[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16637-16643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6958-7]
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Weyerhaeuser Company
Flint River Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which concern the
control of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the pulp and
paper industry. The proposed revisions would apply only to the
Weyerhaeuser Company's Flint River Operations in Oglethorpe, Georgia,
(Weyerhaeuser). The revisions are proposed as one of the EPA's steps to
implement the Final Project Agreement for Weyerhaeuser's XL Project.
The intended effect of proposing these revisions is to regulate
emissions of HAPs in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act) and to facilitate
implementation of the Project eXcellence and Leadership (Project XL) at
Weyerhaeuser. Such implementation will result in superior environmental
performance, and at the same time, provide Weyerhaeuser with greater
operational flexibility.
DATES: All public comments on the proposed rule revision must be
received on or before April 26, 2001. Comments provided electronically
will be considered timely if they are submitted electronically by 11:59
p.m. (Eastern time) before April 26, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to ``Project XL/
[[Page 16638]]
Weyerhaeuser,'' c/o Mr. Lee Page, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management
Division, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Georgia, 30303. Commenters are also requested to submit an original and
3 copies of their written comments as well as an original and 3 copies
of any attachments, enclosures, or other documents referenced in the
comments. Commenters who would like EPA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/
8 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be transferred into a paper
version for the official record. EPA will attempt to clarify electronic
comments if there is an apparent error in transmission.
Supporting information used in developing this proposed rulemaking
is available on the world wide web at the following location: http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. It is also available for inspection and copying
at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303; and at Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Room 3802-M, Washington, DC 20460.
Persons wishing to view the materials at the Georgia location are
encouraged to contact Mr. Lee Page in advance by telephoning (404) 562-
9131. Persons wishing to view the materials at the Washington DC
location are encouraged to contact Ms. Janet Murray in advance by
telephoning (202) 260-2570. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lee Page, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, 61
Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, (404) 562-9131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
B. What Is EPA Proposing?
C. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through
Project XL?
D. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL Process
E. What Are the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants?
F. What Are the Proposed Regulatory Requirements for the
Weyerhaeuser XL Project?
G. What Is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
III. Rule Description
IV. Request for Public Comments
V. Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
I. Authority
This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections
101(b)(1), 112, and 301(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA has determined that this
rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.
II. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and Leadership,'' is a
national pilot program that tests innovative ways of achieving better
and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection
through site-specific agreements with project sponsors. Project XL was
announced on March 16, 1995, as a central part of the National
Performance Review and EPA's effort to reinvent environmental
protection. See 60 FR 2782 (May 23, 1995) and 60 FR 55569 (November 1,
1995). The intent of Project XL is to allow EPA and regulated entities
to experiment with pragmatic, potentially promising regulatory
approaches, both to assess whether they provide superior environmental
performance and other benefits at the specific source affected, and
whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot
projects are intended to allow EPA to collect more data on a more
focused basis prior to national rulemaking. Today's proposed regulation
would enable implementation of a specific XL project. These efforts are
crucial to EPA's ability to test new strategies that reduce the
regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better
environmental public health protection. EPA intends to evaluate the
results of this and other XL projects to determine which specific
elements of the project, if any, should be more broadly applied to
other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy and the
environment.
B. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing a site-specific rule that supports the Clean Air
Act portion of the Project XL Final Project Agreement (FPA) for the
Weyerhaeuser Company Flint River Operations in Oglethorpe, Georgia. The
proposed rule will facilitate the use of alternative pollution controls
and process changes not required by any existing rule that applies to
Weyerhaeuser. The proposed rule will provide for greater reductions in
hazardous air pollutants emissions, measured as methanol, than would
otherwise be required for this mill under the maximum available control
technology (MACT) determination specific to the pulp and paper
industry. The principles for accounting for HAP emission controls,
including controls to implement MACT are outlined in the Weyerhaeuser
Project XL FPA.
