[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31120-31124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12305]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 430

[FRL-6700-7]


Project XL Proposed Site-Specific Rule for the International 
Paper Androscoggin Mill Facility in Jay, ME; Project XL Draft Final 
Project Agreement for Effluent Improvement Project at International 
Paper Androscoggin Mill Facility in Jay, ME

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment on proposed rule and draft 
final project agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is proposing 
this rule to provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) as part of an XL Project with International 
Paper's Androscoggin Mill pulp and paper manufacturing facility in Jay, 
Maine. The site-specific rule would exempt International Paper 
Androscoggin Mill from certain Best Management Practices (BMPs) 
required under CWA regulations. In exchange for this regulatory 
flexibility, International Paper Androscoggin Mill will implement a 
series of projects designed to improve the mill's effluent quality and 
will accept numeric permit limits corresponding to the expected 
improvements in effluent quality. The terms of the International Paper 
XL project are contained in the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA), on 
which EPA is also requesting comment.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on the proposed rule and/or FPA must 
be received on or before June 15, 2000. All comments should be 
submitted in writing to the address listed.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments should be mailed to Mr. Chris 
Rascher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress St., Suite 
1100, Boston, MA 02114. Please send an original and two copies of all 
comments.
    Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule, 
draft Final Project Agreement, and supporting

[[Page 31121]]

materials is available for public inspection and copying at the Water 
Docket, Room EB 57, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. St., 
SW, Washington, DC. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Members of the public are 
encouraged to telephone the docket in advance at 202-260-3027 to 
schedule an appointment. Refer to docket number W-00-13. The public may 
copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. 
Additional copies cost 15 cents per page.
    A duplicate copy of project materials is available for inspection 
and copying at EPA Regional Library, U.S. EPA, Region I, Suite 1100 
(LIB), One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023, as well as the Town 
Hall, 99 Main Street, Jay, ME 04239 during normal business hours. 
Persons wishing to view the materials at the Boston location are 
encouraged to contact Mr. Chris Rascher in advance. Persons wishing to 
view the materials at the Jay, Maine, location are encouraged to 
contact Ms. Shiloh Ring at (207) 897-6785 in advance.
    Project materials on today's action are also available on the 
worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Rascher, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 
MA 02114-2023. Mr. Rascher can also be reached at (617) 918-1834 or at 
[email protected]. Further information on today's action is 
available on the worldwide web at 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of potentially
                 Category                         affected parties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  International Paper,
                                             Androscoggin Mill, Jay,
                                             Maine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outline of Today's Proposal

    This preamble presents the following information:

I. Authority
II. Overview of Project XL
III. Overview of the International Paper Effluent Improvements XL 
Project
    A. To Which Facilities Would the Proposed Rule Apply?
    B. From What Required Activities Would Today's Proposed Rule 
Provide an Exemption?
    C. What Would the IP-Androscoggin Mill Do Differently Under The 
XL Project?
    D. What Regulatory Changes Would Be Necessary to Implement this 
Project?
    E. Why is EPA Supporting This Approach of Granting a Waiver From 
BMPs?
    F. How Have Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?
    G. How Would This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?
    H. What Are the Enforceable Provisions of the Project?
    I. How Long Would This Project Last and When Would It Be 
Completed?
IV. Additional Information
    A. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 
12866?
    B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
    C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This 
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    D. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act?
    E. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 
13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks?
    F. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 
13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
    G. Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132?
    H. Does This Proposed Rule Comply With the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act?

I. Authority

    EPA is publishing this proposed regulation under the authority of 
sections 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342 
and 1361).

