Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Weyerhaeuser Company

Questions for Discussion from Gary Risner to Stan Meiburg

115 Perimeter Center Place, Suite 950
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
Tel (770) 668 1210
Fax (770) 668 1252

June 11, 1996

Via Fax
A. Stanley Meiburg
Deputy Regional Administrator
EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland St. N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365

Dear Mr. Meiburg:

As per today's telephone conversation, I have enclosed a list of questions pertaining to EPA's written comment to Weyerhaeuser data May 29, 1996. These questions were prepared to help facilitate the discussions during Thursday's meeting, June 13, 1996. Please do not consider this list as everything we want to ask. I am sure that Thursday's discussion will stimulate other pertinent questions.

Also, as we discussed, Weyerhaeuser is not prepared at this time to offer a counter-proposal until we have a clearer understanding of EPA's current position regarding the Flint River Project. Weyerhaeuser is anticipating at Thursday's meeting that the EPA will provide an expanded overview of the written comments. Hopefully, the enclosed questions can assist the presenters as necessary with preparations.

Before the end of our meeting on Thursday, it is Weyerhaeuser's desire that all signatories are realigned to develop next steps that include associated time schedules for FPA completion.

Thank you for your support of our project and Project XL. You may call me at 770-668-1210 if you have questions.


Gary Risner
Area Environmental Manager


CC: Michelle Glenn
David Word
Bob Donaghue


1. Weyerhaeuser requests a copy of the limits to be "proposed" in the "upcoming" tier (I, II, & III) incentives program now being "considered" for incorporation into the "anticipated" Cluster Rule to determine what these incentives mean to us in terms of economic and regulatory benefit(s).
2. Weyerhaeuser requests a copy of the latest "proposed" MACT standard with the "defined sources" list to be better able to determine MACT applicability to our facility.
3. Weyerhaeuser requests a copy of the MACT "floor" determination so we can determine how much HAP's control we must achieve to meet the floor level.
4. For comparison, we need a copy of the emissions calculations used to set the PSD applicability "caps" for the Power Boiler and Rest-of-Facility to insure we are talking the "same" numbers.
5. Weyerhaeuser requests a copy of the "Best Management Practices" for equivalent control of black liquor spill prevention required by the Cluster Rule since we are supposed to meet them.
6. What are MRR requirements? Weyerhaeuser requests a copy.
7. NPDES permit conditions and limits would be what? Proposed Cluster Rule?
8. What are the "proposed" less frequent monitoring requirements for dioxin, AOX, and furan?
9. What is required(?) USEPA input for developing a "workable implementation plan" with the outside stakeholders?
10. Explain how "HAP emission OFFSETS are only allowed within the source to be defined by the MACT standard.
11. Control of the cylinder mould, cylinder mould vacuum pump, and filtrate tank is clearly beyond MACT I. Why are these sources and the control of these sources to be included under MACT I.
12. EPA envisions that (HAP's) credits would not be provided from HAP reductions resulting from existing enforceable requirements. What are those "existing requirements"?
13. What is the specified date EPA would consider providing HAP credits from past voluntary actions?
14. What is EPA's methodology and calculation procedures for equivalency and trading of HAP emissions reductions?
15. What are the compliance assurance monitoring requirements specified in the MACT standard and defined by the Clean Air Act general provisions. Weyerhaeuser requests a copy if we are expected to comply with them.
16. What are the start up, shut down, and malfunction requirements defined by the MACT standard?


