[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