1 

 1 ________________________________________________________ 

 2 

 Public Hearing On EPA's Proposed Rules Regarding: 

 3 

 National Emisson Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

 4 For Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

 Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 

 5 

 National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air 

 6 Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 

 and Institutional Boilers, 

 7 

 New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines 

 8 For Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators, 

 and 

 9 

 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That 

 10 Are Solid Waste. 

 11 ________________________________________________________ 

 12 

 13 Houston Hilton Hobby Airport 

 8181 Airport Boulevard 

 14 Houston, Texas 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 9:04 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. 

 23 June 22nd, 2010 

 24 

 25 
 2 

 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 2 EPA Office Air Quality Planning and Standards: 

 3 Robert Wayland, Sector Policies & Programs Division 

 4 

 5 EPA Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery: 

 6 Marc Thomas, Program Implementation and Information 

 7 Division 

 8 

 9 EPA Region 6, Philadelphia: 

 10 Ken Boyce 

 11 

 12 PUBLIC PRESENT: 

 13 Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice 

 14 Stan Webb, Weyerhaeuser, mill Manager 

 15 Gray Skipper, Scotch Plywood Company 

 16 Andy Mangan, Executive Director of the United States 

 17 Business Council for Sustainable Development 

 18 Shari Keller, American Petroleum Institute and the 

 19 National Petrochemical and Refiners Association 

 20 Matthew Tejada, Air Alliance Houston 

 21 Ricardo DeLaCruz, Pulp & Paper Resource Council 

 22 Tom Rockwood, Coastal Forest Resource Company 

 23 Zac Trahan, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 24 Virginia Fugman, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 25 Dianne Aguirre, Texas Campaign for the Environment 
 3 

 1 George Christian, American Forestry & Paper Association 

 2 Eddie Burch, Georgia-Pacific 

 3 Jim Simon, American Sugar Can League 

 4 Edward Harrington, SH&E International Shared Support 

 5 Martin Rollins, H.M. Rollins Company, Inc. 

 6 Don Grimm, Hod Industries, Inc. 

 7 Jan Prusinski, Cement Council of Texas 

 8 Scott O'Hara, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 9 Ben Johnson, MeadWestvaco, employee 

 10 Phillip Huffeldt, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 11 Laura Gibson, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 12 Phillip Huffeldt, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 13 Laura Gibson, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 14 Drew Covert, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 15 Vance Nobe, Akari Energy 

 16 Chris Kevlin, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 17 Scott Moorhead, International Paper 

 18 David Cothren, Pulp & Paperworkers' Resource Council, 

 19 International Paper Company 

 20 Scarlett Russell, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 21 Bridgette Yawn, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 22 Shannon Simkins, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 23 Lyla Lagner, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 24 Laura Hutchinson, Texas Campaign for the Environment 

 25 
 4 

 1 PUBLIC PRESENT: (Cont.) 

 2 Arturo Blanco, Houston Department of Health and Human 

 3 Services, (NACCA) 

 4 Randy Schiefer, Norbord 

 5 Cynthia Redwine, American Lung Association of the 

 6 Central States 

 7 Matthew Caves, Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

 8 Quality 

 9 David Bonistall, NewPage Corporation 

 10 Pat Moore, NewPage Corporation 

 11 James Klein, Corpus Christi Clean Economy Coalition 

 12 Jason Frederick, American Chemistry Council 

 13 Hilton Kelly, Community Empowering Developing 

 14 Association 

 15 Rosalia Guerrero, Community citizen 

 16 Elana Craft, Environmental Defense Fund 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 5 

 1 C O N T E N T S 

 2 

 3 Page 

 4 Introductory Remarks..................................7 

 5 Raviya Ismail........................................15 

 6 Stan Webb............................................19 

 7 Gray Skipper.........................................24 

 8 Andy Mangan..........................................27 

 9 Shari Keller.........................................33 

 10 Matthew Tejada.......................................37 

 11 Ricardo DeLaCruz..................................43 

 12 Tom Rockwood.........................................44 

 13 Zac Trahan...........................................49 

 14 Virginia Fugman......................................52 

 15 Diane Aguirre........................................54 

 16 George Christian.....................................55 

 17 Eddie Burch..........................................58 

 18 Jim Simon............................................64 

 19 Edward Harrington....................................68 

 20 Martin Rollins.......................................73 

 21 Don Grimm............................................78 

 22 Jan Prusinski........................................85 

 23 Scott O'Hara.........................................89 

 24 Ben Johnson..........................................91 

 25 Phillip Huffeldt.....................................96 
 6 

 1 Laura Gibson........................................100 

 2 Drew Covert.........................................101 

 3 Vance Nobe..........................................103 

 4 Chris Kevlin........................................107 

 5 Scott Moorhead......................................110 

 6 David Cothren.......................................115 

 7 Scarlett Russell....................................119 

 8 Bridgett Yawn.......................................123 

 9 Shannon Simkins.....................................126 

 10 Lyla Lagner.........................................128 

 11 Laura Hutchinson....................................132 

 12 Arturo Blanco.......................................138 

 13 Randy Schiefer......................................143 

 14 Cynthia Redwine.....................................147 

 15 Matthew Caves.......................................150 

 16 David Bonistall.....................................155 

 17 Pat Moore...........................................159 

 18 James Klein.........................................163 

 19 Jason Frederick.....................................166 

 20 Hilton Kelly........................................169 

 21 Rosalia Guerrero....................................173 

 22 Elana Craft.........................................177 

 23 Adjourn.............................................181 

 24 

 25 
 7 

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Good morning, and thank you 

 3 for attending today's public hearing on the 

 4 Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rules for 

 5 industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and 

 6 process heaters, commercial and industrial solid waste 

 7 incinerators, and the identification of non-hazardous 

 8 secondary materials that are also solid waste. We 

 9 appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedules to 

 10 address these proposals, and we look forward to hearing 

 11 your comments throughout the day. 

 12 My name is Bob Wayland; I am the group 

 13 leader of the Energy Strategies group in the Sector 

 14 Policies and Programs Division of the Office of Air 

 15 Quality Planning and Standards, which is part of EPA's 

 16 Office of Air and Radiation. I will be chairing today's 

 17 hearing. 

 18 Joining me today on the panel are: Marc 

 19 Thomas, who is in the Program Implementation and 

 20 Information Division of EPA's Office of Resource 

 21 Conservation and Recovery; and Ken Boyce, who is from 

 22 the EPA Region 6 office. Thank you guys for joining us 

 23 today. 

 24 MR. BOYCE: You're welcome. 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: We are here today to listen 
 8 

 1 to your comments on the four proposed rules that EPA 

 2 announced on April 30th of this year. The proposed 

 3 rules were also published in the Federal Register on 

 4 June 4th, 2010. 

 5 Before we begin this hearing, I would like 

 6 to provide you some background and briefly describe the 

 7 four proposals we are here to take comment on today. 

 8 Together, these proposed rules will significantly cut 

 9 emissions of pollutants such as mercury and lead, along 

 10 with a number of other pollutants from nearly 200,000 

 11 units across the United States. 

 12 Boilers and solid waste incinerators are 

 13 subject to different sections of the Clean Air Act; 

 14 Section 112, for boilers, and Section 129, for 

 15 incinerators. EPA has previously issued rules 

 16 addressing these units. These rules were challenged in 

 17 court. 

 18 As a result, EPA had to reissue the rules 

 19 for boilers. The Agency also must determine which 

 20 non-hazardous secondary materials are -- or are not -- 

 21 considered solid wastes when they are burned. 

 22 Previously, the EPA has left this decision to individual 

 23 states which implement non-hazardous solid waste 

 24 programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

 25 Act. 
 9 

 1 On April 29 of this year, the EPA 

 2 administrator signed four proposed rules under the Clean 

 3 Air Act, and one rule under RCRA. 

 4 The first proposed rule is the National 

 5 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

 6 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 

 7 Process Heaters that are located at major sources of 

 8 hazardous air pollutants. This proposed rule is 

 9 commonly known as the Boiler MACT. 

 10 For these sources, EPA is proposing 

 11 emissions standards for new and existing large boilers 

 12 based on the maximum achievable control technology -- or 

 13 M-A-C-T -- MACT. EPA anticipates that coal-, oil-, and 

 14 biomass-fired boilers that currently do not have 

 15 emissions controls will need to install controls in 

 16 order to meet these proposed standards. For gas-powered 

 17 boilers, which have lower air toxics emissions, EPA is 

 18 proposing to require these sources to conduct an annual 

 19 tune-up; and for all existing sources to require an 

 20 on-site energy audit to identify cost-effective means of 

 21 reducing fuel use. 

 22 The second proposed rule is the National 

 23 Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

 24 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers that 

 25 are smaller, or "area" sources of hazardous air 
 10 

 1 pollutants. For these boilers, EPA's proposed standards 

 2 would require sources to reduce emissions by 

 3 implementing measures that will optimize and reduce fuel 

 4 use. EPA also is proposing to require certain 

 5 coal-fired units to install emissions controls to 

 6 capture mercury and other hazardous metals. EPA is not 

 7 proposing emissions standards for gas-fired boilers as 

 8 part of the area source rule. This means that proposed 

 9 rules would not apply to gas-fired boilers located at 

 10 small businesses, local governments, schools, and 

 11 religious institutions. 

 12 The third proposed rule is the amendments 

 13 to EPA's New Source Performance Standards and Emission 

 14 Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

 15 Incinerators, which we commonly refer to as the 

 16 C-I-S-W-I or CISWI rule. EPA is proposing new source 

 17 performance standards and emission guidelines for five 

 18 CISWI subcategories. As required by the Clean Air Act, 

 19 this rule includes proposed numerical emissions 

 20 standards for particulate matter, opacity, sulfur 

 21 dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon 

 22 monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins/furans 

 23 emissions. 

 24 The CISWI and boiler regulations are very 

 25 closely related, because similar units may be considered 
 11 

 1 boilers or incinerators based on whether they burn solid 

 2 waste materials. 

 3 The fourth proposal -- proposed rule 

 4 clarifies which non-hazardous secondary materials are 

 5 solid waste when burned in a combustion unit. In 

 6 general, non-hazardous secondary materials burned in 

 7 combustion units would be considered solid wastes except 

 8 for those non-hazardous secondary materials that fall 

 9 into any of the following four categories: One, 

 10 materials used as legitimate fuels that remain within 

 11 the control of the generator; two, materials that are 

 12 legitimately used as ingredients; three, discarded 

 13 non-hazardous secondary materials that have been 

 14 sufficiently processed into legitimate fuel or 

 15 ingredient product, and finally; four, non-hazardous 

 16 secondary materials used as a fuel that does not remain 

 17 within the control of the generator for which EPA grants 

 18 a facility's petition for a "non-solid waste" 

 19 determination. 