Although not subject to public comment at this time, the FPA is
among the background documents available for review in the docket for
today's action and also on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. Federal Register documents were published on October 11,
1996 at 61 FR 53373 and January 31, 1997 at 62 FR 4760 to notify the
public of the details of this XL project and to solicit comments on the
specific provisions of the FPA, which embodies the Agency's intent to
implement this project. The FPA addresses the eight Project XL
criteria, the expectation of the Agency that this XL project will meet
those criteria, and the manner in which the project is expected to
produce, measure, monitor, report and demonstrate superior
environmental benefits.
In today's action, the Agency is soliciting comment on the site-
specific regulatory changes necessary to implement the Clean Air Act,
MACT portion of the project.
Weyerhaeuser is an international forest products company whose
principal businesses are the growing and harvesting of trees; the
manufacture, distribution and sale of forest products, including logs,
wood chips, building products, pulp, paper and packaging products; and
real estate construction and development. The Weyerhaeuser Flint River
Operations is a Kraft pulp manufacturing source, which produces
absorbent fluff pulp. The source is located in Oglethorpe, Georgia and
was initially constructed in 1980.
Except as specifically described in this proposed rule and the FPA,
nothing
[[Page 16639]]
in this proposed rule will waive, modify, or otherwise affect any
obligations Weyerhaeuser may have under local, State, and Federal law
with respect to the operation of its Flint River Operations mill.
The goal of the Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations XL project is
to develop a regulatory structure that both facilitates flexible
manufacturing operations and achieves superior environmental
performance. The flexibility provided by this proposed rule will allow
the source to provide greater reductions in HAP emissions, measured as
methanol, than are controlled by the MACT rule from specified equipment
used in kraft pulp manufacturing, and to obtain credit for process
improvements that reduced HAP emissions.
EPA determined at the time the MACT rule was adopted that the
majority of all non-chlorinated HAP emissions from Kraft mill pulping
process equipment is methanol. See, 63 FR 18511 (April 15, 1998). EPA's
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the MACT rule accepted that
methanol was an appropriate measure for HAP emissions from Kraft mill
pulping systems. EPA addressed this point in response to comments
calling for monitoring of speciated HAP emissions. ``Methanol is an
appropriate indicator of total HAP since it is the dominant HAP present
in pulping vents and condensates and since the control technologies
identified in the rule do not remove HAPs preferentially.'' Final EIS
(EPA document EPA-453/R-93-050b) pp. 8-9 through 8-11. The proposed
site specific rule does not provide flexibility by counting reductions
of the less dangerous HAPs to balance increases in emissions of the
more toxic HAPs. Besides measuring HAP emissions as methanol, as
required by the MACT rule for pulping process vents, the source's MACT
compliance plan does not claim any credit related to HAP emissions from
bleaching systems. All the ``extra'' HAP emission reductions provided
by the source, and all the flexibility proposed for the source to
control alternate process vents, occur in the pulping process area.
Since 1992, Weyerhaeuser has focused on a ``Minimum Impact
Manufacturing'' (MIM) model as a holistic strategy for continuous
environmental improvement. MIM is an aggressive plan that seeks to
harmonize Weyerhaeuser's pulp and paper manufacturing facilities with
their surrounding physical environments. Weyerhaeuser is committed to
managing its raw material and resources such that its manufacturing
processes, and their outputs, achieve continuous improvement of air,
water, and solid-waste discharges. MIM contains the elements of a
comprehensive pollution prevention program designed to obtain the
greatest use of raw materials and to stop waste generation rather than
rely on ``end-of-pipe'' remedies. MIM involves multi-disciplinary teams
employing a systems engineering approach, waste reduction and a
commitment to continuous improvement rather than the more traditional
``project'' focus. Weyerhaeuser is committed to optimizing raw
materials used at the mill level, reducing water usage, minimizing
fossil fuel for energy in manufacturing, reducing/eliminating hazardous
waste, generating less solid waste, reducing emissions to all media,
eliminating spills, reusing and recycling from mills the materials and
residuals that previously went to landfills, and collecting and
recycling used waste paper for use as a raw material.
