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 Implementation 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, AWC and other coalition partners on March 

22nd 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 reported that about 25% of WWTR is burned for 

energy recovery and that EPA only needs to concern itself with the practices and quality 

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

that showed that contaminant levels in WWTR are comparable to those in traditional 

fuels that would be burned in the boilers (see 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 WWTR that are not combusted. Let me 

provide you further perspective and data 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 information). Those mills generated roughly 

1,130,000 dry tons of WWTR so 70% of the WWTR that are generated by those mills 

are burned for energy recovery. If the five mills that burn less than 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 operations of the mill and the 
James Berlow 

April 4, 2012 

Page 2 

 

boiler. In fact, sixteen of those mills (a third) burn 100% of the 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 mills that regularly burn 

WWTR), several circumstances explain why it might be beneficially reused elsewhere or 

even land-filled. First, as we described 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 properly or adequately then the WWTR may not 

have properties conducive for combustion. 

Second, it is more challenging to remove water from some types of WWTR 

especially those that are high in non-fiber biological materials such as generated in 

aerated stabilization basins (ASBs). Primary clarifier residuals and secondary residuals 

from aerated sludge treatment (ASTs) are routinely and easily dewatered. 

Third, dewatered WWTR are stored outside like other biomass residuals (hog 

fuel) for short periods of time (a few weeks or months) and during rainy weather may 

reabsorb moisture. This is generally not a concern, but if combustion conditions for the 

mill dictate the need for a drier balance of fuels, then the wetter materials, including hog 

fuel and WWTR, may be passed over to maintain overall boiler and steam system 

needs. Some of the temporarily “passed over” 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 the 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 the feeder system then fuel materials can be actively 

managed and burned as appropriate to meet the needs of the boiler system. 

In summary, if WWTR cannot be used for legitimate 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 for other beneficial purposes, but those 

activities are not subject to the NHSM rule. The WWTR that are combusted are being 

used as legitimate fuels and are not being discarded. 

Clearly the boilers that are burning WWTR are both designed to burn it and the 

mill could not operate without those materials to meet its energy balance (without 

purchasing replacement fuels). WWTR is not a “fuel of last resort,” but rather integral to 

the economic operation of the mill. As our comments state, if companies that rely on 

WWTR had to dispose of it in landfills and replace 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 the 
James Berlow 

April 4, 2012 

Page 3 

 

economic edge and having to close, thus losing hundreds of high-paying manufacturing 

jobs when the economy can least afford it. 

Please consider this letter an addendum to our February 21st 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