 20 This proposal recognizes that traditional 

 21 fuels are not solid wastes when burned in a combustion 

 22 unit. Traditional fuels are those fuels that have been 

 23 historically managed as valuable fuel products rather 

 24 than being managed as waste materials. 

 25 The rule also takes comment on an 
 12 

 1 "alternative approach" that would broaden the universe 

 2 of non-hazardous secondary materials considered to be 

 3 solid waste. 

 4 EPA is required by court order issued by 

 5 the United States District Court for the District of 

 6 Columbia to take final action on these proposed rules no 

 7 later than December 16, 2010. EPA intends to take final 

 8 action by the same date on the proposed rule that 

 9 identifies materials that are non-hazardous solid waste 

 10 under RCRA. 

 11 More details about the opposed amendments 

 12 and instructions for submitting public comments are 

 13 available in the registration area outside the back 

 14 door. We also have prepared a list of topics on which 

 15 the Agency is specifically requesting comment. That's 

 16 also available in the registration area, and it may be 

 17 helpful to you as you are commenting today for 

 18 submitting written comments later to EPA. The Agency 

 19 will accept written comments until midnight August 3rd, 

 20 2010. 

 21 Now, let me turn to the comment portion of 

 22 today's hearing, which is why you're all here. 

 23 Today's hearing will work as follows: I 

 24 will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone two 

 25 at a time over here to my left. When it's time for you 
 13 

 1 to speak, please state your name, your affiliation, and 

 2 the rule or rules your verbal comments are addressing. 

 3 We may ask you to spell your name for the court 

 4 reporter, who is transcribing your comments for the 

 5 official record and the docket. 

 6 To be fair to everyone, we ask that you 

 7 limit your testimony to six minutes each. We have a 

 8 timekeeping system consisting of a green, yellow, and 

 9 red light. When you begin speaking, the green light 

 10 will come on, the yellow light will signal that you have 

 11 two minutes left, and we will ask you to stop speaking 

 12 when the red light comes on. 

 13 However, please remain at the table until 

 14 both speakers have completed their testimony. We are 

 15 having some technical difficulties with the red, green 

 16 and yellow lights so I have some signs that we may have 

 17 to use until we can get the -- the box switched out and 

 18 replaced, but I'll just stick them here and try not to 

 19 distract you. But hopefully it'll work, but if it 

 20 doesn't, we'll go to the old-fashioned method. 

 21 We are here today to hear your comments on 

 22 these proposed rules. However, from to time to time, 

 23 anyone on the panel may ask you a clarifying question so 

 24 that we can better understand your comments and so that 

 25 they can be transcribed for the record. 
 14 

 1 If you have brought a written copy of your 

 2 comments with you today, please give a copy to the court 

 3 reporter at my right. All written copies of comments 

 4 will be submitted into the docket. We will work hard to 

 5 insure that everyone has an opportunity to comment. 

 6 Today's hearing is scheduled to close at 8:00 p.m. 

 7 tonight, but we will stay later into the night, if 

 8 necessary, to ensure that everyone gets a chance to 

 9 speak their opinions. We will take breaks for meals 

 10 during the day and they are outlined at the registration 

 11 materials out front so you know when those will occur. 

 12 If you would like to testify but have not 

 13 yet registered to do so, you can sign up out front with 

 14 one of the folks at the registration table. For those 

 15 of you who have already registered to speak, we have 

 16 tried to accommodate your request for specific time 

 17 slots. However, we do have some openings and are 

 18 willing to move things around to accommodate your 

 19 schedules, so just let someone at the back know if you 

 20 need to shift your time. 

 21 For speakers presenting testimony in 

 22 Spanish, please ensure that the indicated translation 

 23 needs -- your indicated translation needs at the 

 24 registration desk. Prior to speaking, please pick up a 

 25 headset, which is located over here by the -- the box to 
 15 

 1 the right and alert the panel and the reporter that you 

 2 will need translation so that these participants can be 

 3 prepared to hear your translated testimony and/or 

 4 translate it to us so that we may understand it. 

 5 Panelists may ask you to clarify comments you made 

 6 during your testimony and you will need to wear one of 

 7 the headsets so you can get the translation to hear our 

 8 comments or our questions in your native language. 

 9 We ask for your patience as we proceed 

 10 through this list of speakers. We -- we may need to 

 11 make some minor adjustments as the day progresses. But 

 12 again, thanks for coming. We look forward to hearing 

 13 your comments. And with that, we'll start the hearing. 

 14 The first two speakers I would like to call to the table 

 15 to my left, Raviya Ismail and Stan Webb. 

 16 (Speakers approach.) 

 17 MR. WAYLAND: Ms. Ismail, the speaker is 

 18 yours. 

 19 MS. ISMAIL: Okay. Good morning, 

 20 everyone. My name is Raviya Ismail, that's R-A-V-I-Y-A, 

 21 I-S-M-A-I-L, and I represent Earthjustice, a non-profit 

 22 environmental law firm dedicated to protecting the 

 23 magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of 

 24 this earth, and to defending the right of all people to 

 25 a healthy environment. I'm here on behalf of our 
 16 

 1 200,000 supporters who want clean air and strong 

 2 protections, but were not able to attend today's public 

 3 hearing. We sent an e-mail to our supporters asking 

 4 them to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

 5 Agency's Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process 

 6 Heaters and Commercial Industrial Solid Waste 

 7 Incinerators. 

 8 We have received thousands of responses, 

 9 and continue to hear from our supporters who want the 

 10 strongest regulations possible to guaranty clear air in 

 11 Houston and surrounding areas. I'd like to take a few 

 12 comments our supporters sent to us to deliver to you. 

 13 A.J. Franklin, Houston, Texas: "As a 

 14 long-time Houston, Texas resident, I am concerned about 

 15 effects of our polluted air. It is hard enough to work 

 16 and earn a living without having to worry that your 

 17 family will have their health damaged by loopholes in 

 18 the law. As a senior citizen, I would like to live my 

 19 retirement years here in Houston without respiratory 

 20 problems." 

 21 Rodney Derbigny, Sugar Land, Texas: 

 22 "Clean air is critical to health of all beings. Without 

 23 clear air, not only do people suffer from debilitating 

 24 ailments such as asthma, bronchitis, allergic reactions, 

 25 et cetera, but poor air quality affects the environment 
 17 

 1 in an multitude of ways. As a resident of the greater 

 2 Houston area, the air pollution has been a long-time 

 3 problem and menace to the residents and the environment. 

 4 Please do everything in your power to establish and 

 5 enforce regulations to clear the air in Houston and the 

 6 surrounding areas. The regulations and changes need to 

 7 be implemented immediately, not gradually enforced over 

 8 years to come. Thank you in -- in advance for your 

 9 efforts to bring cleaner air to Houston and this country 

 10 as a whole." 

 11 K. Craig Iles, Port Arthur, Texas: "As a 

 12 lifelong asthmatic, caused by the oil refineries, 

 13 chemical plants, and incinerators in Port Arthur where I 

 14 grew up, I can personally speak to the horrible 

 15 suffering the little children are condemned to with 

 16 dirty polluted air. Grandmothers, aunts, uncles all 

 17 died of cancer as did my father, who had colon cancer. 

 18 Please make us proud of the EPA and our current 

 19 administration by doing the right thing for the benefit 

 20 of the citizens." 

 21 Karon Allen, Cypress, Texas: "As someone 

 22 who lives in Harris County, Texas, I fully understand 

 23 the need for cleaner air. It does no good to produce an 

 24 economy that destroys our environment." 

 25 Carina Lobel-West, Houston, Texas: "For 
 18 

 1 our childrens' childrens' future lives, and all that 

 2 lives and breathes this air, please reduce emissions of 

 3 toxic air pollutants from industrial boilers!" 

 4 Anne Utech, Houston, Texas: "I can always 

 5 tell when I return to Houston from a long trip -- the 

 6 acrid smell of Houston is distinct and depressing. When 

 7 I am gone more than a couple weeks, returning to Houston 

 8 can give me flu-like or allergy-type symptoms, neither 

 9 of which I routinely suffer from. The best thing about 

 10 leaving Houston for a weekend or other trip is being 

 11 able to breathe deeply without -- without that very 

 12 distinct smell or feeling that you're breathing bad air. 

 13 Please don't let it get any worse." 

 14 Lisha Doucet, Houston, Texas: "Thank you 

 15 for your recent plans to reduce emissions of toxic air 

 16 pollutants like mercury, lead, and dioxins from 

 17 industrial boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, 

 18 but I think you could have gone much further. Please 

 19 consider strengthening your standards to protect 

 20 health." 

 21 Dianne Travis, Richmond, Texas: "Houston 

 22 has a disproportionate share of people with breathing 

 23 difficulties. Children with asthma are commonplace now. 

 24 Some parts of Houston simply stink from the fumes of 

 25 incinerators." 
 19 

 1 Karen White, Houston, Texas: "Dear EPA, 

 2 Houston has become a cesspool in terms of air quality 

 3 and unhealthy water. This can be changed but not 

 4 without you taking your job seriously and working for 

 5 the highest good." 

 6 Maria Gelat, Kingwood, Texas: "Dear EPA, 

 7 It is unbelievable to me that in this day in age, people 

 8 have to fight corporations to have their right to 

 9 breathe unpolluted air. Do these corporate CEO's have 

 10 children, grandchildren? Do they ever listen to 

 11 scientists, or do they like to stay ignorant?" 

 12 Finally, I'm wearing a T-shirt that read, 

 13 "Don't Trash Our Lungs." It's as simple as that. Thank 

 14 you. 

 15 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Marc 

 16 or Ken, do you have any clarifying questions for 

 17 Ms. Ismail? 

 18 MR. BOYCE: No. 

 19 MR. THOMAS: No. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 21 MR. WEBB: My name is Stan Webb, S-T-A-N, 

 22 W-E-B-B, and I'm speaking on behalf of Weyerhaeuser 

 23 Company. I work for Weyerhaeuser, and I'm a manager of 

 24 a lumber mill in Philadelphia, Mississippi. In 

 25 Philadelphia, we have two boilers that burn renewable 
 20 

 1 biomass that will be subject to the major source Boiler 

 2 MACT group. In fact, Weyerhaeuser has some 40 boilers 

 3 and process heaters at 28 product mills and pulp mills 

 4 located across the U.S. and will be subject to the 

 5 Boiler MACT or the area source boiler areas as proposed 

 6 by EPA. 