The FPA provides that HAP reductions at Flint River Operations
shall be guided by a MACT Compliance Plan. The FPA sets out seven
principles to guide the MACT Compliance Plan. The principles include
the following points: (1) HAP emission reductions from the total source
occurring after January 1, 1996 are eligible to be counted; (2) HAP
emission reductions occurring after January 1, 1996 that were obtained
voluntarily (from the source's weak gas collection system) are eligible
to be counted; (3) HAP emission reductions at the source are to be
counted on a total pound HAP for total pound HAP, as measured by
methanol, basis; (4) HAP measurements were documented using EPA-
approved test methods and as provided in the MACT Standard; (5) HAP
emission reductions are required as of the due date for compliance
provided in the MACT Standard; (6) HAP emission reductions from all HAP
emitting units currently regulated under applicable state or Federal
rules (e.g., 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB) are not eligible to be counted
against the HAP emissions reductions required by the MACT Standard; and
(7) compliance is required with all requirements (other than the
emission limitations) of the MACT Standard as promulgated. In addition,
Weyerhaeuser will comply with all other present or future Clean Air Act
Section 112 standards that are applicable to the source.
Specific details of the MACT Compliance Plan were agreed upon
through negotiations between Weyerhaeuser Company, EPA Region 4 and the
Georgia EPD after the MACT rule for the kraft pulp manufacturing
industry was published on April 15, 1998. See, 63 FR 18503. The MACT
Compliance Plan is consistent with the principles set out in the FPA.
The MACT Compliance Plan includes the HAP emitting units that must be
controlled to comply with the MACT Standard, the amount of HAPs allowed
to be emitted for each HAP emitting unit at the source under the MACT
Standard; the HAP emitting units and the amount of HAP emission
reductions eligible to be counted, the HAP emitting units that the
source plans to use to obtain additional HAP emission reductions, the
units that present a potential to obtain HAP emission reductions, and
the amount eligible to be counted against HAP emission reductions
required by the MACT Standard. For more information about the specific
equipment subject to the MACT Compliance Plan, status of emissions, the
HAP emitting unit that will be controlled and the accounting of HAP
emissions and emission reductions refer to the information referenced
in the section entitled ADDRESSES.
C. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through Project XL?
This proposed rule supports the goals of the Clean Air Act to
protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
its population.
Specifically this project not only meets, but exceeds the HAP
emission reductions required by the current MACT standard. For example,
reductions in HAP emissions are expected from the digesting, brownstock
washing, oxygen delignification and bleaching system processes due to
improved digester woodchip delignification and pulp washing; from the
collection and incineration of Weak Gas system sources and the
collection and biological treatment of methanol containing process
condensates; from bleach plan process reductions; and from various
pollution prevention projects. Decreased emissions of volatile organic
compounds, total reduced sulfur, and carbon monoxide are also expected.
A more detailed discussion of the environmental benefits associated
with the Weyerhauser project is located in the FPA, EPA's response to
comments on the proposed FPA, and other information referenced in the
section entitled ADDRESSES.
D. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL Process
EPA believes stakeholder involvement and participation in
developing the
[[Page 16640]]
Weyerhaeuser Pilot XL program is vital to the success of the program.
