![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Amendments to Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Georgia- Pacific Corporation's Facility in Big Island, VA
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46102-46109]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05au03-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRN-7539-5]
RIN 2060-AK71
Amendments to Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Georgia-
Pacific Corporation's Facility in Big Island, VA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is publishing this site-specific rule to implement a
project under the Project eXcellence and Leadership (Project XL)
program, an EPA initiative which encourages regulated entities to
achieve better environmental results at decreased costs at their
facilities. As part of the Project XL program, EPA is supporting a
project for Georgia-Pacific Corporation's pulp and paper mill located
in Big Island, Virginia. Under the project, Georgia-Pacific will
attempt the first United States commercial scale demonstration of black
liquor gasification, a new technology for the treatment of black liquor
wastes that promises significantly lower air emissions and greater
energy efficiency compared to conventional treatment methods. The
technology, including its environmental and energy benefits,
potentially is transferable to the rest of the pulp and paper industry.
As part of its support for the project, EPA issued a site-specific
rule on March 26, 2001 (66 FR 16400) that amended a Clean Air Act
hazardous air pollutant standard applicable to the Big Island facility.
Those amendments, in part, provided Georgia-Pacific's facility up to an
additional three years (from March 13, 2004, to March 1, 2007) to
comply with the standard in the event the black liquor gasification
system fails and the company must revert to installation of
conventional means of controlling emissions from black liquor
treatment. Without the amendments, Georgia-Pacific would not have
undertaken the project.
At this time, construction is well underway on the new gasification
system. However, Georgia-Pacific has experienced certain, largely
unavoidable, delays in construction. The delays have been significant
enough that the company now projects starting-up the system about one
year later than originally anticipated. As a result, Georgia-Pacific
has requested that EPA extend the compliance date flexibility up to one
year longer than provided in the original Project XL site-specific
rule. After reviewing all information concerning Georgia-Pacific's
request, we believe it appropriate to amend the original site-specific
rule. This action amends the original compliance extension and allows
Georgia-Pacific up to March 1, 2008 to comply with the standard, in the
event the gasification system fails.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on November 3, 2003
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by
September 4, 2003. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.
Public Comments. Comments on this direct final rulemaking must be
received on or before September 4, 2003. All comments should be
submitted in writing or electronically according to the directions
below in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Public Hearing. Commenters may request a public hearing no later
than August 19, 2003. Commenters requesting a public hearing should
specify the basis for their request.
If EPA determines that there is sufficient reason to hold a public
hearing, it will be held on September 8, 2003, at 10 a.m. Requests to
present oral testimony must be made by August 25, 2003.
ADDRESSES: To make comments by mail, send (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. A-2002-0072.
Comments also may be submitted electronically, or through hand
delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided below in
I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Persons interested in requesting a hearing, attending a hearing, or
presenting oral testimony at a hearing should call Mr. David Beck at
(919) 541-5421. If a public hearing is held, it will take place at the
Big Island Elementary School, 1114 Schooldays Road, Big Island,
Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Beck, Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation (E-143-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. Mr. Beck can be reached at 919-541-5421 (or by e-mail
at: beck.david@epa.gov). Further information on today's action may also
be obtained on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Today's Document
The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
B. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document and Other Related
Information?
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Authority
III. Background
A. What is Project XL?
B. Description of Big Island Facility
IV. The Georgia-Pacific XL Project
A. What Are the Basic Elements of the Project?
B. What Is the Construction Status Under the Project?
V. What Regulatory Change Are We Making To Accommodate the
Construction Delay?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
This amendment to the Pulp and Paper MACT II applies to a single
source, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation's pulp and paper facility in
Big Island, Virginia.
[[Page 46103]]
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. A-2002-0072. 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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 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. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory
docket at no charge. Additional copies cost 15 cents per page.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in I.B. EPA intends to work towards
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket
materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public
comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to
the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket.
Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be
scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical,
physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions in I.C.2 and I.D. below. Do not use EPA
Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page,
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. A-2002-
0072. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA
will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-
and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. A-2002-0072. In contrast
to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in C.2 below. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in
[[Page 46104]]
WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send 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. A-2002-0072.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to:
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. A-2002-0072.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation as identified in A.1.