 7 Because meeting the Boiler MACT 

 8 requirements for our fleet of boilers would both 

 9 economically and technically challenge, we are keenly 

 10 interested in providing input and thank you for the 

 11 opportunity to do so today. 

 12 We also intend to provide additional 

 13 written comments detailing technical concerns during the 

 14 comment period. You can tell I don't do this for a 

 15 living. Weyerhaeuser has long-supported efforts to 

 16 address serious health threats from air emissions. 

 17 However, we also believe that air regulations can and 

 18 should be balanced so that both our environment is 

 19 protected and jobs are sustained. 

 20 This is especially critical as we get -- 

 21 as we and the rest of the country try to merge and 

 22 recover from one of the most significant recessions in 

 23 the nation's history. Our initial evaluations of the 

 24 proposed rules indicate the cost impacts will be a 

 25 serious challenge to most of the current running mills. 
 21 

 1 Additionally, the cost impacts hit just as 

 2 the economic conditions might otherwise allow facilities 

 3 that currently are shut down to restart. For example, 

 4 extreme costs may prohibit restarting some of our 

 5 wood-product facilities that were curtailed due to 

 6 impacts of the recession on the housing market. This 

 7 result -- this result would be opposite to the 

 8 administration goals of rebuilding jobs. It would be a 

 9 devastating blow to the families and the communities 

 10 dependent on these facilities. 

 11 In fact, to give these costs some scaled 

 12 perspectives, the Wood Products Council, in which we are 

 13 members, compiled a projected cost to comply with the 

 14 proposed rules for some 34 broilers at forest product 

 15 industry facilities in the State of Mississippi where my 

 16 mill is located. Those costs projections totaled 

 17 $290 million. And incredibly, that amount is more than 

 18 a quarter of the total forest product industry's profits 

 19 in 2008 and 2009 in the U.S. 

 20 While I'm not ready to discuss specific 

 21 cost projections for my facility, the figures for the 

 22 forest product industry in Mississippi are indicative. 

 23 In Philadelphia, we would need to consider adding on at 

 24 least three control devices to address at least four of 

 25 the five hazardous air pollutants that EPA has proposed 
 22 

 1 to strengthen and regulate on the Boiler MACT group, and 

 2 we would have to do so not knowing whether the controls 

 3 with extremely low levels of pollutants such as mercury 

 4 and dioxides would be effective or could even be 

 5 measured with certain. There's got to be a better way. 

 6 What we'd like EPA to do with the cost impacts for the 

 7 rules that are proposed so large, and numerous technical 

 8 issues that others will detail, we urge EPA to make this 

 9 a win-win and use its discretion and improve the rules 

 10 significantly to reduce the compliant's cost. 

 11 Weyerhaeuser believes EPA can do this by 

 12 adjusting the stringency of the limits, by modifying its 

 13 approach to defining what is technically achievable, by 

 14 allowing use of health-based compliance alternatives 

 15 where appropriate in lieu of the hydrogen chloride and 

 16 manganese limits as EPA did in the original Boiler MACT, 

 17 by establishing an exclusive work practice or other 

 18 approach for limited-use boilers, by streamlining the 

 19 performance tests, monitoring and other compliance 

 20 demonstration requirements such as that are aligned with 

 21 emission testing and reporting requirements for other 

 22 air emission regulations by streamlining performance -- 

 23 by eliminating carbon monoxide limits for biomass 

 24 boilers under the area source rule, and its -- and 

 25 instead regulating these small sources using the tune-up 
 23 

 1 work practice requirements, and by using the 

 2 non-hazardous secondary materials solid waste definition 

 3 rule that backs up the national goals for energy 

 4 independence and waste minimization by clearly and 

 5 easily qualifying residual materials as fuels. 

 6 For Weyerhaeuser and the forest product 

 7 industry, it's important that the residuals such as 

 8 resinate, sander dust, and panel trim biomass, and waste 

 9 water treatment biomass solids, as well as other 

 10 alternative fuels that arise in the future are treated 

 11 as fuels under these rules. Thank you for consideration 

 12 of my comments. 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Y'all 

 14 don't have any clarifying questions for Mr. Webb? 

 15 (No verbal response.) 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: I have one question. I'm 

 17 kind of serving a dual role here. I'm also the hearing 

 18 officer, but I'm also the technical expert from the air 

 19 office and I had one question for you. 

 20 You mentioned a lot of these different 

 21 things you would like to see considered as the Agency 

 22 moves forward. Will you, as Weyerhaeuser, or as the 

 23 America Forest Products Association, will you guys be 

 24 submitting any commercial data during the coming -- any 

 25 written to support some of these different approaches 
 24 

 1 that you're asking for? 

 2 MR. WEBB: Yes, sir. 

 3 MR. WAYLAND: Okay, great. Thank you. 

 4 Thank you very much. 

 5 MS. ISMAIL: Thank you. 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: We will move on to our 

 7 next -- and I apologize to you. She's bringing some 

 8 water for the speakers. It was kind of rude of us to 

 9 have water here and not give you guys a chance to have 

 10 it, as well, so I apologize for that. 

 11 We're going to move on to our next two 

 12 speakers, Gray Skipper and Andy Mangan. If you'll come 

 13 up and take a seat, please. 

 14 (Speakers approach.) 

 15 MR. WAYLAND: And Mr. Skipper, you can 

 16 start when you're ready. 

 17 MR. SKIPPER: Good morning. Thank you for 

 18 this opportunity to be able to speak, and I'm speaking 

 19 on behalf of Scotch Plywood Company, which is a family 

 20 business started in 1964. At Scotch Plywood, we have 

 21 gone from 45 million feet, 1964, to 320 million feet. 

 22 We currently employ 350 employees and have three 

 23 facilities in Waynesboro, Mississippi, Beatrice, 

 24 Alabama, and Fulton Alabama. 

 25 Our annual payroll is in excess of $15 
 25 

 1 million, and we spend over $48 million a year in our 

 2 respective communities. We are active and very 

 3 fortunate to be located in our communities. It's in the 

 4 rural areas of southwest Alabama and southwest 

 5 Mississippi. The recent downturn was not friendly to 

 6 our competitors. We have lost four sawmills, one 

 7 engineer wood products facility, one veneer facility, 

 8 and two plywood mills completely shut down in our 

 9 operating areas. This is representative of the recent 

 10 statistics of unemployment. 

 11 In our area in Alabama where it's 16.4 

 12 percent unemployment, and in Mississippi, we're at 

 13 12.3 percent unemployment. We survived, Scotch Plywood 

 14 did, and we have rehired and we're back in full 

 15 production. We contributed to the safe -- we think -- 

 16 environmental responses in a responsible manner. We 

 17 have complied with the plywood MACT and now we're faced 

 18 with the Boiler MACT. 

 19 Our estimate of costs is going to be 

 20 somewhere in excess of $2 million to comply as the 

 21 Boiler MACT is presented today. Waynesboro, Mississippi 

 22 will have to spend around a half a million dollars and 

 23 increase our costs -- our guess, best guess -- is two 

 24 and a half percent. That doesn't seem like much. 

 25 That's a small number, two and a half percent, but our 
 26 

 1 margins are small, and nonexistent the last year and a 

 2 half, the other way. 

 3 So we're forced to look at other 

 4 decisions. The decisions for us is pretty simple. 

 5 We'll make this investment, which will exceed $2 million 

 6 at the two facilities in the current -- or our best 

 7 estimate of the future economic environment, and we make 

 8 partial investments and run economically at a reduced 

 9 rate at both facilities or close our facilities. 

 10 So as we look at that, B and C cause us to 

 11 lay off personnel significantly impacting our local 

 12 communities. Unemployment nationally is 9 and a half 

 13 percent; we're in excess of 12 to 16 percent. We will 

 14 get back to the housing starts, economically, we will, 

 15 but we'll -- or we're going to regulate ourselves out of 

 16 being competitive. That's the question that we -- are 

 17 we going to continue to have our production capacity to 

 18 our neighbors to the south, South America? 

 19 Most importantly, what Scotch Plywood 

 20 would like to be consider is the public health option 

 21 that was considered in the plywood MACT, also available 

 22 for the Boiler MACT. Thank you for your time. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 24 clarifying questions? 

 25 MR. THOMAS: No, sir. 
 27 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: I'll ask the same one I 

 2 asked of the last gentleman. In terms of the health 

 3 rate compliance alternates that -- that you're asking us 

 4 to consider, will you guys be giving us any more data or 

 5 information to support that approach in your written 

 6 comments? 

 7 MR. SKIPPER: We will. 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. Our next 

 9 speaker is Andy Mangan. 

 10 MR. MANGAN: Thank you. Good morning. My 

 11 name is Andrew Mangan, M-A-N-G-A-N, and I'm the 

 12 executive director of the United States Business Council 

 13 for Sustainable Development. I am here to comment on 

 14 the proposed rule regarding Identification of 

 15 Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes. 

 16 The United States Business Council for 

 17 Sustainable Development, or USBCSD, or Business Council 

 18 is a network of companies representing 20 major 

 19 industrial sectors affiliated with the World Business 

 20 Council for Sustainable Development, another 200 

 21 companies from around the world that are all seeking to 

 22 identify and promote projects and business activities 

 23 demonstrating the business case for sustainability for 

 24 the triple bottom line that is economic, environment, 

 25 and societal values. 
 28 

 1 One of our most successful projects in the 

 2 United States is called By-Product Synergy. By-Product 

 3 Synergy is the matching of under-valued by-products, 

 4 transportation, water, energy and other streams from one 

 5 facility with potential users at another facility to 

 6 create new revenues or savings, and create environmental 

 7 and societal benefits. Stated simply, By-Product 

 8 Synergy is identifying how a secondary material from one 

 9 process can be used as a resource in another process. 

 10 The U.S. Business Council started working 

 11 on by-products synergy in 1997 with the support US EPA 

 12 as a co-funder of the first project in Tampico, Mexico. 