Therefore, as part of the Project XL proposal, a Company must clearly
explain its process for involving stakeholders in the design of the
pilot program. This process should be based upon the guidance set out
in the April 23, 1997 Federal Register notice (62 FR 19872). The
support of the parties that have a stake in the program is very
important. Stakeholders may include communities near the project, local
or state governments, businesses, environmental and other public
interest groups, or other similar entities. Stakeholders that
participated in the development of this rule included the Lake
Blackshear Watershed Association, non-management employees at Flint
River Operations, City of Montezuma, City of Oglethorpe, Macon
Correctional Institution, Macon County Local Emergency Planning
Committee, other leaders from Macon County, and other interested
Parties. Once EPA accepted Weyerhaeuser as a candidate based on its
detailed proposal, Weyerhaeuser, EPA, the State and local stakeholders
finalized a Final Project Agreement (FPA). The FPA is a nonbinding
agreement that describes the intentions and commitments of the
implementing parties. Stakeholders participated in the negotiation of
the FPA. The stakeholder process has been open and the public invited
to participate. Weyerhaeuser will continue to work with the
stakeholders, who serve as the primary contact with the community.
E. What Are the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants?
The main purposes of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'') are
to protect and enhance the quality of our Nation's air resources, and
to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
the population. See CAA, section 101(b)(1). Section 112 of the Act
provides a list of 189 hazardous air pollutants (``HAP's'') and directs
EPA to develop rules to control HAP emissions from both new and
existing major sources. The Act requires that the rules be established
by categories of emission sources considering all HAPs emitted rather
than establishing rules based on the emission of a single pollutant
from a source category. The statute also requires that the standards
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly
referred to as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (``MACT'').
In addition, the Act sets out specific criteria to be considered
for establishing a minimum level of control and criteria (incremental
cost, energy impacts, etc.). For evaluating control options more
stringent than the minimum level of control. This minimum level of
control is commonly referred to as the MACT ``floor.'' The MACT floor
for new sources, as specified by the Act, is ``the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.''
The MACT floor for existing sources, as specified by the Act, is the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources in each category or subcategory of 30 or more
sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)). For smaller categories or
subcategories, the Act specifies that standards shall not be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing five sources in the category or subcategory. These floor
determinations are based on data available to the Administrator at the
time the standards are developed. The statutory provisions do not limit
how the standard is set, beyond requiring that it be applicable to all
sources in a category or subcategory and at least as stringent as the
MACT floor. The emission standards are to be reviewed and revised as
necessary no less often than every 8 years. Also, EPA may later
promulgate more stringent standards to address any unacceptable health
or environmental risk that remains after the imposition of controls
resulting from the standards.
To this end, section 112(d) of the CAA directs EPA to set standards
for stationary sources emitting greater than ten tons of any one HAP or
25 tons of total HAPs annually (one ton is equal to 0.908 megagrams).
EPA promulgated the NESHAP for the pulp and paper production source
category at 40 CFR Subpart S, because pulp and paper mills have the
potential to emit ten tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year
of all HAPs. Potential to emit is based on the total of all HAP
emissions from all activities at the mill. Individual mills are capable
of emitting as much as several hundred tons per year (TPY) of HAPs,
which may adversely affect air quality and public health. The emission
standards for pulping and bleaching processes provide several options
for compliance, including an alternative pollution prevention option
for the kraft pulping process. The standards specify compliance dates
for new and existing sources and require control devices to be properly
operated and maintained at all times.
F. What Are the Proposed Regulatory Requirements for the Weyerhaeuser
XL Project?
Implementation of the Weyerhaeuser XL project requires only limited
regulatory changes. Weyerhaeuser will achieve HAP emission reductions
for this mill that at least equal the HAP emission reductions required
to be provided by this mill under the applicable portions of the pulp
and paper MACT standard, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S (MACT standard).
Weyerhaeuser will achieve the reductions in hazardous air pollutant
emissions required by the pulp and paper MACT standard by using a
combination of equipment regulated by MACT, equipment not regulated by
the MACT, and process changes.
G. What Is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
Under Project XL, the Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations project
may be approved to operate for the term expressed in the FPA. The FPA
was signed on December 13, 1996 and will be in effect for a period of
15 years, unless it is terminated earlier. As outlined in the FPA, the
duration of the project does not affect the term of any permit, the
duration of this proposed rule, or any other enforceable regulatory
mechanism that has a term fixed by applicable law or regulation.