Environmental Performance
1)1. EPA's comment suggests that Weyerhaeuser "commit to enforceable limits" to go beyond BAT. What legal device is anticipated as the vehicle to provide "enforceable limits"? If a permit modification is selected, how does Weyerhaeuser obtain an enforceable guarantee that the only modification made will be the modification accepted by Weyerhaeuser rather than an alternative unilaterally selected by an agency or reviewing court?
The request to "exceed BAT or the limits to be proposed" is unclear because the tier 1 incentives program already is beyond BAT (at least as I understand it). Which is intended?
1)1. EPA's comment requests that Weyerhaeuser "commit to a binding percent" reduction in BOD and TSS and water use. What legal device is anticipated as the vehicle to provide this "binding" commitment?
EPA's comment requesting BOD/TSS reductions assumes a baseline level of discharge. Does EPA accept the baseline proposed by Weyerhaeuser?
Is this commitment intended to go beyond the results promised by Weyerhaeuser in Table Two of the FPA?
1)2. EPA proposes to "allow flexibility" in meeting MACT. How does EPA propose to make this flexibility binding, legal obligations on EPA/EPD and Weyerhaeuser? If the FPA is the device, how does that correspond to EPA's analysis of the nature of FPAs?
EPA's offer of "flexibility" in MACT is conditioned on "certain conditions on the trading arrangement". What are those conditions? How are they to be made legally enforceable obligations (if that is the intent)?
"Trading details" are stated to be subject to negotiation between EPA, Weyerhaeuser and Georgia. What is EPA's basis for being in those negotiations given that EPD has PSD permit authority? What is the legal vehicle for expressing the agreements struck in these negotiations?
1)3. EPA's analysis of criteria air pollutants calls for facility-wide "PSD applicability caps" on emissions. How do these caps vary from the SERs now contained in the currently applicable PSD regulations?
If caps such as these are not contained in current regulations, how does EPA propose to convert any agreeable caps into legal obligations on the source? If the caps are not in current rules how does EPA propose to use them without exposing Weyerhaeuser to potential penalty/citizen suit sanctions for failing to comply with PSD regulations?
EPA calls for a 10% decrease on the non-power-boiler cap at the end of MIM IV. What is the baseline state to use in calculating the 10% increase? If the baseline is the Baseline proposed by Weyerhaeuser, how does EPA's requested decrease constitute regulatory flexibility?
1)3. EPA states that "all changes" under the cap "must demonstrate compliance" with ambient standards and PSD increments. Does EPA envision a de minimis level of change excluded from the obligation to "demonstrate compliance? If not, how is that regulatory flexibility? If so, how does this differ from the existing SERs in PSD rules?
1)3. EPA's comments about the power boiler refers to changes in "utilization" and "physical change" to the boiler. What is a change in "utilization"? How is that accomplishing without a "physical change"?
Current PSD rules include certain changes that are excluded from PSD review (e.g., designated fuel switches). Does EPA intend that a physical change now excluded from review remain excluded under EPA's approach to Project XL?
1)3. EPA envisions later agreement on the "mechanics of the dual cap arrangement". What will be used to capture and memorialize the agreement stuck on these "mechanics"? If the FPA is not EPA's choice then what would be used? If a "site-specific" rulemaking is envisioned, how can it get into this level of detail and retain any vitality as a means to finalize Project XL agreements?
1)4. Regarding black liquor BMPs, will EPA adopt language in the Cluster Rule liquor BMPs (Weyerhaeuser submitted proposed language) to serve as a legal platform for Weyerhaeuser to use its liquor BMPs as equivalent to the Cluster Rules prescriptions?
1)5. Under the heading "State and non-regulatory" EPA asks for a "binding performance commitment" for solid waste, energy conservation and odor improvements. Does EPA intend that these improvements be established in a federally enforceable legal device?
Does EPA intend that Weyerhaeuser's "binding" commitment be subject to enforcement via citizen suit? How would that be accomplished? How is "regulatory flexibility" achieved by creating opportunities for citizen suit actions against Weyerhaeuser where such actions are not now allowed?
2)1. EPA promises to "recommend to Georgia" that Weyerhaeuser not receive "more stringent" permit limits. If EPA adheres to its view that an FPA is merely a statement of intent how does Weyerhaeuser obtain an enforceable guarantee that Georgia will respect and act on EPA's recommendation?
2)1. EPA states that it will "negotiate less frequent monitoring" requirements. What is the baseline monitoring requirement intended here?
If EPA intends to accept monitoring by Weyerhaeuser that is less frequent than countenanced by the Cluster Rule will EPA include language in the Cluster Rule to provide that compliance with an FPA can be used as an alternative compliance mechanism? (Weyerhaeuser provided language to accomplish this goal.) If not, what device does EPA propose and how will it survive judicial scrutiny?

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.