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention
Docket ID. No. A-2002-0072.
D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
RCRA Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0032. You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in Summary section above.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Authority
This rule is being promulgated under the authority of section 112
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).
III. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL is an EPA initiative developed to allow regulated
entities to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project
XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 16, 1995 (see
60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995). Detailed descriptions of the Project XL
program have been published previously in numerous public documents
which are generally available electronically via the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Briefly, Project XL gives a limited number of
regulated entities the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects
and alternative strategies to achieve environmental performance that is
superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current and
reasonably anticipated future environmental regulations. These efforts
are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies
that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while
achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency
intends to evaluate the results of this and other XL projects to
determine which specific elements of the projects, if any, should be
more broadly applied to other regulated entities, for the benefit of
both the economy and the environment.
Project XL is intended to allow EPA to experiment with new or pilot
projects that provide alternative approaches to regulatory
requirements, both to assess whether they provide benefits at the
specific facility affected, and determine whether these projects should
be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to
proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on
a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site-or State-specific
basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within
a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being
used is permissible under the statute.
On May 31, 2000, EPA's Region 3, joined by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, and Georgia-Pacific signed the Final Project Agreement
(FPA) for the Georgia-Pacific XL project. A copy of the FPA is
available to the public at the EPA Air Docket in Washington, DC (Docket
No. A-2000-42), at the EPA Region 3 Library in Philadelphia, and on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/georgia/finalfpa.pdf. The FPA
is a non-binding written agreement between the project sponsor and
regulatory agencies which describes the project in detail, discusses
criteria to be met, identifies performance goals and indicators, and
outlines how the agreement will be managed.
B. Description of Big Island Facility
Georgia-Pacific owns and operates a non-sulfur, non-bleaching pulp
and paper mill at Big Island, Virginia. The facility produces two
products: corrugating medium, which is used by box manufacturing plants
to make the fluted inner layer of corrugated boxes; and linerboard,
which is used for the inside and outside layers of the boxes.
Corrugating medium is made from secondary (recycled) fiber and hardwood
pulp produced using a sodium carbonate/sodium hydroxide based pulping
liquor, and linerboard is made from fiber recycled from old corrugated
containers, clippings and rejects from corrugated container
manufacturing plants, and some mixed office waste paper. Overall, the
mill produces an average 870 tons per day of corrugating medium and 730
tons per day of linerboard.
The mill currently handles the spent (``black'') liquor from wood
pulping operations by reducing liquor water content, using a
conventional multiple effect evaporation train, and combusting
[[Page 46105]]
the concentrated (about 60 percent solids) liquor in two smelters.
Molten smelt is drawn from the smelters and dissolved in water to
recover the pulping chemical sodium carbonate. Exhaust gases from the
smelters pass through a venturi scrubber and are then discharged to the
atmosphere.
IV. The Georgia-Pacific XL Project
A. What Are the Basic Elements of the Project?
The mill currently is subject to two air emission standards. The
first was promulgated under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112, as part of
the ``Cluster Rule,'' on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18617). That rule set
standards reflecting performance of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by
certain emission sources in pulp and paper mills. EPA promulgated a
second air standard for pulp and paper mills on January 12, 2001 (66 FR
3179). The second standard, likewise reflecting MACT, specifically
addresses HAP emissions from combustion sources associated with the
recovery of pulping chemicals from liquid pulping wastes (e.g., black
liquor)(40 CFR part 63, subpart MM--National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at
Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills or ``MACT
II''). Georgia-Pacific's facility at Big Island is a semi-chemical pulp
mill and its two existing smelters (types of combustion units) are
subject to the MACT II rule.
The MACT II rule contains emission limitations, but does not
require use of a particular technology to meet the limitations. The
current emissions from Georgia-Pacific's two existing smelters at Big
Island exceed the HAP emission standard in the MACT II rule. For
Georgia-Pacific's Big Island facility to meet the standard, the
smelters would have to be upgraded substantially. The age and physical
condition of the smelters dictate that they either be rebuilt with
additional emission control devices or replaced, such as with a
conventional recovery boiler commonly used in the industry. Of these
two options, Georgia-Pacific would choose to replace the smelters with
a conventional recovery boiler.
