[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44683-44686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18105]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA099-5048; FRL-6837-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Approval of Revision to Opacity Limit for Drier Stacks at 
Georgia-Pacific Corporation Softboard Plant in Jarratt, VA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revised opacity limit for drier zone stacks 
#1 and #2 associated with the softboard drier at the Jarratt Softboard 
Plant. The plant is owned by Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GP) and is 
located in Jarratt, VA. The new opacity limit is contained in a consent 
agreement between the Commonwealth of Virginia and GP. The consent 
agreement was submitted by the Department of Environmental Quality of 
the Commonwealth of Virginia (VADEQ) as a revision to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) on February 3, 1999. The increased opacity 
limit only applies to the drier zone stacks which emit particulate 
emissions while drying the softboard. Mass emission limits from the 
drier are not being changed.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 18, 2000 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 18, 2000. 
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Ms. Makeba A. Morris, 
Chief, Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, 
Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth E. Knapp, (215) 814-2191, or by 
e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is EPA approving?
II. What facilities/operations does this action apply to?
III. What are the provisions of the new opacity limit?
IV. What are the current limits on this source?
V. What supporting materials did Virginia provide?
VI. What are the environmental effects of this action?
VII. Special provisions related to Virginia.
VIII. EPA rulemaking action.
IX. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Is the EPA Approving?

    We are approving Consent Order No. 50253 (effective September 28, 
1998) signed by John M. Daniels for Dennis H. Treacy, Director of the 
Department of Environmental Quality of the Commonwealth of Virginia and 
Mr. John Masaschi, Vice President, Industrial Wood Products, Georgia-
Pacific Corporation, as a SIP revision. The consent order was 
submitted, as a SIP revision, to EPA on February 3, 1999. The consent 
order provides a revised opacity limit for the two drier zone stacks 
from the drier located at the Jarratt Softboard Plant located in 
Jarratt, Virginia. The revised limit allows for a higher opacity limit; 
however, mass emission rates are not being changed.

II. What Facilities/Operations Does This Action Apply To?

    We are approving a revised opacity limit for a process at a GP 
Softboard plant. The plant manufactures softboard used in construction. 
Manufacturing begins with refining wood chips from pine and hardwood to 
produce wood fiber. Wax is added to the fiber to give it water 
resistance and then asphalt slurry is added as a binder. A continuous 
ribbon of wet mat is formed and conveyed through a press to remove 
water. The mat is then cut and placed into the drier. Dried mats are 
then re-sawn to construction dimensions. Particulate emissions from the 
drier are emitted from two drier zone stacks and nine roof vents. The 
revised opacity limit applies to emissions from drier zone stack #1 and 
drier zone stack #2 only.

III. What Are the Provisions of the New Opacity Limit?

    The new limit is contained in the consent agreement which states 
``GP shall not exceed 50% opacity from the Softboard drier zone stacks 
one and two except for one six-minute period in any one hour of not 
more than 60% opacity * * *'' Although the language of the 
Commonwealth's consent order provides that the source may also have an 
exemption from the opacity limit during startup, shutdown and 
malfunction, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not included these 
provisions as part of its SIP revision request. Therefore, the portion 
of the text of Provision 1 of Section E of Consent Order No. 50253 
which reads ``* * * and during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction.'' are not being approved or incorporated into the Virginia 
SIP. GP must conduct quarterly visible emission evaluations of drier 
zone stacks #1 and #2. Stack tests must be performed on drier zone 
stacks #1 and #2 every two years. GP must provide stack tests results 
to VADEQ in addition to maintaining visible emission records.

IV. What Are the Current Limits on These Sources?

    The drier zone stacks #1 and #2 are currently subject to Virginia 
Regulations 9 VAC 5-40-80 Standard for Visible Emissions which provides 
for visible emissions up to 20% opacity except for one six-minute 
period in any one hour of not more than 60% opacity. The mass

[[Page 44684]]

emission limit for the drier is found in 9 VAC 5-40-260. This 
regulation provides for a mass particulate limit based on the process 
weight rate which varies depending on how much softboard is being 
processed.

V. What Supporting Material Did Virginia Provide?

    Virginia provided information on emissions from the drier vents and 
the stacks along with opacity readings. Stack testing and visible 
emissions readings were performed in July 1997 and September 1997. 
Stack test data indicates that the drier is within its allowable 
emission limit while visible emissions data indicates that one of the 
drier zone stacks is out of compliance with the 20% opacity limit. The 
average opacity observed during July testing was 38% with some 
individual 15 second readings as high as 55%. The average opacity 
during the September testing was 50%.

VI. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    The revised opacity limit will allow darker smoke to be emitted 
from specific stacks at the facility, then does the current SIP. No 
mass emission limits are being revised and the revised opacity limit is 
protective of the existing mass emission limit.

VII. Special Provisions Pertaining to Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties asserting either the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1997 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because 
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law 
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VIII. EPA Rulemaking Action

    We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, Consent Order 
No. 50253, except as noted above, submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia as a SIP revision on February 3, 1999. The revision consists 
of a revised opacity limit for drier zone stack #1 and #2 located at 
the Georgia-Pacific softboard facility in Jarratt, VA.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if 
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September 
18, 2000 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by 
August 18, 2000. Should we receive such comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action must do so at this time.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, 
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

[[Page 44685]]

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), 
because it merely approves 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 rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This 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.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability that only 
effects the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Softboard plant located in 
Jarratt, VA.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 18, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action related to the Georgia-Pacific Corporation 
Softboard plant located in Jarratt, VA may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2000.
 Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding 
an entry for ``Georgia-Pacific Corporation--Jarratt Softboard Plant'' 
to the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA--Approved Virginia Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        40 CFR part 52
           Source Name               Permit/order or registration No.              State effective date            EPA approval date       citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Georgia-Pacific Corporation--     Registration No. 50253................  September 28, 1998....................  [Insert 7/19/2000   In Section E,
 Jarratt Softboard Plant.                                                                                          and page cite].     Provision 1, the
                                                                                                                                       portion of the
                                                                                                                                       text which reads
                                                                                                                                       ``* * * and
                                                                                                                                       during periods of
                                                                                                                                       start-up,
                                                                                                                                       shutdown, and
                                                                                                                                       malfunction.'' is
                                                                                                                                       not part of the
                                                                                                                                       SIP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44686]]

[FR Doc. 00-18105 Filed 7-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P