 13 Since that initial collaborative project, we have 

 14 collected more than a dozen regional synergy products 

 15 across North America including projects in Kansas City, 

 16 New Jersey, Puget Sound, Mobile, Alabama, Chicago, Ohio, 

 17 Dallas, and Houston. We have projects developing 

 18 currently in the east San Francisco Bay, south Boston 

 19 and Austin, Texas. 

 20 Hundreds of companies along with city and 

 21 state governments and regional non- -- nongovernmental 

 22 organizations have participated with us in these 

 23 projects producing hundreds of synergies that have saved 

 24 tens of millions of dollars while significantly cutting 

 25 energy, water, air emissions of all kinds, and waste to 
 29 

 1 landfills. These projects have developed over the past 

 2 13 years with strong policy support, and often 

 3 significant funding support, from US EPA regional and 

 4 headquarters offices. All of this is to say that U.S. 

 5 industries have identified and implemented many 

 6 different by-products synergies that provide 

 7 environmental benefits, promote energy independence, 

 8 preserve natural resources, and save money. 

 9 In the Advanced Notice of Proposed 

 10 Rulemaking, EPA identified a wide variety of successful 

 11 by-product synergies and the environmental benefits they 

 12 provide. For example, use of -- of scrap tires or 

 13 tire-derived fuel has resulted in a significant decrease 

 14 in the number of tires destined for landfill disposal, a 

 15 reduction in some types of air emissions, and 

 16 elimination of the environmental impact associated with 

 17 obtaining raw virgin fuel sources. Used oil burned for 

 18 energy recovery results in significantly lower NOx 

 19 emissions than fuel oil, and also eliminates the 

 20 greenhouse gas emissions associated with upstream 

 21 production of fossil fuels. Cutoff of coal fly ash in 

 22 cement kiln dust and coal refutes were also identified 

 23 in the advantaged notice. 

 24 By-Product Synergy projects are becoming a 

 25 worldwide phenomenon. The European union has made it a 
 30 

 1 central element of the sustainability and issues, and in 

 2 the United Kingdom, the British government has funded 

 3 by-products synergy a national waste management energy 

 4 efficiency and climate control program, though being 

 5 English they call it industrial semiosis. This is 

 6 the -- this program has been cited by more than a 

 7 hundred members of the English parliament as one of the 

 8 most productive and effective government-supported 

 9 initiatives underway. Japan, Australia, Portugal, China 

 10 and other countries are all pursuing the same kind of 

 11 efficiency program. 

 12 In the United States, By-Product Synergy 

 13 is an essential element of EPA's stated goals for the 

 14 proposed rule as waste management generally include -- 

 15 including maximizing the usefulness of secondary 

 16 materials, reducing wastes, conserving energy, reducing 

 17 air emissions, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

 18 The business council supports any measure that will 

 19 remove unnecessary barriers to and provide greater 

 20 incentives for By-Product Synergy projects. 

 21 Accordingly, the business council and its 

 22 member companies are very interested in the proposed 

 23 rules -- rule regarding the identification of 

 24 non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes. 

 25 We have, however, grave concerns about the proposed rule 
 31 

 1 because it appears to severely limit effective 

 2 by-product synergies, and did so without any 

 3 corresponding benefit to human health or the 

 4 environment. 

 5 In fact, the effect of the rule will 

 6 likely be an increase in air emissions, greater use of 

 7 virgin natural resources, and increase in energy 

 8 consumption, more waste in landfills, more greenhouse 

 9 gas emissions, and increase administrative burden on 

 10 EPA, and increased costs for the regulated community. 

 11 The business council believes that the 

 12 proposed rules focus on whether a non-hazardous 

 13 secondary material fuel remains in possession of the 

 14 generator to not be a necessary or determining factor in 

 15 whether a secondary material is a waste. The council 

 16 believes that the framework set forth in the advanced 

 17 notice of proposed rulemaking properly places the focus 

 18 on the beneficial use of the secondary material. 

 19 For reasons not clearly or adequately set 

 20 forth in the proposed rule, EPA abandoned the reasonable 

 21 approach in the advanced notice, an approached that 

 22 would have promoted by-product synergies while remaining 

 23 protective of human health and the environment. We're 

 24 still -- in addition to the making of -- making use of 

 25 current by-product synergies either impossible or 
 32 

 1 prohibitively burdensome, complicated or expensive, the 

 2 regulatory hurdles in the proposed rule will likely 

 3 discourage research and collaboration, as well as 

 4 innovation into additional by-product synergies and 

 5 supporting technologies. 

 6 The business council would submit written 

 7 comments with additional data that explain our concerns 

 8 in greater detail and includes specific examples. I 

 9 appreciate the time to share the business council's 

 10 thoughts and concerns regarding the proposed rule. 

 11 Thank you. 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 13 clarifying questions from you guys? 

 14 MR. THOMAS: No. 

 15 MR. BOYCE: No. 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 17 Appreciate your testimony. The next two speakers I'd 

 18 like to call are Matthew Tejada and Shari Keller. 

 19 (Speakers approach.) 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Tejada, do you want to 

 21 start? If you guys want to flip, that's fine. If 

 22 you're ready, it's fine. 

 23 MS. KELLER: I'm ready. 

 24 MR. TEJADA: She's ready. Let her go. 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: Not a problem. 
 33 

 1 MS. KELLER: Good morning. My name is 

 2 Shari Keller, S-H-A-R-I, K-E-L-L-E-R. I'm a senior 

 3 staff environmental engineer with Shell Oil Products in 

 4 the United States. My comments today are on behalf of 

 5 the API, the American Petroleum Institute, and NPRA, the 

 6 National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. API is 

 7 the primary trade association of America's oil and 

 8 natural gas industry, representing more than 400 members 

 9 involved in all aspects of the industry. NPRA is a 

 10 national trade association representing more than 450 

 11 members, including virtually all U.S. refiners and 

 12 petrochemical manufacturers. 

 13 First and foremost, we support work 

 14 practices for natural- and refinery-gas units, as 

 15 proposed, and believe that this approach should also 

 16 extend to fuel gas from petrochemical operations. A 

 17 sound national energy and regulatory policy must 

 18 recognize the important role gaseous fuels play both in 

 19 our economy and in reducing conventional pollutants and 

 20 greenhouse gases. 

 21 With regard to oil-fired units, it cannot 

 22 have been Congress's intent for EPA to set emission 

 23 limits, or MACT floors, for multiple hazardous air 

 24 pollutants without addressing or demonstrating whether 

 25 or not the limits are achievable in combination. For 
 34 

 1 this rulemaking, there is no indication from the data 

 2 collected that even one of the "best performers" is 

 3 achieving all the proposed emission limits today. There 

 4 are unintended consequences of proposing emission 

 5 standards that would require the installation of control 

 6 devices that have not been demonstrated to achieve the 

 7 proposed numeric emission limits and that would, in 

 8 actuality, increase energy consumption and increase 

 9 emissions. 

 10 API/NPRA members have oil-fired boilers 

 11 and heaters located in Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. island 

 12 territories, areas that do not have gas supplies 

 13 available, where the option of switching to a different 

 14 fuel does not exist. The overly stringent proposed 

 15 standards for oil-fired units will likely mean that a 

 16 number of existing boilers and heaters will have to be 

 17 replaced with new units due to the infeasibility of 

 18 retrofitting existing units with pollution control 

 19 devices capable of achieving the proposed standards. We 

 20 are operating in a business climate in which our members 

 21 are evaluating their operation assets to determine 

 22 whether they will remain economically viable. A 

 23 regulatory mandate for significant capital investment to 

 24 replace equipment and install new controls could well 

 25 contribute to a decision to simply shut down some 
 35 

 1 facilities. 

 2 Second, there appears to be a shift in the 

 3 method that EPA ses to set emission limits and we all 

 4 know its name... Franken MACT. Franken MACT "lives" 

 5 when EPA sets emission limits based on the best 

 6 performing units on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis 

 7 without considering whether or not those limits are 

 8 achievable in combination. In fact, in this rulemaking, 

 9 EPA has used emissions in calculating numerical limits 

 10 that are at the very bounds of our ability to even 

 11 measure the pollutant. This is a drastic shift from 

 12 EPA's historical technology-based approach, practiced 

 13 and proven effective over the past 30 years. EPA's new 

 14 floor MACT policy is setting extreme limits that are 

 15 drastically different than EPA's proposed GACT limits, 

 16 resulting in confusion about the real health risk of 

 17 such units. EPA needs to return to setting achievable 

 18 standards that are based on sound science. 

 19 There are unintended consequences of 

 20 requiring the installation of pollution control devices 

 21 that have not been demonstrated collectively to achieve 

 22 the standards. For instance, the proposed CO for gas- 

 23 and liquid-fired units will require operating at much 

 24 higher oxygen levels than typical, which will lead to 

 25 increased fuel use, and as a result, increased CO2 
 36 

 1 emissions. Remarkably, the proposal does not indicate 

 2 how the low CO levels will be achieved. Are we to take 

 3 this as an indication that EPA's own analysis shows that 

 4 it is unachievable? To complicate matters, EPA has also 

 5 included in the proposed rule precedent-setting energy 

 6 assessment and ongoing energy management requirements 

 7 that apply well beyond the source category, which we 

 8 believe will further highlight the inconsistency between 

 9 low CO levels and the optimum operation of boilers and 

 10 process heaters. 

 11 In closing, we support work practices for 

 12 natural- and refinery-gas units, as proposed, and 

 13 believe EPA should explicitly extend the work practice 

 14 to include fuel gas from petrochemical operations. EPA 

 15 should establish achievable limits for oil-fired units, 

 16 giving operators the flexibility they need to maximize 

 17 combustion efficiency and thereby minimize emissions. 

 18 Our detailed written comments will expand 

 19 on the points raised and will include additional 

 20 information on the standards for both gas and oil-fired 

 21 units. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to 

 22 provide this testimony. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 24 clarifying questions? 

 25 MR. BOYCE: No, sir. 
 37 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you very much. 

 2 Mr. Tejada? 

 3 MR. TEJADA: Thank you for letting me go 

 4 second. 

 5 MR. WAYLAND: Not a problem. 

 6 MR. TEJADA: My name's Matthew Tejada. 

 7 I'm the executive director of Air Alliance Houston, 

 8 formerly the Galveston Houston Association for Smog 

 9 Prevention and Mothers for Clean Air. We've recently 

 10 re-branded ourselves as Air Alliance Houston, but we 

 11 continue to be Houston's leading health and clean air 

 12 advocacy non-profit. 

