Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52
EPA ID: [EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0040; FRL-8685-9]
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Kraft Pulp Mill Rule
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2008.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule and Visible Air Contaminants Rule that the Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999. EPA is also proposing to partially approve the recodification of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule that the Governor submitted to us on September 19, 1997. These revisions recodify and make changes to the State's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, including the establishment of certain new opacity requirements for kraft pulp mills, and modify the Visible Air Contaminant Rule requirements for recovery furnaces at kraft pulp mills. The intended effect of this action is to approve and make federally enforceable those portions of the rules that meet Clean Air Act requirements, and to disapprove those portions of the rules that are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act).
SUMMARY: Kraft Pulp Mill Rule; Montana,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Table of ContentsI. General Information
II. Background of the State Submittals
III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials NAAQS means National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless the context indicates otherwise.
I. General Information
a. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
A. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
B. Follow directionsThe agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
C. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
D. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
E. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
F. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
G. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
H. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
II. Background of the State Submittals
On April 14, 1999 the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision
that contained changes to the State's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, Visible Air
Contaminant Rule, and Incorporation by Reference Rule that had been
adopted by the Montana Board of Environmental Review (MBER) on May 19,
1995 and December 11, 1998 \1\. Montana's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,
currently codified at ARM 17.8.321, applies to only one source,
SmurfitStone Container in Missoula, Montana. The SIP revision changes
opacity limits at SmurfitStone Container's recovery furnaces
a. MBER's May 19, 1995 Revisions
The revisions MBER adopted on May 19, 1995 added definitions for
``cross recovery furnace,'' ``recovery furnace,'' and ``straight kraft
recovery furnace,'' (ARM 16.8.1413(1)(b), (f) and (h)); made minor
revisions to ARM 16.8.1413(7); and added ARM 16.8.1413(8) through
(12).\2\ ARM 16.8.1413(8) through (12) contained opacity limits on
recovery furnaces as well as the compliance monitoring methods for the
opacity limitations and reporting requirements. The revised rule
resulted in a 35% opacity limit on recovery furnace
\2\ These rules were later recodified; ARM 16.8.1413(1) through (12) were changed to ARM 17.8.321(1) through (12). This
recodification was submitted to us on September 19, 1997 as part of a general recodification of Montana's air rules.
\3\ In a separate rulemaking action published on August 13, 2001
(66 FR 42427), we approved most of the recodification of the
Administrative Rules of Montana submitted on September 19, 1997. We
did not approve the codification of ARM 17.8.321, Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule, or ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) of the Visible Air Contaminants Rule. In
our August 13, 2001 action, we indicated that we would address the
revisions to ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) and 17.8.321 at a later date. b. MBER's December 11, 1998 Revisions
On December 11, 1998, MBER adopted further changes and additions to
the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, including changes to the May 1995 opacity
limits applicable to recovery furnaces
III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals
a. ARM 17.8.321(1) Through (7), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August 11, 1995, and Submitted April 14, 1999
The State merely added definitions, made editorial changes, and
recodified the rule. Because the changes are consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements, we are proposing to approve into the SIP ARM
17.8.321(1) through (7) (formerly codified as ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(7)). We are also proposing that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7) will
replace the old codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM
16.8.1413(1) through (7), effective December 31, 1972) that is currently in the SIP.
b. ARM 17.8.321(8), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August 11, 1995,
Submitted April 14, 1999; and ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10), Adopted
December 11, 1998, Effective February 12, 1999, and Submitted April 14, 1999
The table below shows the opacity limits in ARM 17.8.321(8), (9)
and (10) as compared to the existing SIP opacity limits for Smurfit Stone's three recovery furnaces.
Opacity limit six Opacity limit
minute average \***\ sixminute
SmurfitStone recovery furnace Installation date (existing SIP average (revised Exceedance allowance
impacted Approved rule, rule, ARM with revised rule
ARM 17.8.304) 17.8.321)
Furnace
\**\ ARM 17.8.304(4)(d) indicates that the 20% opacity standard in ARM 17.8.304(2) does not apply to ``those new
stationary sources listed in ARM 17.8.340 for which a visible emission standard has been promulgated.'' ARM
17.8.340 crossreferences EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under the State's interpretation,
Furnace
\***\ Sources not allowed to exceed opacity limit except for any exceedance allowance.