II. Overview of Project XL

    Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''-- was announced on March 
16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance Review and the 
EPA's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 
23, 1995). Project XL gives individual private and public regulated 
entities the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects wherein 
the Agency provides targeted regulatory flexibility in exchange for 
improved environmental performance. EPA intends to use Project XL and 
other related efforts to test innovative strategies for reducing the 
regulatory burden and promoting economic growth while achieving better 
environmental and public health protection.
    To participate in XL, interested parties must develop a proposal 
that satisfies a number of criteria, including criteria for superior 
environmental performance, transferability, and stakeholder 
involvement. The definition of ``environmental performance'' under XL 
is broad, and EPA seeks superior performance under XL both in areas 
under existing EPA jurisdiction such as waste handling, air emissions, 
or effluent treatment, as well as through environmental innovations in 
fields as diverse as data monitoring and reporting or product 
stewardship.
    The Final Project Agreement (FPA) that evolves out of the review 
and development of the proposal is a written agreement between the 
project sponsor and regulatory agencies regarding the details of the 
proposed project. The FPA outlines how the project will meet the XL 
review criteria and identifies performance goals and indicators to 
ensure that the project's anticipated benefits are realized. The FPA 
also discusses the administration of the agreement, including dispute 
resolution and termination. Today, EPA asks for comment specifically on 
the draft FPA for the International Paper Effluent Improvements XL 
Project. This document is available for review as indicated above under 
ADDRESSES.y
    For more information about the XL program, XL criteria, or about 
specific XL projects underway, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/projectxl or contact EPA as indicated above under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. Overview of the International Paper Effluent Improvements XL 
Project

    EPA today is requesting comments on the proposed rule and draft FPA 
that will implement key provisions of the International Paper Effluent 
Improvements XL Project. Today's proposed site-specific rule is 
necessary for the project to proceed. The draft FPA outlines the 
intentions of EPA and other project participants on the XL project. The 
draft FPA was developed by representatives from EPA, the International 
Paper Androscoggin Mill in Jay, Maine (IP-Androscoggin), the Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), the Town of Jay, and 
other stakeholders. After comments on the draft FPA have been 
considered, EPA, IP, MEDEP, and the Town of Jay expect to sign a final 
FPA.

A. To Which Facilities Would the Proposed Rule Apply?

    This proposed rule would apply only to the International Paper 
Androscoggin Mill in Jay, Maine.

B. From What Required Activities Would Today's Proposed Rule Provide an 
Exemption?

    The proposed rule would exempt the IP-Androscoggin Mill from 
existing federal regulations codified under the Clean Water Act at 40 
CFR 430.03. Those regulations require pulp and paper facilities to 
implement specified BMPs, e.g., installing and maintaining various 
operating procedures and infrastructure within the facility;

[[Page 31122]]

monitoring, data gathering, and reporting; and carrying out several 
other activities designed to prevent leaks and spills of spent pulping 
liquor, soap and turpentine that would otherwise lead to increased 
discharges of pollutants from the final effluent.

C. What Would the IP-Androscoggin Mill do Differently Under the XL 
Project?

    International Paper's claim in its XL proposal was that existing 
practices at the Androscoggin Mill, including existing spill prevention 
procedures and process control technologies, are advanced enough to 
preclude any further improvements to the final effluent from 
implementation of the BMPs specified in 40 CFR 430.03. To support this 
claim, the IP-Androscoggin Mill detailed as part of project review 
discussions how, item-by-item, the mill's infrastructure, operations 
and procedures are equivalent to or achieve the same objectives as the 
BMP requirements under the CWA for pulp and paper facilities.
    Under the XL project, the IP-Androscoggin Mill will maintain these 
practices in order to ensure that current environmental performance is 
sustained. In exchange for the exemption from the requirements of 40 
CFR 430.03, the IP-Androscoggin Mill will in addition implement a 
number of projects designed to improve the mill's effluent quality for 
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and color beyond levels likely to be 
attained through implementation of the BMP requirements specified in 40 
CFR 430.03. These steps all derive from the project's two most 
important components: Implementation of a series of effluent 
improvement projects under the guidance of a Collaborative Process Team 
with members from IP, EPA, MEDEP, the Town of Jay, and other 
stakeholders; Amendment or reissuance of the IP-Androscoggin Mill 
effluent discharge permit to include numeric limitations for color and 
chemical oxygen demand (COD) at levels that in Phase 1 of the project 
guarantee sustained environmental performance and in Phase 2 of the 
project capture in the permit any future performance improvements 
deriving from the XL project.
    The draft Final Project Agreement upon which the Agency seeks 
comment today describes in greater detail the steps associated with the 
XL project.