 13 I'd like to thank the EPA not only for 

 14 taking on these new rules, which will improve protection 

 15 of public health, but I'd like to thank you for coming 

 16 to Houston. We always love seeing the EPA in Houston 

 17 and it seems to be a fairly popular spot for you y'all. 

 18 A few specific things in the rules, however, I -- we 

 19 think are a little weaker than they should be. 

 20 Specifically, there should be a better 

 21 delineation of definitions of boilers and incinerators 

 22 to ensure that facilities are clear on exactly what is a 

 23 boiler and what is an incinerator. As well, we believe 

 24 that the definition of solid waste is too lenient. 

 25 There has been a lot of talk over the past couple of 
 38 

 1 years from EPA about protecting environmental justice 

 2 communities ensuring that environmental justice is a 

 3 part of the decision-making process of everything that 

 4 EPA takes on. 

 5 I think that this is a clear example where 

 6 better protecting and better serving environmental 

 7 justice communities would be better served by a stricter 

 8 interpretation of what is a solid waste; as well, using 

 9 carbon monoxide as a surrogate for other sorts of VOCs, 

 10 especially those which we struggle so mildly with in the 

 11 Houston area. I don't think that, again, is going to 

 12 serve environmental justice communities well. 

 13 I think we need better definitions for 

 14 different pollutants, especially those which have a 

 15 proven tract record of harming public health. Overall 

 16 though we applaud EPA's efforts to strengthen these 

 17 standards or these -- these regulations. For far too 

 18 long, communities especially in the Houston region have 

 19 dealt with excess emissions from things such as 

 20 malfunctions, from things such as boilers and 

 21 incinerators, from a loose use of solid waste. 

 22 At the end of the day, we've heard a lot 

 23 about jobs or costs to industry. Here in Houston, we 

 24 understand that very well. We hear it every time a 

 25 regulation is proposed, every time a standard is 
 39 

 1 strengthened, we hear about jobs, but I think there's 

 2 also a very clear understanding amongst those that 

 3 actually bear the burden of pollution in this region, 

 4 that eventually those costs will get passed on to 

 5 regular citizens. 

 6 And the choice is not between having those 

 7 costs or not having those costs; it's how those costs 

 8 will be borne, and I don't think the EPA needs to have 

 9 another hearing to ask citizens whether they would 

 10 prefer to bear those costs in increased health 

 11 expenditures or increase to consumer goods. I think the 

 12 choice is clear, and I think the EPA is of finally 

 13 starting to get that, that we need to protect public 

 14 held to the maximum, that we need to lead industry to 

 15 innovate, to figure out ways to add control measures 

 16 that reduce energy use, but also reduce air emissions. 

 17 And at the end of the day, folks will pay 

 18 those higher costs for their consumer goods, but they'll 

 19 be able to do so from a point of view where their -- 

 20 where their health has been protected, and I think 

 21 everybody in this region would much prefer to spend a 

 22 little more on their consumer goods and spend a lot less 

 23 on their -- on their health expenditures. So we applaud 

 24 the EPA for pushing forward on this. We think there are 

 25 some things that need to be further improved, further 
 40 

 1 protected, but we support this and I think the 

 2 environmental justice communities of this region will 

 3 support this rule so I thank you for taking it on. 

 4 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 5 questions? 

 6 MR. THOMAS: How are you defining 

 7 "environmental justice communities"? You have to -- I 

 8 know it's a very complicated issue. 

 9 MR. TEJADA: Yeah, the EPA doesn't even 

 10 really have a good definition of environmental justice 

 11 communities, and I think that's one of the things that 

 12 NEJAC is -- is struggling with, as well, finding exactly 

 13 what it means to take environmental justice and give it 

 14 its full measure in the decision-making process, exactly 

 15 where that comes into the decision-making process, 

 16 exactly who are environmental justice communities. 

 17 That's one of the things that I think that 

 18 is most challenging about Houston, is that it's not just 

 19 the usual suspects. I think most of the ten-point 

 20 communities of major industry in the Houston area are 

 21 obviously environmental justice communities following 

 22 the regular interpretations of low socioeconomic levels, 

 23 the racial profile of the community, its proximity to 

 24 major sources, is a good start. 

 25 But especially in Houston, one of the 
 41 

 1 things that my organization has been struggling with a 

 2 lot over the past year is that we are finding small, yet 

 3 major sources of pollution buried within our entire 

 4 community from unusual suspects, such as automotive 

 5 mechanics, things such as metal fabrication or 

 6 foundries. 

 7 So I think these sorts of rules that deal 

 8 very specifically and are very well defined in things 

 9 such as a boiler versus an incinerator or solid waste, 

 10 especially in the Houston region, which I think even by 

 11 a narrow definition of environmental justice community 

 12 would probably have more EJ communities than anywhere 

 13 else in the United States; that is further multiplied 

 14 when you look at Houston itself being the largest city 

 15 without any form of zoning in the United States. 

 16 If you actually pull back the cover of 

 17 Houston, you start to find many communities sprinkled 

 18 throughout the entire region that face very specific, 

 19 but very serious threats from air emissions. We're 

 20 dealing with one about a half mile from downtown right 

 21 now. A historic black community that has a boundary in 

 22 the center of the community, and that boundary from its 

 23 permit, which was only taken out a few years ago, its 

 24 historic operational practices, the emissions and 

 25 locations of the different units within the facility 
 42 

 1 that, that community has been very poorly served by a 

 2 poor regulatory definition of how a boundary of that 

 3 size should operate. 

 4 And this rule or these rules are exactly 

 5 the sort that need to be very specific and very well 

 6 defined in order to better protect exactly those sorts 

 7 of communities that don't have the profile of Manchester 

 8 or Galena Park or Baytown. 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. I want 

 10 to give you a head's-up. We've got a fair amount of 

 11 open slots coming up here in the next hour, so there's a 

 12 potential if you signed up by e-mail or by phone that 

 13 we're going to try to move you up in the program. So if 

 14 you registered in advance, please check with the -- with 

 15 the front desk out there because we you may get moved up 

 16 15, 20, maybe 30 minutes to try to maximize your time so 

 17 that we're not wasting your time having you sit here 

 18 thinking you're going later. So if you signed up in 

 19 advance, check with one of the people out front because 

 20 we may be trying to move things up just a little bit to 

 21 accommodate more people. 

 22 Our next two speakers are Ricardo DeLaCruz 

 23 and Tom Rockwood. And again, let me remind you. If you 

 24 have written comments, please make sure you leave a copy 

 25 with the lady over here who's transcribing everything. 
 43 

 1 It makes it easier on her. 

 2 (Speakers approach.) 

 3 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. DeLaCruz, you can start 

 4 when you're ready. 

 5 MR. DeLaCRUZ: My name is Ricardo 

 6 DeLaCruz, and I am from Edinburg, Texas. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Could you get a little bit 

 8 closer to the mike? 

 9 MR. DeLaCRUZ: My name is Ricardo De La 

 10 Cruz, and I am from Edinburg, Texas. I'm a member of 

 11 the Pulp and Paper Research Council and I have worked at 

 12 International Paper for the past 25 years. Here we make 

 13 corrugated board which is made into corrugated boxes. 

 14 These are used to package citrus produce to tomatoes 

 15 televisions, et cetera. 

 16 We have two containers and a sheet plant 

 17 in the county of Hidalgo, Texas. In total, our plants 

 18 provide 200 green jobs in our county. Many mills around 

 19 the country with good and safe linerboard supply us. If 

 20 these mills were to shut down on the impact of the 

 21 border MACT rules, we would be forced to get our 

 22 linerboard from China or South America. We have 

 23 testimonial that the linerboard is tainted with mercury 

 24 or lead. The American public would not like to have 

 25 these products packaged in these containers which 
 44 

 1 contain mercury or lead. 

 2 Last week, we received a box made in 

 3 Mexico with linerboard from China and no one wanted to 

 4 touch it for the fear it was tainted with mercury or 

 5 lead. Do we want this product coming into the United 

 6 States? This is the effect of the ruling of MACT and 

 7 what it would hold. Trees are the most powerful 

 8 contractors of carbon on earth. The paper industry does 

 9 more to store carbon than any other industry. Forests 

 10 and forest products absorb and store enough carbon 

 11 dioxide to equal 10 percent of annual carbon emissions 

 12 in the United States. This is who we are. We are 

 13 American workers trying to survive. 

 14 I thank you for your time, assistance, and 

 15 helping save American jobs, communities, and keeping 

 16 green jobs in America by examining the raising limits on 

 17 Boiler MACT. 

 18 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Ken or 

 19 Marc, any comments or questions? Thank you very much. 

 20 Mr. Rockwood? 

 21 MR. ROCKWOOD: Good morning. My name is 

 22 Tom Rockwood, executive vice president of Coastal Forest 

 23 Resource Company, retired. I'm a registered 

 24 professional engineer and advisor to Coastal's board of 

 25 directors. 
 45 

 1 Coastal appreciates having the opportunity 

 2 to speak today. Coastal is a small, privately owned 

 3 forest products company that manufactures softwood, 

 4 plywood, lumber, and pressured-treated products. We 

 5 have 700 employees, eight plants, and 250,000 acres of 

 6 timberlands in 11 states on the East Coast. Two-thirds 

 7 of our employees are minorities, and we are the largest 

 8 employer in two of the most economically disadvantaged 

 9 counties in Alabama and Florida. Coastal directly 

 10 supports over 200 truckers, 200 loggers, 1,000 

 11 landowners from whom we buy timber each year, and 

 12 hundreds more suppliers. Coastal indirectly supports 

 13 thousands more. 

 14 The proposed Boiler MACT rule would hit 

 15 the Coastal community very hard economically. Coastal's 

 16 cost to comply might approach $40 million of capital 

 17 costs, which would be a tough pill to swallow for a 

 18 company that is in a super-competitive, low-margin 

 19 industry, and whose annual sales is only $200 million. 

 20 Additional annual operating and maintenance costs could 

 21 approach $2 million a year. Fortunately, Coastal is one 

 22 of the best performers in the industry and would 

 23 probably figure out a way to stay in business. However, 

 24 I can assure you that many companies in our industry, 

 25 most of whom have lost millions of dollars over the past 
 46 

 1 three or four years, would choose to simply stop the 

 2 bleeding and shut down. 

 3 Coastal wishes to make six points 

 4 regarding the proposed rule: One, not enough data. 