\****\ ARM17.8.321(12) contains an additional requirement that applies to recovery furnaces
Among other things, EPA evaluates SIP revisions against section 110(l) of the Act. Section 110(l) of the Act provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Our evaluation of the changes to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10) with respect to section 110(l) of the Act is as follows:
1. ARM 17.8.321(8): We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(8) because it does not contain an opacity exceedance allowance and it imposes a more stringent opacity limit than the existing SIP on recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968. Thus, no increase in particulate matter emissions is expected from this change. Accordingly, this revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
However, we are concerned that the second sentence of ARM
17.8.321(8), which applies to SmurfitStone recovery furnace
Accordingly, we note that while ARM 17.8.321(8) states that its opacity limit supersedes ``any other opacity limitation contained in this chapter'' (emphasis added), it does not say that its opacity limit supersedes the federallyestablished opacity limits contained in 40 CFR Part 60. Thus, it is our interpretation that ARM 17.8.321(8) does not supersede the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60; instead, we interpret ARM 17.8.321(8) as establishing an additional standard. To the extent ARM 17.8.321(8) and 40 CFR Part 60 are both applicable, the source must comply with both. In this case, because ARM 17.8.321(8) is more stringent than the current NSPS opacity standards applicable to kraft pulp mill recovery furnaces, compliance with ARM 17.8.321(8) should ensure compliance with the NSPS opacity standard.
2. ARM 17.8.321(9): We are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
Although the opacity limit of 20% in ARM 17.8.321(9) is the same
numeric opacity limit that is contained in the approved SIP, ARM
17.8.321(9) contains an exceedance allowance that is not in the
approved SIP. The exceedance allowance allows the source to exceed its
opacity limit a certain percentage of time each quarter; in ARM
17.8.321(9), the exceedence allowance is 6% of the 6minute time
periods during which the source is operating. While the source is also
subject to an average daily opacity limit of 20%, per ARM 17.8.321(12),
our analysis indicates that even with this restriction, the opacity
limit in ARM 17.8.321(9) would be less stringent than the existing SIP
opacity limit (which is based on a sixminute average, not daily) and
could lead to an increase in particulate matter emissions, as
calculated using the sourcesupplied correlation between opacity and
particulate matter. Our analysis considers potential effects on
attainment of the PM
[[Page 36488]]
Regarding the PM
\4\ Opacity has long been used as an indicator of compliance
with emission limits; if opacity increases, PM emissions are also
likely to increase. 40 CFR 51.212 requires that SIPs include opacity
limits as a means to detect violations of rules and regulations.
Similarly, the NSPS imposes opacity limits but provides the option
for sources to petition EPA for a higher opacity limit if the source
can show that it complied with all other applicable limits during
performance tests under 40 CFR 60.8 but failed to meet its opacity
limit. See 40 CFR 60.11(e)(6). Our concern is that a relaxation in
the kraft pulp mill opacity limit could result in undetected
exceedances of the particulate emission limits if compliance with
the opacity limit would not necessarily reflect compliance with the PM limits.
Relative to this issue, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) provided testimony to the MBER for its proposed
revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule. In its testimony, the MDEQ
attempted to show the effect of an opacity exceedance allowance on the
PM
\5\ SmurfitStone has conducted studies to correlate particulate
emissions with opacity readings at recovery furnaces
We believe this approach is flawed for two reasons. First, during
SmurfitStone's use of the exceedance allowance, the Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule does not limit exceedances to 30% opacity; thus, capping the
exceedances at 30% is expected to underestimate the predicted
particulate emissions. Second, using average, rather than maximum, air
flow to the recovery furnaces may also underestimate predicted particulate emissions. Any demonstration to show that the
PM
Using worst case scenarios, EPA conducted its own analysis of
potential PM
Recovery Furnace #4: Particulate emissions (pounds/day) = Q*C*K1*K2 Where:
Q = stack exit air flow in dry standard cubic feet per minute
(DSCFM) = 0.2322*(total air) + 14637 (total air = air flow into the boiler (pounds/hour));
C = particulate concentration in grains/dry standard cubic foot
(DSCF) = (0.1303*ln(1opacity)) + 0.0008; opacity represented as a decimal (10% opacity would be 0.10 in this equation);
K1 = conversion factor (1 pound/7000 grains); and
K2 = conversion factor (1440 minutes/day).