D. What Regulatory Changes Would Be Necessary To Implement This 
Project?

    To allow this XL project to be implemented, the Agency is proposing 
in today's notice to exempt the IP-Androscoggin Mill from the BMP 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.03. The proposed site-specific 
rule further provides that, in lieu of imposing the requirements 
specified in section 430.03, the permitting authority shall establish 
conditions for the discharge of COD and color for this mill on the 
basis of best professional judgment. Because both EPA and the Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection would be signatories to the FPA, 
EPA expects that the requirements for COD and color will be based on 
the values and procedures specified in the draft FPA. That is, once the 
site-specific rule is final, the appropriate permitting authority(ies) 
will amend or reissue the IP-Androscoggin effluent discharge permit to 
remove the requirements corresponding to 40 CFR 430.03 and to put in 
place instead numeric effluent limitations on COD and color that 
reflect, in the first phase, current effluent quality and, in the 
second phase, improved effluent quality resulting from the 
implementation by the IP-Androscoggin Mill of alternative effluent 
improvement projects called for by this project.

E. Why Is EPA Supporting This Approach of Granting a Waiver From BMPs?

    The Agency expects that the exemption for the IP-Androscoggin Mill 
will result in environmental performance superior to that which would 
be attained by continued adherence to the BMPs specified in 40 CFR 
430.03. As the draft Final Project Agreement explains in detail, the 
effluent improvement projects that the IP-Androscoggin Mill will put in 
place under the XL agreement are expected to reduce COD and color in 
the mill's effluent to approximately half of current levels.
    Another important aspect of this project is that it offers EPA a 
chance to explore how to use a collaborative process to identify 
facility-specific process improvements that prompt companies to achieve 
continuous improvements to effluent quality and to memorialize those 
improvements in the form of evolving permit limits.

F. How Have Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?

    Representatives from several state and local offices have been 
involved with the development of this project including: The 
Commissioner of MEDEP, the MEDEP Bureau of Land and Water Quality, 
members of the Town of Jay Planning Board, Town of Jay Selectmen and 
the Town of Jay Code Enforcement Officer. The University of Maine has 
also participated actively in this project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has also been involved on several occasions.
    Non-governmental stakeholders who were invited to participate 
include but are not limited to: Natural Resource Council of Maine, 
Environment Northeast, Appalachian Mountain Club, and Western Mountain 
Alliance. Industry associations who were invited to participate include 
the Maine Pulp and Paper Association and the National Council of Air 
and Stream Improvement.
    Comments from all other organizations and individuals are welcomed 
throughout the stakeholder process. All stakeholders including the 
general public have been and will continue to be notified through local 
newspaper announcements of meetings and the availability of project 
documents for review, and there is a specific provision in this project 
to continue to involve stakeholders as the effluent improvement 
projects are designed and implemented.

G. How Would This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?

    IP-Androscoggin proposed this XL project to EPA believing that they 
could achieve better environmental protection by implementing effluent 
improvement projects specially tailored to the mill rather than 
focusing on adhering to existing BMP requirements under the CWA. Since 
the mill has agreed to re-commit any savings from the exemption to the 
new projects, the mill will experience little or no net savings as a 
result of the XL project. Specifically, although IP estimates savings 
from the BMP exemption of approximately $780,000 in capital and 
operating costs, these savings will be offset by a corresponding 
increase in expenditures on the effluent improvement projects.