 5 Coastal generally agrees with EPA's subcategorization of 

 6 units, but the resulting large number of subcategories 

 7 fractured the database into pieces that are too small to 

 8 be used to confidently establish appropriate limits. 

 9 Coastal believes that Congress's intent was that EPA be 

 10 confident that the limits it sets are appropriate. EPA 

 11 cannot be confident that a limit based on only one or 

 12 two stack tests is appropriate. 

 13 Second, the data is skewed. When EPA 

 14 recognized that it lacked sufficient data, it required 

 15 selected units to generate more data. Those units were 

 16 generally better performing units so the proposed limits 

 17 reflect performance of the best 12 percent of the best 

 18 rather than performance of the best 12 percent of the 

 19 entire population as Congress intended. 

 20 Third, too much non-detect data. 

 21 Non-detect data heavily influenced the proposed limits. 

 22 For example, for D/F, for biomass stokers, all six test 

 23 runs are non-detect, and four of six are non-detect for 

 24 TEQ D/F. Coastal doubts that EPA is confident that the 

 25 proposed limit is appreciated as intended by Congress. 
 47 

 1 Low emissions that are on the same order of magnitude as 

 2 the test detection limit should be deemed insignificant 

 3 and have no limits. 

 4 Fourth, the pollutant-by-pollutant 

 5 approach is wrong. Coastal believes that Congress 

 6 intended the best performing 12 percent units be 

 7 determined based on all pollutants combined, not 

 8 pollutant-by-pollutant as proposed. Coastal requests 

 9 that pollutants be weighed based on -- weighted based on 

 10 relative toxicity, that weighted emission totals be 

 11 calculated for each unit, and the best performing 12 

 12 percent be determined based on those totals. Few, if 

 13 any, boilers can comply today with the proposed rule 

 14 principally because of the proposed 

 15 pollutant-by-pollutant approach; certainly not half of 

 16 the 12 percent or 6 percent. By definition, at least 

 17 6 percent would be able to comply today as Congress 

 18 intended if limits were based on the total emissions of 

 19 the best 12 percent units. 

 20 Fifth, conversion to natural gas. The 

 21 proposed rule would cause many biomass boilers to 

 22 convert to natural gas because that would be the only 

 23 option they could afford. If Coastal switched, its 

 24 annual natural gas cost would be $10 million a year and 

 25 150,000 tons of wood fuel would pile up somewhere. If 
 48 

 1 all U.S. softwood panel and lumber producers switched, 

 2 the annual cost would be $1- to $2 billion, we would 

 3 consume 1- to 2 percent of total U.S. natural gas 

 4 withdraws, which would significantly disrupt the natural 

 5 gas market, and 20 million tons of wood fuel would be 

 6 piled up somewhere to rot, which definitely wouldn't be 

 7 green. 

 8 Number six, the final rule should include 

 9 an option for health-based standards. The proposed rule 

 10 would force many harmless rural facilities that pose 

 11 absolutely no risk to human health or the environment to 

 12 either install unnecessary and costly controls or shut 

 13 down. Coastal encourages EPA to establish health-based 

 14 emission limits to be applied on a facility-by-facility 

 15 basis in order to avoid control where it can be 

 16 demonstrated that emissions are safe. 

 17 Coastal and I thank you for listening and 

 18 considering our comments. 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much, 

 20 Mr. Rockwood. Ken or Marc? 

 21 MR. THOMAS: No, sir. 

 22 MR. WAYLAND: The -- like I've asked the 

 23 other speakers, you mentioned the errors with the -- the 

 24 data and the subcategorization. Will you or one of your 

 25 major trade associations be providing written comments 
 49 

 1 to help us identify where we made those errors and where 

 2 additional data might be helpful? 

 3 MR. ROCKWOOD: Yes, we'll provide some 

 4 specific comments on that. 

 5 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Because I mean, we've 

 6 heard, both in this hearing already today and the 

 7 hearing last week in D.C., that there were problems with 

 8 the data, so helping us understand and identify where 

 9 those problems are will be important to us, so -- 

 10 MR. ROCKWOOD: Well, I'm sure AF and PA 

 11 will provide some comments, but we will, as well. 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you very much. 

 13 Thank you, sir. 

 14 Our next two speakers this morning will be 

 15 Zac Trahan and Virginia Fugman. 

 16 (Speakers approach.) 

 17 MR. WAYLAND: You can start when you're 

 18 ready. 

 19 MR. TRAHAN: First of all, my name's Zac 

 20 Trahan. I'm with the Texas Campaign for the 

 21 Environment, which is a state-based, non-profit 

 22 organization with offices here in Houston and in D/FW 

 23 and Central Texas. We want to thank you for this 

 24 opportunity to testify today. We appreciate your 

 25 holding a hearing here in Houston to allow us to come 
 50 

 1 and speak. 

 2 We represent tens of thousands of members, 

 3 grassroots supporters throughout the state. Also, we 

 4 have many staff members who will be here this morning to 

 5 testify throughout the course of the morning. We want 

 6 to definitely encourage you and thank you for your 

 7 proposed rules for boiler and heat processer emissions. 

 8 We think this is a real positive step to limit the air 

 9 pollution here in Houston and all over the country. 

 10 Putting specific limits on very toxic air 

 11 pollutants that put our kids in Houston in the hospital 

 12 is a very, very positive step and you're to be applauded 

 13 for that and encouraged to make those rules as strong as 

 14 possible. We know that the industry lobbyists will -- 

 15 will lobby for these before they are finally adopted, 

 16 but we would encourage you to keep them strong and adopt 

 17 them as soon as possible. 

 18 We do however want to voice opposition to 

 19 your proposed definition of solid waste, and many of our 

 20 staff members will speak to that, as well. Allowing 

 21 hazardous and toxic materials to be put into industrial 

 22 boilers and incinerators under the guide of solid waste 

 23 or fuel would do the opposite of the other proposed 

 24 emissions limits. It would put more toxic materials 

 25 into our air in Texas and throughout the country. 
 51 

 1 I've been working with Texas Campaign for 

 2 the Environment for about eight years, so this EPA 

 3 administration, by far and away, has been the strongest, 

 4 the most protected of public health standards and air 

 5 standards and water standards. Decision after decision, 

 6 ruling after ruling, I've seen the EPA take steps in the 

 7 past year and a half that are just good news after news. 

 8 This is really the first time that I've 

 9 come to an EPA to say that that proposal is a bad idea, 

 10 so I'm -- and in our organization is very actually 

 11 shocked, frankly, that -- that you propose to define 

 12 toxics materials as solid waste and fuel in industrial 

 13 boilers. The EPA can definitely do better than that. 

 14 The EPA has done better over the year and a half. I 

 15 know, in seeing the decisions that you've made 

 16 previously, that the EPA can come up with a better 

 17 definition of solid waste, that's more protective of 

 18 public health. 

 19 That's really what our staff members will 

 20 testify today. I doubt that all of us will take our 

 21 whole six minutes and give you a lot of technical 

 22 details. But for us, this is a very simple matter of 

 23 air quality in Houston and throughout the country, and 

 24 we can't just define something if it's toxic material 

 25 and hazardous material and will poison our air. We 
 52 

 1 can't just define it as okay, and fuel, and allow it to 

 2 be burned. 

 3 I know it's a cost issue for industry, and 

 4 they'll argue costs until they're blue in the face, but 

 5 it costs us, too, if that stuff ends up in the air. So 

 6 that's my piece. Thanks very much for having me. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 8 Anybody have any questions? 

 9 MR. BOYCE: No, sir. 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 11 Virginia? 

 12 MS. FUGMAN: Thank you very much for 

 13 having a public hearing for this. We really appreciable 

 14 it, and this is first time that I've ever actually come 

 15 to a public hearing to speak to the EPA. This is pretty 

 16 exciting. 

 17 I also am with Texas Campaign for the 

 18 Environment, with the organization for about three and a 

 19 half years, and I feel really privilege to work for a 

 20 non-profit that focuses on the environment that has a 

 21 broad array of people, and in my only personal life, I 

 22 work do as much as I can; I ride my by bike to work, I 

 23 quit -- I quit smoking cigarettes, I am a vegetarian. 

 24 I work to do as much as I personally can 

 25 to do what I can for the environment, and so now I 
 53 

 1 really do -- I need the EPA to step up and do what I 

 2 cannot to regulate the industry, you know, as much as -- 

 3 as much as every single person in the world can do what 

 4 they can. If the industry isn't regulated, they're 

 5 going to do whatever they want to, and so I just want to 

 6 say thank you, first of all, for strengthening emissions 

 7 standards for industry. 

 8 I think the EPA has been doing a great job 

 9 lately, and I appreciate all that you have done, but of 

 10 course, when loopholes are allowed to happen where you 

 11 can't burn an entire tire in a boiler for energy, but 

 12 you can chip it up and burn it as if that's a lot of 

 13 change for the use of these tires to burn it for energy. 

 14 I -- I don't see -- I don't see the logic. I don't see 

 15 the logic in allowing that chipped up tire to be burned 

 16 for energy, and so I very much -- if the industry has to 

 17 spend a little bit more money to burn clean things or to 

 18 protect the air quality and allow -- you know, the 

 19 number one reason my kids miss school these days is 

 20 asthma. You know, it's completely preventable. And so 

 21 we very much need to do as much as we can do for the 

 22 people that can't do anything for themselves, especially 

 23 folks right around these facilities. 

 24 And so I just -- I'm putting my -- my 

 25 faith in you guys that you're gonna do what I can't, and 
 54 

 1 that's to regulate the big industries, so please protect 

 2 the air. That's all I have to say. Thank you. 

 3 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 4 clarifying questions from you guys? 

 5 (No verbal answer.) 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Thanks 

 7 for coming. Okay. The next two speakers will be Dianne 

 8 Aguirre and George Christian. And if I've mispronounced 

 9 your name, I'm sorry. 

 10 (Speakers approach.) 