Therefore, the terms and requirements of this proposed rule do not
expire unless formally amended through notice and comment rulemaking.
III. Rule Description
Today's proposed rule will require Weyerhaeuser to control HAP
emissions from alternative process vents and to maintain process
changes at its Flint River Operations that are currently not required
by the existing rule. In implementing this change, this mill will
achieve a greater amount of HAP reductions than this mill would achieve
under the existing rule.
To accomplish this alternative compliance, the EPA is proposing to
promulgate a site-specific rule to amend 40 CFR Subpart S, which
provides the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry. The Federal site-specific rule,
amending 40 CFR 63.459, will allow the source to provide greater
reductions in HAP emissions, measured as methanol, than are controlled
by the MACT rule from alternative process vents and through process
changes during the kraft pulping process. The
[[Page 16641]]
proposed rule does not provide flexibility by counting reductions of
the less dangerous HAPs to balance increases in emissions of the more
toxic HAPs. For example, instead of controlling HAP emissions from the
brownstock diffusion washer vent, first stage brownstock diffusion
washer filtrate tank vent, and oxygen delignification system, the site-
specific rule will allow the Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations to
control HAP emission from the weak liquor storage tank; boilout tank;
utility tank; 50 percent solids black liquor storage tank; south 67
percent solids black liquor storage tank; north 67 percent solids black
liquor storage tank; precipitator make down tanks numbers 1, 2 and 3;
salt cake mix tank; and NaSH storage tank. (These terms are defined in
the proposed rule.) Weyerhaeuser will be required by the generally
applicable MACT rule (40 CFR Subpart S) to provide for record-keeping,
monitoring and reporting to demonstrate continuous compliance for these
operations. HAP emission reductions achieved from process changes
involving the cylinder mould decker and the cylinder mould filtrate
tank will be counted against the total HAP emission reductions
Weyerhaeuser would have to provide to meet the MACT standard.
IV. Request for Public Comments
The Agency requests public comments on today's Rule.
V. Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of
general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review and
Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site
specific rules under Project XL is not necessary.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects one
source, the Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations, which is not a small
entity. Therefore, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
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 a 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 why the
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 potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, because
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, it is not subject to UMRA section
203.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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 under Executive Order 12866; 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 other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, because
it is based on technology performance and implements previously
promulgated health or safety-based National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (NESHAPS). The effects
of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp and paper industry on
children's health was addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to
establish Subpart S, the NESHAP for the pulp and paper industry, and
EPA is not revisiting those issues here.
F. 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.''
``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.'' Under
Section 6 of Executive Order 1312, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and
[[Page 16642]]
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications
and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This proposed 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, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
fully coordinate and consult with the affected State and local
officials in developing this rule.
G. 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 an accountable process 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (``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 to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary standards. This proposed rulemaking
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on
this aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and specifically invites the
public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Dated: March 20, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Pulp and Paper Industry
2. Add Sec. 63.459 to Subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 63.459 Alternative standards.
(a) Flint River Mill. The owner or operator of the pulping system
using the kraft process at the manufacturing facility, commonly called
Weyerhaeuser Company Flint River Operations, at Old Stagecoach Road,
Oglethorpe, Georgia, (hereafter the Site) shall comply with all
provisions of this subpart, except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator of the pulping system is not required to
control total HAP emissions from equipment systems specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section if the owner or
operator complies with paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this
section.
(i) The brownstock diffusion washer vent and first stage brownstock
diffusion washer filtrate tank vent in the pulp washing system
specified in Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(iii).
(ii) The oxygen delignification system specified in
Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(v).
(2) The owner or operator of the pulping system shall control total
HAP emissions from equipment systems listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (a)(2)(ix) of this section as specified in Sec. 63.443(c) and
(d) of this subpart no later than April 16, 2002.