H. What Are the Enforceable Provisions of the Project?

    The enforceable provisions of this project are numeric effluent 
limitations incorporated into the mill's effluent discharge permit. As 
noted above, the project contemplates two sets of limits. The first set 
of limits (known as Phase 1 limits in the draft FPA), reflects current 
effluent quality for COD and color and corresponds to effluent quality 
deriving from the BMPs presently in place at the mill (which EPA judged 
to be equivalent in terms of performance to the BMPs specified in 40 
CFR 430.03). The second set of limits for COD and color (known as the 
Phase 2 limits in the FPA) will be established in

[[Page 31123]]

accordance with procedures specified in the FPA once the effluent 
improvement projects are fully implemented to include limits for COD 
and color that reflect actual performance improvements.

I. How Long Would This Project Last and When Would It Be Completed?

    The Project Signatories intend that this project would be concluded 
at the end of four (4) years: One year to identify and select the list 
of effluent improvement projects; two years to design and construct the 
projects; and one year to collect monitoring data for the purposes of 
calculating the Phase 2 permit limits and to perform overall project 
evaluation. At the end of four years, if the project is judged to be a 
success under the terms described in the draft FPA, EPA would intend to 
allow the IP-Androscoggin Mill to continue operating under the site-
specific rule promulgated at the time the FPA is finalized. However, 
the Administrator may promulgate a rule to withdraw the exemption at 
any time in the future if the terms and objectives of the FPA are not 
met or if the exemption becomes inconsistent with future statutory or 
regulatory requirements.
    EPA notes that adoption of an exemption from the BMP regulations in 
the context of this XL project does not signal EPA's willingness to 
adopt that exemption as a general matter or as part of other XL 
projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward-looking nature of 
these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches prematurely on 
a widespread basis without first determining whether or not they are 
viable in practice and successful in the particular projects that 
embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in announcing the XL 
program, EPA expects to adopt only a limited number of carefully 
selected projects. These pilot projects are not intended to be a means 
for piecemeal revision of entire programs. Depending on the results 
obtained from this project, EPA may or may not be willing to consider 
adopting BMP exemptions either generally or for other specific 
facilities.

IV. Additional Information

A. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?

    Because this proposed rule would apply only to one facility, it is 
not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not subject to OMB 
review under Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that 
review of site-specific rules under Project XL is unnecessary.

B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
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 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. This proposed rule 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because it only affects the International Paper facility in 
Jay, Maine, and it is not a small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies that 
this action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Project Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    This action applies only to one facility. Therefore any information 
collection activities it contains are not subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. For this reason, EPA is not 
submitting an information collection request (ICR) to OMB for review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the 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 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 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.
    As noted above, this proposed rule is applicable only to one 
facility in Maine. EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. EPA has also determined that this proposed 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 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.

E. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks?

    The 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 proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not an economically significant rule, as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions based on 
environmental health or safety risks.

[[Page 31124]]

F. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 13084: 
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.
    Today's proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and it will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. Although 
Indian tribal communities live in areas near the Androscoggin River, 
their governments will not be subject to any compliance costs relating 
to the proposed site-specific rule since the rule is directed at the 
International Paper mill. Nearby Indian tribal communities are, in 
fact, expected to benefit directly from the anticipated improvement in 
water quality. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

G. Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132?

    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 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and 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 would 
apply only to a single facility, and it will therefore 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.

H. Does This Proposed Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer 
and 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 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 consensus standard. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards developed by 
any voluntary consensus standards bodies. 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 430

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Water pollution control.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 430--THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 
1318, 1342, and 1361), and section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).

    2. Section 430.03 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 430.03  Best management practices (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor, 
soap, and turpentine management, spill prevention, and control.

* * * * *
    (k) The provisions of paragraphs (c) through (j) of this section do 
not apply to the bleached papergrade kraft mill, commonly known as the 
Androscoggin Mill, that is owned by International Paper and located in 
Jay, Maine. In lieu of imposing the requirements specified in those 
paragraphs, the permitting authority shall establish conditions for the 
discharge of COD and color for this mill on the basis of best 
professional judgment.

[FR Doc. 00-12305 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P