provisions, including the requirement that it achieve the established destruction efficiency standard, no less than 99 percent of the operating time.
Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of general applicability. EPA has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., since it applies to only one facility. It is exempt from OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act because it is a site-specific rule, directed to fewer than ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), (10); 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 1320.4 and 1320.5.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and public 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. The subject of this site-specific rulemaking, PCA, is not a small business. This rule does not apply to small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, or small governmental jurisdictions. Further, it is a site-specific rule with limited applicability to only one pulp and paper mill in the nation. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or Start Printed Page 19739more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. As used here, “small government” has the same meaning as that contained under 5 U.S.C. 601(5), that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.
As discussed above, this rule will have limited application. It applies only to the PCA's pulp and paper mill located in Tomahawk, Wisconsin. This site-specific rule does not impose any additional costs on PCA's Tomahawk Mill. EPA has determined that this site-specific rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
To the extent that this rule gives rise to federalism concerns, they have been addressed via EPA's direct consultation with Wisconsin, the affected State. As noted above, this rule was developed pursuant to the State-sponsored WDNR/PCA Agreement and the MOA between WDNR and Region 5 EPA.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency believes the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule will require PCA to achieve a greater reduction of HAPs emitted to the environment by allowing it to use an alternative treatment technology not currently allowed by the existing the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP. Therefore, no additional risk to public health, including children's health, is expected to result from this action.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless such practice is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule uses all available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, Start Printed Page 197401994) is designed to address the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities. Today's action applies to one facility in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, and will have no disproportionate impacts on minority or low income communities. Overall, the project being undertaken at PCA's Tomahawk Mill, if successful, will produce environmental performance superior to that expected through compliance with existing regulations.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
2. Amend § 63.459 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) Tomahawk Wisconsin Mill. (1) Applicability. (i) The provisions of this paragraph (b) apply to the owner or operator of the stand-alone semi-chemical pulp and paper mill located at N9090 County Road E in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, referred to as the Tomahawk Mill.
(5) Monitoring requirements and parameter ranges. (i) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain according to the manufacturer's specifications a continuous monitoring system (CMS, as defined in § 63.2), using a continuous recorder, to monitor the following parameters:
(A) The owner or operator shall measure the methanol concentration of the outfall of any basin (using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03) when the VA/A ratio of that basin exceeds the following:
(2) The highest VA/A ratio at which the outfall of any basin has previously measured non-detect for methanol (using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03).
(v) The owner or operator may seek to establish or reestablish the parameter ranges, and/or the parameters required to be monitored as provided in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (v) of this section, by following the provisions of § 63.453(n)(1) through (4).
(6) Standards and monitoring requirements for each enclosure and closed-vent system.
(i) The owner or operator shall comply with the design and operational requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(ii) through (iv) of this section, and the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (b)(6)(v) through (x) of this section for each enclosure and closed-vent system used for collecting and routing of HAP emissions as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) Each enclosure shall be maintained at negative pressure at each enclosure or hood opening as demonstrated by the procedures specified in § 63.457(e). Each enclosure or hood opening closed during the initial performance test shall be maintained in the same closed and sealed position as during the performance test at all times except when necessary to use the opening for sampling, inspection, maintenance, or repairs.
(iii) Each component of the closed-vent system that is operated at positive pressure shall be designed for and operated with no detectable leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background, as measured by the procedures specified in § 63.457(d).
(vii) For positive pressure closed-vent systems, or portions of closed-vent systems, the owner or operator shall demonstrate no detectable leaks as specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section, measured initially and annually by the procedures in § 63.457(d).
(viii) For each enclosure that is maintained at negative pressure, the owner or operator shall demonstrate initially and annually that it is maintained at negative pressure as specified in § 63.457(e).
(7) Standards and monitoring requirements for the pulping process condensates closed collection system. (i) The owner or operator shall comply with the design and operational requirements specified in paragraphs Start Printed Page 19742(b)(7)(ii) through (iii) of this section, and monitoring requirements of paragraph (b)(7)(iv) for the equipment systems in paragraph (b)(3) of this section used to route the pulping process condensates in a closed collection system.
(ii) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain system requirements specified in §§ 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962, except that the closed vent systems shall be designed and operated in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section, instead of in accordance with § 63.693 as specified in § 63.692(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and
(iv) For each pulping process condensate closed collection system used to comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the owner or operator shall perform a visual inspection every 30 days and shall comply with the inspection and monitoring requirements specified in § 63.964 except for the closed-vent system and control device inspection and monitoring requirements specified in § 63.964(a)(2).
(ii) The owner or operator shall use NCASI Method DI/HAPS-99.01 to collect a grab sample and determine the HAP concentration of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping Process Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin Discharge for the quarterly performance test conducted during the first quarter each year.
(iii) For each of the remaining three quarters, the owner or operator may use NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03 as a surrogate to collect and determine the HAP concentration of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping Process Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin Discharge.
(9) Recordkeeping requirements. (i) The owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements as specified in Table 1 of subpart S of part 63 as it pertains to § 63.10.
(ii) The owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 63.454(b).
(iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 63.453(d).
(10) Reporting requirements. (i) Each owner or operator shall comply with the reporting requirements as specified in Table 1 of § 63.10.
(ii) Each owner or operator shall comply with the reporting requirements as specified in § 63.455(d).
(ii) Periods of excess emissions shall not constitute a violation provided the time of excess emissions (excluding periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-annual reporting period does not exceed one percent. All periods of excess emission (including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction) shall be reported, and shall include:
(A) Failure to monitor a parameter, or maintain a parameter within minimum or maximum (as appropriate) ranges as specified in paragraph (b)(5), (b)(6), or (b)(7) of this section; and
(B) Failure to meet the HAP destruction efficiency standard specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
1. For purposes of calculating a HAP destruction efficiency, EPA required PCA to assume that the concentration of HAPs in the wastewater treatment plant effluent was equal to the detection limit concentration. Use of the detection limit concentration result in a 96 percent HAP destruction efficiency calculation. No HAPs were actually detected in the wastewater treatment plant effluent, potentially signifying a 100% destruction efficiency.
[FR Doc. 04-8311 Filed 4-12-04; 8:45 am]