 11 MS. AGUIRRE: No, you did a good job. 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

 13 MS. AGUIRRE: So first of all, I want to 

 14 say thank you very much for holding this hearing and 

 15 allowing everybody to come and, you know, say how they 

 16 feel about this. I am also with the Texas Campaign for 

 17 the Environment and, yeah, you know, we all try do our 

 18 part to, you know, protect the environment; I ride my 

 19 bike to work every day, but I would never be able to 

 20 reduce, you know, emissions of mercury by 15,000 pounds 

 21 every year, which is what these regulations would be 

 22 doing, so that just really speaks of the power of the 

 23 EPA to improve the quality of people's lives. 

 24 But just, you know, allowing these 

 25 loopholes to remain in the legislation, you know, to 
 55 

 1 burn toxic waste in industrial boilers, that -- I feel 

 2 like that really undermines the small sacrifices that we 

 3 all make every day to improve the planet. So yeah, I 

 4 definitely want to encourage you to remove those 

 5 loopholes and, you know, hold industry accountable even 

 6 if they have to pay a little bit more money. And that's 

 7 all I have to say. 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 9 questions? Thank you very much. 

 10 Mr. Christian? 

 11 MR. CHRISTIAN: My name is George 

 12 Christian. I'm an attorney in Austin, Texas and today 

 13 speaking on behalf of the American Forest Group Paper 

 14 Association and the Texas Forest Industries Council, and 

 15 AF & PA has presented testimony in writing and in oral 

 16 form in Arlington so I won't reiterate those points. I 

 17 just wanted to make three or four points about the 

 18 industry as it applies to Texas specifically. 

 19 The forest products industry is a very 

 20 significant business in Texas, particularly in the 

 21 eastern quarter of the state, and in 44 counties of deep 

 22 East Texas we have three -- the three remaining paper 

 23 mills are located in deep East Texas. They employ 3,500 

 24 workers directly, and the industry is as a whole employs 

 25 about 54,000 workers across the state, and I think we 
 56 

 1 heard from one of those this morning from a box plant in 

 2 the valley. 

 3 The industry is distributed throughout the 

 4 state. It is dependant upon the East Texas forest for 

 5 its raw materials and is a rural industry and an 

 6 industry that is not concentrated largely in industrial 

 7 areas of the state. And so I wanted to point out, that 

 8 as the rules stand, they could have significant impact 

 9 on rural economies, because it's not -- not a 

 10 ship-channel issue for the forest projects industry. 

 11 The second point I wanted to make is just 

 12 to reiterate the biomass issue. The boilers that are in 

 13 use in the pulp and paper mills, in this state, have 

 14 gone predominantly to biomass rather than natural gas or 

 15 other fossil fuels. We are trying to push for carbon 

 16 neutrality. We have a great deal of biomass available 

 17 in Texas for use in our boilers and we are adapting that 

 18 as much as we can. 

 19 We would like the EPA and the other -- 

 20 both state and federal governments that are responsible 

 21 for energy policy to pull together and to see if -- 

 22 if -- make sure that what we do in one area doesn't 

 23 impair the incentives that are in place for biomass use. 

 24 And we would just urge EPA to look at that issue and to 

 25 make sure that all of these policies are running 
 57 

 1 consistently with each other. 

 2 And the third issue I would like to -- to 

 3 also just reiterate that AF & PA will be helping to 

 4 provide the data that you -- you seek with regard to the 

 5 health -- health-based emission issue, and we pledge to 

 6 work with you on that and see if we can help you focus 

 7 on that issue with some good data, and we will be 

 8 helping to provide that. Those are my comments. 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 10 clarifying? 

 11 (No verbal response.) 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. This 

 13 is the last -- the last two speakers I have names for. 

 14 If there's anyone in the room that hasn't spoken that 

 15 would like to speak, feel free to check with the table 

 16 and you can probably go now if you want to. 

 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are some of 

 18 us that have preregistered that we know are on the list 

 19 but for later today. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: If you want to check with 

 21 the -- the people out front, they can probably move you 

 22 up if you want. 

 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've given them 

 24 permission to do that. 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Allison may have 
 58 

 1 gotten pulled away on something else. I tell you what. 

 2 It's about 10:15. Why don't we take a -- we'll recess 

 3 the hearing for ten minutes to let you have a chance to 

 4 use the restroom and get something to drink if you want, 

 5 so we'll take a brief ten-minute recess and we'll come 

 6 back here about 10:25. 

 7 (Recess taken from 10:15 a.m. to 10:29 

 8 a.m.) 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: We're going to reconvene the 

 10 hearing and go back to hearing public comments on the 

 11 proposed rules that we discussed earlier. Just to 

 12 remind you, you have six minutes to make your 

 13 statements. Those have gone before you have been very 

 14 good to stick to that so that we can give everybody 

 15 their fair opportunity to speak. 

 16 So at this time I'd like to call 

 17 Eddie Burch and Jim Simon to the table to testify. 

 18 (Speakers approach.) 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Is Jim Simon in the room? 

 20 Oh, well. He'll show up. I may have throw him for a 

 21 loop when we took a recess. So we'll start with you and 

 22 then if we need to switch, we'll go that way. 

 23 MR. BURCH: Good morning. My name is 

 24 Eddie Wayne Burch. I live in Hamburg, Arkansas, and 

 25 work for Georgia-Pacific in Crossett, Arkansas. I am a 
 59 

 1 member of the United Steelworkers Union and a regional 

 2 secretary for the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource 

 3 Council. I have worked for Georgia-Pacific for 31 years 

 4 and currently work in the pulp mill. 

 5 A short history about our mill is, we -- 

 6 they employ approximately 1,200 employees. We have 

 7 seven hardwood batch digesters and six pine batch 

 8 digesters. We supply eight paper machines; two 

 9 communication papers, one container board machine, and 

 10 five tissue machines. Our mill is one of 

 11 Georgia-Pacific's largest mills. Our biggest products 

 12 are Angel Soft Tissue and Sparkle Towels. We also have 

 13 a plywood plant, chemical mill, and extrusion plant all 

 14 at the same mill site. In 1997, Georgia-Pacific added 

 15 the eighth paper machine at our mill adding some 100 

 16 jobs. This was $120 million capital improvement. 

 17 Now, I would like to talk to you about the 

 18 proposed Boiler MACT rule the EPA issued on June 4th. 

 19 The proposed Boiler MACT rule could strike a severe blow 

 20 to the manufacturing economy and is far more than is 

 21 needed to protect our environment. The cost to 

 22 individual mills could be tens of millions of dollars in 

 23 additional capital expenditures, which may not be 

 24 sustainable given the down the economy and fierce 

 25 international competitiveness. No other country in the 
 60 

 1 world is imposing requirements like these putting U.S. 

 2 manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. 

 3 Small facilities such as sawmills, which 

 4 are a big supplier of raw materials to paper mills, will 

 5 also be severely and economically harmed by EPA's boiler 

 6 rules for so-called area sources even though their 

 7 emissions are tiny and not harmful. We believe the EPA 

 8 should not set numerical limits for these boilers 

 9 located in small mills, but instead set good combustion 

 10 practices and tune-up requirements that will achieve the 

 11 same results at a far lower cost. The EPA should use 

 12 its own discretion so as not to burden facilities that 

 13 are still hurting from the building downturn. 

 14 Given the jobless nature of the economy 

 15 recovery, the rulemaking will add excessive burdens to 

 16 the expense of the manufacturing workers. The total 

 17 capital costs just for the forest products industry 

 18 alone are estimated at about $7 billion, and the costs 

 19 for all manufacturing could be between $20 to 

 20 $50 billion. A wide range of sectors and the jobs they 

 21 sustain would be severely harmed. 

 22 Georgia-Pacific supports efforts to 

 23 address serious health threats from air emissions, and 

 24 supports regulations that sustain both the environment 

 25 and the nearly 900,000 men and women that our industry 
 61 

 1 employs. Unfortunately, the rule proposed by EPA in 

 2 June does not accomplish these objectives. 

 3 Georgia-Pacific is prepared to work with 

 4 the EPA to protect both public health and jobs by 

 5 targeting environmental investments where there is a 

 6 real need. If the EPA were to provide more flexible 

 7 approaches in the Boiler MACT rule and appropriately 

 8 address the diversity boilers, operations, sectors, and 

 9 fuels, it could achieve its goal while preventing severe 

 10 job losses and billions of dollars in unnecessary 

 11 regulatory costs. 

 12 Trees are the most powerful concentrators 

 13 of carbon on earth. The paper industry does more to 

 14 store carbon than any other industry. Carbon is stored 

 15 within the product; paper, boards, wood and furniture. 

 16 More trees are planted to help manage the forest, and 

 17 these new trees help absorb carbon. Forests and forest 

 18 products absorb and store enough carbon dioxide to equal 

 19 10 percent of the annual carbon emissions in the U.S. 

 20 On average, paper and wood product mills generate 

 21 65 percent of their own energy needs from renewable 

 22 biomass. Our increasing use of renewable energy has 

 23 allowed the industry to reduce its use of 

 24 carbon-intensive fossils fuels and purchased energy per 

 25 ton of product 19 percent since 2000. This industry has 
 62 

 1 continually increased efforts to recover recycled paper 

 2 which saves space in landfills, reduces methane 

 3 emissions and minimizes waste. The forest products 

 4 industry is the leading producer of carbon neutral 

 5 renewable biomass energy and produces more energy from 

 6 biomass than all the energy produced from solar, wind, 

 7 and geothermal sources combined. 

 8 This is who we are, but most importantly, 

 9 we are American workers trying to survive. We hunt, 

 10 fish, and love the environment. We all want clean air, 

 11 we also believe in the balance between protecting the 

 12 environment and preserving American jobs. We believe 

 13 this balance can be reached. The Pulp and Paperworkers 

 14 Resource Council's motto is seek a balance, because we 

 15 feel if regulations like the Boiler MACT rule is 

 16 enforced on other countries, we could compete with the 

 17 entire world and jobs would not be moved overseas and 

 18 the environment will be a lot cleaner. 

 19 Thank you for allowing me to speak and 

 20 consider my concerns about keeping our green jobs within 

 21 the U.S. and helping us rebuild the economy. 

 22 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 23 questions or comments from you guys? 

 24 MR. BOYCE: I have one comment -- 

 25 question. And you had made a point about providing more 
 63 

 1 flexible approaches. Could you give -- elaborate on one 

 2 or two of approaches? 

 3 MR. BURCH: Well, the thing is, the rules 

 4 that we're going through now, as far as I know, they're 

 5 as clean as they can be. You're saying give examples of 

 6 what y'all can do? Is that what your question is? 

 7 MR. BOYCE: Yes, as far as -- you said 

 8 provide more flexible approaches. I was just wanting an 

 9 example of one or two that you might think of or might 

 10 add as flexible rule. 