However, Georgia-Pacific also investigated, and eventually chose, a
third alternative for chemical recovery, replacing the smelters with a
PulseEnhancedTM, steam reforming black liquor gasification
system developed by Stone Chem, Inc. This technology uses steam
reforming to convert the organics in black liquor to a hydrogen-rich
gas fuel, leaving the residual pulping chemicals (primarily sodium
carbonate) for reuse. The gas can then be used as a clean burning
energy source for heat in the gasification unit and as an alternative
boiler fuel, replacing fossil-fuel based (non-renewable) natural gas.
Implementation of such a gasification system is expected to allow the
Big Island facility to reduce emissions well below the MACT II HAP
emission standards, and to significantly lower emissions of other
criteria pollutants, compared to installation of conventional
technology. However, the technology has yet to be commercially
demonstrated.
The signatories to the FPA, and the other project stakeholders,
believe that gasification of black liquor represents a new and better
approach for the chemical recovery process and eliminates many of the
deficiencies of the conventional recovery furnace and fluid bed
combustion technologies. The benefits of gasification to the paper
industry generally are expected to include: increased efficiency in
energy conversion and chemical recovery, elimination of the smelt-water
explosion hazard, reduced operation and maintenance costs, and
significantly lower environmental emissions. The emissions expected to
be reduced include: particulates, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
total reduced sulfur (TRS), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), hazardous air pollutants
(HAP), and greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide
(CO2). These benefits are particularly attractive to pulp
mills such as Georgia-Pacific's at Big Island that use a semi-chemical
non-sulfur process that requires auxiliary fossil fuel to sustain
combustion of the black liquor. Projected benefits to the Big Island
facility and surrounding areas include significant reductions in
NOX, VOC, CO, and particulates.
Although Georgia-Pacific's feasibility analysis indicated the risks
of attempting to construct and operate the new technology would be
within acceptable limits from a technical standpoint, the company had
two other concerns. The first concern was the cost of the project.
Estimated costs to complete a black liquor gasification project, the
first commercial scale implementation of this technology, were quite
high and considerably more than the cost of installing a new
conventional recovery boiler. Therefore, Georgia-Pacific sought and has
received some co-funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
which has recognized the technology's potential usefulness.
The second concern involved compliance with the MACT II rule. With
this demonstration of a new technology come risks that the technology
ultimately will not be successful. If this occurs, Georgia-Pacific's
Big Island mill will not have a functioning replacement for the
smelters in time to meet the MACT II compliance date, which is March
13, 2004. Therefore, for this XL project EPA committed to undertake a
rulemaking to provide temporary relief from the MACT II compliance date
for this situation (and also for a defined time period in which
Georgia-Pacific will run the new gasification system on black liquor
from a Kraft pulp mill, to meet an obligation under their funding
agreement with DOE). To fulfill this commitment, EPA promulgated
amendments to the MACT II rule on March 26, 2001 (66 FR 16400).
The amendments included a provision to allow the Big Island
facility until March 1, 2007, to comply with the applicable performance
standard, if Georgia-Pacific's attempt to implement commercial scale
black liquor gasification at the Big Island mill fails. The compliance
extension, nearly three years later than the otherwise applicable
compliance date, was intended to allow Georgia-Pacific time to replace
the unsuccessful gasifier with a conventional chemical recovery system.
B. What Is the Construction Status Under the Project?
Proceeding according to the FPA and the original site-specific
rule, and after signing a co-funding contract with the Department of
Energy (DOE), Georgia-Pacific began final design and construction of
the black liquor gasification system in early 2001. Since that time,
Georgia-Pacific has spent about 13 million dollars, and has made
considerable construction progress. As of the end of December 2002,
construction was about 50% complete (see Georgia-Pacific's Web site for
current project construction information: http://www.gp.com/containerboard/
mills/big/steam.html). 
But Georgia-Pacific also has
experienced delays. To begin with, in the FPA Georgia-Pacific agreed to
begin construction after signing a contract with DOE. That signing was
expected to take place in mid-2000, but did not occur until February
15, 2001. Additionally, Georgia-Pacific encountered several unexpected,
significant design issues. For example, control of sulfur emissions
from the system was originally based on scrubbing hydrogen sulfide from
the product gas using green liquor. This strategy proved infeasible.
