[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46102-46109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19919]


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

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: [email protected]). 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 [email protected], 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'' (65 FR 67249, 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.

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--[Amended]

0
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.
* * * * *

0
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