In our analysis, we relied on the following considerations: With a
6% per quarter exceedance allowance, recovery furnace
Accordingly, in our analysis we attempted to determine whether
compliance with the 20% daily average opacity limit would ensure
compliance with the daily particulate emission limits at recovery
furnace
In addition, the State did not provide us with any basis for
concluding that increases in PM2.5 emissions would not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and that increases in PM10 emissions
would not jeopardize the PM10 increment.\6\ Based on the State's
submittal and our own evaluation, we are unable to conclude that the
revision in ARM 17.8.321(9) would not interfere with attainment of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or jeopardize the PM10 increment. Thus, we are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
\6\ In a September 25, 1998 letter to the State, we indicated
that an evaluation of the impact on the PM10 increment must occur
because a relaxation of the opacity limit could result in increases
in actual emissions from the source. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2), states ``If a SIP revision would result in increased air quality
deterioration over any baseline concentration, the plan revision
shall include a demonstration that it will not cause or contribute to a violation.
3. ARM 17.8.321(10): Because the 20% opacity limit in ARM 17.8.321(10) is more stringent than the 35% opacity limit in the approved SIP, and ARM 17.8.321(10)'s exceedance allowance (3% per quarter) is more stringent than the existing SIP rule's exceedance allowance (6% per quarter), we are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(10). No increase in particulate matter emissions is expected from this change. Thus, this revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. c. ARM 17.8.321(11) Through (16)
ARM 17.8.321(11) indicates that excess opacity emissions for recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968 means any 6 minute average of 35% or greater and for recovery furnaces installed after November 23, 1968 means any 6minute average of 20% or greater. ARM 17.8.321(12) indicates that for recovery furnaces subject to ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10), no person may cause or allow emissions that exhibit a 20% opacity or greater as averaged over a 24hour period. ARM 17.8.321(13) requires recovery furnaces and associated air pollution control equipment to be operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices during any period of excess opacity emissions. Finally, ARM 17.8.321(14), (15), and (16) require recovery furnaces subject to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10) to install and operate COMS pursuant to certain requirements, and to report excess opacity emissions.
[[Page 36489]]
We note that ARM 17.8.321(15) indicates that COMS will be the primary measure of compliance with the opacity limits in the rule, but that EPA Method 9 may be used as a measure of compliance when there is a reason to believe the COMS data are not accurate or when COMS data are unavailable. We do not believe this language was intended to preclude the use of Method 9 readings as credible evidence of compliance in circumstances other than those specified in the rule, and we propose to interpret the rule accordingly.
Because the above provisions will not reduce the stringency of the existing federallyapproved SIP, we consider them to be consistent with the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act. Therefore, we are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(11) through (16).
d. ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)
As part of the April 14, 1999 submittal to us, the Governor submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.304, the Visible Air Contaminants Rule. On May 19, 1995, MBER added subsection (f) to ARM 16.8.1404(4) (now codified as ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)). ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) excludes recovery furnaces at kraft pulp mills from the statewide general opacity requirements. We are proposing to disapprove the addition of this paragraph because we are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9). If we were to approve the addition of paragraph (4)(f), and disapprove the State's new opacity requirements in ARM 17.8.321(9), kraft pulp mill recovery furnaces installed between November 23, 1968 and September 4, 1976 would not be subject to any EPAapproved SIP opacity limits. IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing action on the revisions to ARM 17.8.304, ``Visible Air Contaminants,'' and ARM 17.8.321, ``Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,'' that the Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999, and on the recodification of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule that the Governor submitted to us on September 19, 1997.
We are proposing to approve the recodification of, and revisions to, the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7) (formerly codified ARM 16.8.1413(1) through (7)). We are also proposing that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7), if approved, will replace the old codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM 16.8.1413(1) through (7), effective December 31, 1972) that is currently in the SIP. We are also proposing to approve the provisions in ARM 17.8.321(8) and (10) through (16).
We are proposing to disapprove the provisions of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(9). We are also proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.304(4)(f).
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before we take final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to us as discussed in prior sections of this proposed rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve and disapprove state law as meeting and not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve and disapprove preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 1044).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve and disapprove portions of a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 4, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E814622 Filed 62608; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 802021129, (303) 3126479, or russ.tim@epa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 40 CFR Part 63 6 CFR Part 5 33 CFR Part 100 50 CFR Part 622 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 44 CFR Part 65 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 271 40 CFR Part 300 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 39 CFR Part 3020 50 CFR Part 229 44 CFR Part 64 49 CFR Part 571