After
[[Page 46106]]
evaluating several alternative hydrogen sulfide scrubbing processes,
Georgia-Pacific determined that the best alternative was to control the
sulfur compounds after combustion of the product gas, with a sulfur
dioxide scrubber. This change required major revisions to process
design and equipment layout. In another instance, company reviews
turned up several design issues with the pulsed jet heaters; moreover,
the designer of the gasification process imposed a new requirement for
water cooling certain parts of the pulse heaters. The reliability of
the pulsed jet heaters is critical to successful operation of the
gasification process, and these issues had to be addressed. Georgia-
Pacific also identified several design issues with the reformer vessel
and green liquor filtering system. In all, the Georgia-Pacific project
team identified over 20 significant changes that had to be made in the
design phase to enhance the commercial viability of the system.
The design reviews of the entire system have been completed, all
identified issues have been resolved, and, as mentioned, construction
is well underway. No further significant design changes are
anticipated, and the remaining construction phase should be relatively
straightforward. Nonetheless, the delayed start under the DOE contract
and the numerous design changes have led to a projected one year delay
in the construction and commissioning schedule. Previously, the company
expected to be able to start-up the gasification system and determine
whether it was a success or failure by March 1, 2004. Now that date is
projected as March 1, 2005.
V. What Regulatory Change Are We Making To Accommodate the Construction
Delay?
As stated in the FPA and the initial site-specific rule, if the
full scale implementation of the gasification system is determined to
be unsuccessful, Georgia-Pacific will need three years from that
determination to remove the gasification system and install and start-
up a conventional recovery boiler to meet the MACT II standard (See 66
FR at 16404). Due to the delays noted above, the determination as to
whether the gasification system is successful may now occur as late as
March 1, 2005, and the subsequent start-up of the replacement boiler
thus may occur as late as March 1, 2008. The current site-specific MACT
II rule compliance date for the Big Island mill, in the event of
gasification system failure, is March 1, 2007, at the latest. This is a
year earlier than the latest projected startup of a replacement boiler
(See 66 FR at 16408). To accommodate the delayed construction schedule,
we are amending the MACT II rule to allow the Big Island facility up to
March 1, 2008, to comply, in the event the new gasification system is
declared a failure. Also amended, to reflect this change in the
compliance date, are two notification dates in the ``Reporting
requirements'' section (40 CFR 63.867) of the MACT II rule. We note
that any additional compliance extensions are subject to the rulemaking
process and the rationale for any extensions will be thoroughly
analyzed.
This revised compliance extension relies on the same rationale as
the original extension. That is, in the event that the gasification
system is declared a failure, the Agency would regard the Georgia-
Pacific mill in Big Island, Virginia, as a different type of mill,
essentially a member of its own subcategory--a mill that had attempted
to recover black liquor through gasification. As a separate
subcategory, the Big Island mill would be accorded the statutory 3 year
compliance period to install conventional recovery technology to meet
the MACT II emission standard. The 3 year compliance period would begin
on the day that Georgia-Pacific declares the gasification system a
failure. The latest date Georgia-Pacific could declare the system a
failure is March 1, 2005, and, thus, the latest date for compliance
under the failure scenario is March 1, 2008.
The construction delay has created a second problem with respect to
compliance. Georgia-Pacific no longer expects to be able to start up
the gasification system before March 13, 2004, as the company
originally anticipated before the delays. This date is the ordinary
compliance date for the MACT II rule and the one that applies to Big
Island's existing smelters until such time, if ever, that Georgia-
Pacific declares the gasification system a failure. It is now almost
certain that any successful gasification system startup will occur
after March 13, 2004. This leaves a period of potentially about a year
(from March 13, 2004 to March 1, 2005, at the latest) in which Georgia-
Pacific will be working toward gasification system startup, but will
occasionally need to operate the smelters. Full capacity startup of the
complex gasification system is expected to take several months. As the
company is working toward startup, the gasification system may operate
intermittently and/or at a reduced capacity as Georgia-Pacific makes
equipment or process adjustments and conducts operational trials. Under
these conditions, the existing smelters must operate to treat the black
liquor generated by the facility but not being treated in the gasifier.