(i) The weak liquor storage tank;
(ii) The boilout tank;
(iii) The utility tank;
(iv) The fifty percent solids black liquor storage tank;
(v) The south sixty-seven percent solids black liquor storage tank;
(vi) The north sixty-seven percent solids black liquor storage
tank;
(vii) The precipitator make down tanks numbers one, two and three;
(viii) The salt cake mix tank; and
(ix) the NaSH storage tank.
(3) The owner or operator of the pulping system shall operate the
Isothermal Cooking system at the site while pulp is being produced in
the continuous digester at any time after April 16, 2002.
(i) The owner or operator shall monitor the following parameters to
demonstrate that isothermal cooking is in operation:
(A) Continuous digester dilution factor and
(B) The difference between the continuous digester vapor zone
temperature and the continuous digester extraction header temperature.
(ii) The isothermal cooking system shall be in operation when the
continuous digester dilution factor and the temperature difference
between the continuous digester vapor zone temperature and the
continuous digester extraction header temperature are maintained as set
forth in the following Table:
[[Page 16643]]
Table--Isothermal Cooking System Operational Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Instrument No. Limit Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digester Dilution Factor..... K1DILFAC > 0.0 None.
Difference in Digester Vapor 03TI0311 10 Degrees F.
Zone Temperature and 03TI0329
Digester Extraction Header
Temperature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The owner or operator shall certify annually the operational
status of the isothermal cooking system.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Definitions. All descriptions and references to equipment and
emission unit ID numbers refer to equipment at the Site. All terms used
in this paragraph shall have the meaning given them in this part and
this paragraph. For the purposes of this paragraph only the following
additional definitions apply.
Boilout tank means the tank that provides tank storage capacity for
recovery of black liquor spills and evaporator water washes for return
to the evaporators (emission unit ID no. U606);
Brownstock diffusion washer means the equipment used to wash pulp
from the surge chests to further reduce lignin carryover in the pulp;
Continuous digester means the digester system used to chemically
and thermally remove the lignin binding the wood chips to produce
individual pulp fibers (emission unit ID no. P300);
Fifty percent solids black liquor storage tank means the tank used
to store intermediate black liquor prior to final evaporation in the
1A, 1B, and 1C Concentrators (emission unit ID no. U605);
First stage brownstock diffusion washer means the equipment that
receives and stores filtrate from the first stage of washing for return
to the pressure diffusion washer;
Isothermal cooking system means the 1995-1996 modernization of
brownstock pulping process including conversion of the Kamyr continuous
vapor phase digester to an extended delignification unit and changes in
the knotting, screening, and oxygen stage systems.
NaSH storage tank means the tank used to store sodium hydrosulfite
solution prior to use as make-up to the liquor system.;
North sixty-seven percent solids black liquor storage tank means
one of two tanks used to store black liquor prior to burning in the
Recovery Boiler for chemical recovery (emission unit ID no. U501);
Precipitator make down tank numbers one, two and three mean tanks
used to mix collected particulate from electrostatic precipitator
chamber number one with 67% black liquor for recycle to chemical
recovery in the Recovery Boiler (emission unit ID nos. U504, U505 and
U506);
Salt cake mix tank means the tank used to mix collected particulate
from economizer hoppers with black liquor for recycle to chemical
recovery in the Recovery Boiler (emission unit ID no. U503);
South sixty-seven percent solids black liquor storage tank means
one of two tanks used to store black liquor prior to burning in the
Recovery Boiler for chemical recovery (emission unit ID no. U502);
Utility tank means the tank used to store fifty percent liquor and,
during black liquor tank inspections and repairs, to serve as a backup
liquor storage tank (emission unit ID no. U611);
Weak gas system means high volume, low concentration or HVLC system
as defined in Sec. 63.441; and
Weak liquor storage tank means the tank that provide surge capacity
for weak black liquor from digesting prior to feed to multiple effect
evaporators (emission unit ID no. U610).
(a) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 01-7519 Filed 3-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U