1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ 202 463-2700 Fax: 202 463-2785 ▪ www.afandpa.org April 4, 2012

James Berlow Director, Program Implementat ion and Information Division Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

By E-mail

Dear Jim:

Thank you for meeting with AF&PA, AW C and other coalition partners on March

22 nd to discuss our comments on the Non- Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) proposed rule ((EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329). We understand the Agency is on an accelerated schedule to complete the NHSM and other Boiler MACT rulemakings, so I wanted to get back to you with some follow-up information.

During our discussion on non-waste fuels and wastewater treatment residuals (WWTR) in particular, the question came up about how reliant our mills are on WWTR as a fuel source. In our comments, we r eported that about 25% of WWTR is burned for energy recovery and that EPA only needs to conc ern itself with the pr actices and quality

of the WWTR that are used in boilers to produce energy and steam. We provided data

that showed that contaminant levels in WWT R are comparable to those in traditional fuels that would be burned in the boilers (s ee Table 1 on page 51 of 2/21/12 AF&PA et. al. comments, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1843). We would expect that this data is convincing to the Agency that WWTR meet the legitimacy criteria and that mills could rely on the comparisons in the future, if necessary. Finally, we emphasized that the

NHSM Rule does not in fact address the WW TR that are not combusted. Let me provide you further perspective and dat a on those mills that do burn WWTR.

Based on 2010 data collected as part of AF&PA’s biennial Environment Health and Safety survey (this is provided by mills confidentially and then aggregated by AF&PA since information on fuel use is very sensitive), forty-seven member company mills reported burning 786, 000 dry tons of WWTR (this is slightly more than reported in our comments using the most up-to-date in formation). Those mills generated roughly 1,130,000 dry tons of WWTR so 70% of the WWTR that ar e generated by those mills are burned for energy recovery. If the five mills that burn less t han 20% of their WWTR are excluded, the remaining forty-two mills burn about 80% of the WWTR produced onsite. Thus, for those mills that burn WWTR, regularly they truly rely on it as a steady source of BTUs day in and day out, so it is integral to the operat ions of the mill and theJames Berlow April 4, 2012 Page 2

boiler. In fact, sixteen of those mills (a third) burn 100% of th e WWTR generated. If you would like data from the forty-seven mills we could provide that information in a

blinded format.

For the small amount that is not burned on site (at m ills that regularly burn WWTR), several circumstances explain why it might be beneficially reused elsewhere or even land-filled. First, as we descr ibed in our comments, WWTR are generally

dewatered to increase the value as a fuel. If the screw presses or other equipment used to remove water are not operating pr operly or adequately then the WWTR may not have properties conducive for combustion.

Second, it is more challenging to re move water from some types of WWTR especially those that are high in non-fiber biological materials such as generated in aerated stabilization basins (ASB s). Primary clarifier resi duals and secondary residuals from aerated sludge treatment (ASTs) are routinely and easily dewatered.

Third, dewatered WWTR are stored outsi de like other biomass residuals (hog fuel) for short periods of ti me (a few weeks or months ) and during rainy weather may reabsorb moisture. This is generally not a c oncern, but if combustion conditions for the

mill dictate the need for a drier balance of fuel s, then the wetter materials, including hog fuel and WWTR, may be passed over to ma intain overall boiler and steam system needs. Some of the temporarily “passed ov er” materials soon dry and as weather and mill conditions change are again consumed as a valuable fuel. Process needs and economic incentives ensure against burning other than suitable fuels.

Finally, if there are malfunctions of t he fuel feeder systems to the boiler then WWTR may not get burned for a short period of time (couple of weeks or month). When repairs are made to t he feeder system then fuel ma terials can be actively managed and burned as appropriate to m eet the needs of the boiler system.

In summary, if WWTR cannot be used for l egitimate energy production, they are

not combusted . Some of those WWTR may be discarded, but they are not discarded by

combustion . They may be land-filled or used fo r other beneficial pu rposes, but those activities are not subject to the NHSM ru le. The WWTR that are combusted are being used as legitimate fuels and are not being discarded.

Clearly the boilers that are burning WWT R are both designed to burn it and the mill could not operate without those materials to meet its energy balance (without purchasing replacement fuels). WWT R is not a “fuel of last reso rt,” but rather integral to the economic operation of the mill. As our comments state, if co mpanies that rely on WWTR had to dispose of it in landfills and repl ace the BTU value with other fuels, the cost conservatively would be over $150M per year. For any one mill, the average cost of $3 million per year may be the difference between remaining profitable and losing theJames Berlow April 4, 2012 Page 3

economic edge and having to close, thus lo sing hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs when the economy can least afford it.

Please consider this letter an addendum to our February 21 st comments. If you have any questions or would like to get the underlying blinded data, please don’t

hesitate to contact me at (202) 463-2588.

Sincerely,

Timothy G. Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs

Cc: Suzanne Rudzinski, ORCR George Faison, ORCR
Paul Noe, AF&PA