Under current regulations, if by March 13, 2004, the gasification
system is not started-up, any such operation of the smelters would
violate the MACT II rule emission standard.
To avoid potential noncompliance from smelter operation prior to
startup (full time, stable operation) of the gasification system,
Georgia-Pacific applied to the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (the applicable CAA Title V permit-issuing authority) for an
extension of the MACT II March 13, 2004 compliance date to March 1,
2005, for the Big Island mill. Under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Clean
Air Act, a source may be granted an extension of an applicable
compliance date by up to one year, if the extension ``is necessary for
the installation of controls.'' The gasification system constitutes the
``control'' that will achieve the MACT II emission standard, and the
extra time is needed for its installation. On December 16, 2002, and
after consideration of the information supplied to them, the Virginia
DEQ granted Georgia-Pacific's request for the compliance date extension
to March 1, 2005.
We are publishing this rule amendment as a direct final
promulgation, effective 90 days after publication, because the action
is expected to be non-controversial and not generate negative comment.
If we receive negative comment on this action, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of these rule amendments. In such a case, we will consider a
companion notice found elsewhere in today's Federal Register as the
proposed rule amendments. We will then consider the comments received
and subsequently publish a final agency action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of
this regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory''
action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the
[[Page 46107]]
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of
general applicability. It has been 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.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 project sponsor,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, is the regulated entity for this pilot
project and is not a small business. This rule does not apply to small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, nor 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 to State, local, and Tribal governments in
the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more 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 Georgia-Pacific facility in Big Island, Virginia.
This direct final rule amendment does not impose any costs on Georgia-
Pacific, but rather provides an avenue for the company to commercialize
a new technology that will comply with the existing rule. EPA has
determined that this rule amendment does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,
local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The phrase, ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined
in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, nor on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule amendment will affect one
local governmental entity and a State, only shifts a conditional
compliance date in the existing rule, and, therefore, has a negligible
effect on the State and local governmental entities concerned. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop a process that is accountable to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on
[[Page 46108]]
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 in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,''
as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
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 allow for the commercialization of a promising
new technology that is expected to emit lower levels of hazardous air
pollutants compared to the conventional technology currently employed.
Therefore, no additional risk to public health, including children's
health, is expected to result from this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It will
not result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy
distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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
rulemaking however, does not involve any technical standards; therefore
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994) 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 Big Island, Virginia, and will have no disproportionate
impacts on minority or low income communities. Overall, the project
being undertaken at Big Island will, if successful, produce
environmental performance superior to that expected through compliance
with existing regulations.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 28, 2003.
Marianne L. Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
SOURCE CATEGORIES
? 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart MM--[Amended]
? 2. Amend Sec. 63.863 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.863 Compliance dates.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) If Georgia-Pacific Corporation constructs a new black liquor
gasification system at Big Island, VA, determines that its attempt to
start up the new system has been a failure and, therefore, must
construct another type of chemical recovery unit to replace the two
existing semichemical combustion units at Big Island, then the two
existing semichemical combustion units must comply with the
requirements of this subpart by the earliest of the following dates:
three years after Georgia-Pacific declares the gasification system a
failure, upon startup of the new replacement unit(s), or March 1, 2008.
* * * * *
? 3. Amend Sec. 63.867 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.867 Reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Notifications specific to Georgia-Pacific Corporation's
affected sources in Big Island, Virginia.
(i) For a compliance extension under Sec. 63.863(c)(1), submit a
notice that provides the date of Georgia-Pacific's determination that
the black liquor gasification system is not successful and the reasons
why the technology is not
[[Page 46109]]
successful. The notice must be submitted within 15 days of Georgia-
Pacific's determination, but not later than March 16, 2005.
(ii) For operation under Sec. 63.863(c)(2), submit a notice
providing: a statement that Georgia-Pacific Corporation intends to run
the Kraft black liquor trials, the anticipated period in which the
trials will take place, and a statement explaining why the trials could
not be conducted prior to March 1, 2005. The notice must be submitted
at least 30 days prior to the start of the Kraft liquor trials.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-19919 Filed 8-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P