 11 MR. BURCH: Well, just like the cluster 

 12 rule. The cluster rule was, what, ten years ago? Just 

 13 something simple like that. It wasn't simple for us, 

 14 but still it cleaned the air up. I don't see where -- 

 15 in my mill alone, we can tell the air around us has 

 16 improved just from the smell. I don't know what -- I 

 17 don't know what kind of things you could put on to make 

 18 it any cleaner. You know, as far as I know -- as far as 

 19 I've been employed there, I know that we're as clean as 

 20 we can get. There's only certain things you can do to 

 21 clean the air up, so... 

 22 MR. BOYCE: Thank you. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. Did Jim Simon 

 24 come back? 

 25 (Speakers approach.) 
 64 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: And Edward Harrington, if 

 2 you would like to come up, you can follow George, do you 

 3 want to testify again, or did they just copy you from 

 4 where you moved up already? 

 5 MR. HARRINGTON: They moved me -- yeah, 

 6 I'm done. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. That's what I 

 8 thought. I just want wanted to make sure you weren't 

 9 going to testify on behalf of somebody else. 

 10 MR. SIMON: I'm Jim Simon, the general 

 11 manager of the American Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A., 

 12 Inc., and we're commenting on the U.S. Environmental 

 13 Protection Agency's -- at this hearing today for the 

 14 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

 15 Pollutants for Areas Source Industrial, Commercial and 

 16 Institutional Boilers under Section 12(d) of the Clean 

 17 Air Act. And Docket Number EPA-HQ-0AR-2006-0790. 

 18 My name is James Simon. I'm the general 

 19 manager of the American Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A., 

 20 Inc., which is a non-profit organization of Louisiana 

 21 sugar growers and processors. League members include 

 22 the remaining 11 raw sugar cane mills still operating in 

 23 Louisiana, and on behalf of the League, thank you for 

 24 the opportunity to testify on the EPA's proposed 

 25 regulation for area source biomass boilers. 
 65 

 1 Although the League will provide a more 

 2 comprehensive document prior to the deadline for written 

 3 comment, our goal today is to provide you with a general 

 4 summary of our unique industry and to introduce our 

 5 proposal for a conditional de minimis source exemption 

 6 from the regulation. We also want to lend support and 

 7 agreement to the comments already made and to be made by 

 8 similar situated raw sugar mills in Texas and Florida 

 9 regarding the proposed regulations applicable to both 

 10 major and area resources. 

 11 The League requests that the EPA consider 

 12 a conditional exemption for biomass-fueled area sources 

 13 with de minimis HAP emission limits. 

 14 Not only is each Louisiana mill well below 

 15 the major source threshold for HAPs, but the sum of all 

 16 permitted HAPs at Louisiana mills today total only three 

 17 tons per year, far below the major source threshold. 

 18 Further, when only HAPs from boilers are considered, no 

 19 single mill is permitted for -- is permitted for greater 

 20 than half a ton per year. 

 21 The League also notes that the proposed 

 22 boiler rules for major and area sources are contrary to 

 23 the efforts of the current administration with regards 

 24 to "green" energy initiatives. The proposed rules 

 25 provide for a distinctive -- provides for dis- -- 
 66 

 1 provides for a disincentive for the use of renewable 

 2 resources and the reduction of our dependence on fossil 

 3 fuels. 

 4 All Louisiana sugar mills utilize 

 5 bagasse-fired boilers as the primary source of power for 

 6 mill operations, with nearly 100 percent of the bagasse 

 7 burned at any given mill being generated on-site. 

 8 Although a couple of mills supplement the bagasse with 

 9 clean wood products during initial start-up, none 

 10 supplements with fuel oil or coal. 

 11 Louisiana's sugar cane grinding season is 

 12 relatively short lasting approximately 115 days a year. 

 13 Such a short grinding season means that under the 

 14 proposed regulations, our mills would be required to 

 15 test each boiler three times more often than 

 16 non-seasonal industries, based on total hours of 

 17 operation. 

 18 After each grinding season ends, our mills 

 19 shut down and begin a nine-month tune-up process. 

 20 Because equipment malfunctions during the grinding 

 21 season, can result in tremendous loss to a sugar mill as 

 22 well as -- as well as to Louisiana sugar farmers. 

 23 Nearly every piece of equipment undergoes an extensive 

 24 inspection, maintenance and repair program to prepare 

 25 for the next season. In contrast, boilers and 
 67 

 1 associated emission controlled equipment at non-seasonal 

 2 industries may run continuously for years before going 

 3 through a turnaround to conduct the kind of thorough and 

 4 comprehensive maintenance activities that each sugar 

 5 mill goes through annually. 

 6 The boilers operating at Louisiana mills 

 7 are equipped with a minimum of multiple cyclone dust 

 8 collectors. A large majority of boilers are also fitted 

 9 with hydro scrubbers, achieving an average particulate 

 10 matter control efficiency above 90 percent. The 

 11 extensive inspection and maintenance process is 

 12 conducted annually to ensure that boilers and associated 

 13 control devices will continue to operate as efficiently 

 14 as possible throughout the grinding season. 

 15 The League recognizes the value in 

 16 continuing to conduct these maintenance activities as a 

 17 condition of meeting the de minimis exemption, the 

 18 League proposes that a maintenance and repair program 

 19 similar to that described above be made mandatory, along 

 20 with appropriate recordkeeping and reporting 

 21 requirements. The cost of compliance with the proposed 

 22 rule not only threatens the survival of Louisiana's 

 23 sugar industry, but does so with minimal to no 

 24 measurable air quality improvements. Given the nominal 

 25 total HAP emissions from Louisiana's sugar mills, EPA 
 68 

 1 can meet its mandate under the Clean Air Act to protect 

 2 public health and the environment without throwing such 

 3 a devastating, perhaps fatal, blow to this industry. 

 4 As Louisiana struggles to survive and 

 5 recover from recent economic, natural and man-made 

 6 disasters, we ask that the EPA adopt a more flexible 

 7 approach that is scientifically sound and technically 

 8 attainable, that will actually result in a measurable 

 9 reduction of toxic air pollutants. Thank you. 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 11 clarifying comments from you guys? 

 12 (No verbal response.) 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Hello. My name is Ed 

 15 Harrington and I work for MeadWestvaco in Evadale, 

 16 Texas, and I'm here to represent our company's interests 

 17 in EPA's Boiler MACT regulations. 

 18 Our company is a leader in sustainability 

 19 and has been for generations. We support efforts to 

 20 protect the environment, and have voluntarily worked to 

 21 reduce emissions at our manufacturing operations. 

 22 Together with other leaders in our industry, paper and 

 23 forest products manufacturers have reduced air pollution 

 24 from our operations by more than 50 percent in the past 

 25 20 years. 
 69 

 1 Our industry is one of the most heavily 

 2 regulated in the United States, harming our ability to 

 3 compete with manufacturers in other countries that do 

 4 not share our commitment to environmental performance. 

 5 Despite this burden, new regulations continue to be 

 6 proposed that would require additional investment with 

 7 no substantial environmental benefit. Boiler MACT, as 

 8 proposed, would cost the forest products industry 

 9 billions of dollars and MeadWestvaco tens of millions of 

 10 dollars over the next two to four years. These new 

 11 investments could mean job losses in the United States 

 12 and could force production to be moved to countries 

 13 where the environmental standards are much lower than 

 14 our current practices. 

 15 We encourage the EPA to develop reasonable 

 16 approaches to maintain emission reductions. Any 

 17 reasonable approach should: Strive to achieve 

 18 measurable health and environmental benefits, consider 

 19 the investment of time and resources that will be 

 20 necessary for compliance, and consider the impact on 

 21 jobs, economic growth, and the global competitiveness of 

 22 America's manufacturers. 

 23 Here's how MeadWestvaco believes that EPA 

 24 should proceed with the Boiler MACT regulations. First, 

 25 finalize clear definitions. EPA has proposed a series 
 70 

 1 of four interrelated rulemakings. Due to the nature of 

 2 definitions, affected sources, and how EPA has chosen to 

 3 view the data, it is impossible for EPA to accurately 

 4 determine the data sets to use in setting the limits and 

 5 thereby equally impossible for sources to understand how 

 6 the are affected to determine what steps are required to 

 7 comply. MeadWestvaco believes that EPA should first 

 8 finalize its definitions of solid waste, and then 

 9 determine which sources fall into the boiler categories 

 10 and which sources fall into the solid waste incinerator 

 11 category. Then EPA can more accurately interpret the 

 12 existing data and collect more as it is needed and 

 13 propose standards in a meaningful fashion. 

 14 Next, ensure the highest data quality. 

 15 EPA has collected significant data over the past several 

 16 months. It has worked to make that data available for 

 17 review. As the public has reviewed this data it is 

 18 clear that EPA needs to perform additional quality 

 19 assurance to ensure that the data is accurate. Data 

 20 review has found inconsistent treatment of non-detect 

 21 values, improper classification of boilers, and gaps in 

 22 data that could be improved with additional quality 

 23 assurance. MeadWestvaco believes that this step is 

 24 crucial before EPA can realistically propose such 

 25 standards. 
 71 

 1 Next, consider whether proposed limits are 

 2 achievable. The Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

 3 Standards are driven by very good controls that also 

 4 result in achievable targets. In its rush to complete 

 5 these standards, EPA has allowed the process to become a 

 6 mathematical exercise that is not based on 

 7 achievability. By its construct, the standards are 

 8 intended to be set based on the average of the top 12 

 9 percent performers in a source category. MeadWestvaco 

 10 believes that by its data collection methodology, 

 11 failure to consider adequate variability of operating 

 12 conditions, and failure to fully evaluate all of the 

 13 data it has, EPA has proposed a rule that fewer than one 

 14 percent existing boilers can achieve. The situation is 

 15 worsened when reviewing the new source standards that 

 16 even EPA is predicting will result in no new biomass or 

 17 coal burning facilities. MeadWestvaco believes that EPA 

 18 should revisit its methodology for establishing these 

 19 standards and propose standards that are achievable. 

 20 Next, include a Health Based Compliance 

 21 Alternative. EPA included options in the original 

 22 standard to allow sources to demonstrate an alternative 

 23 standard that was protective of health and the 

 24 environment. EPA has chosen not to do so in the 

 25 proposed rules. Further, it has set up a nearly 
 72 

 1 impossible standard to meet in the Preamble to the 

 2 Boiler MACT Rule, if it were to consider such an 

 3 alternative. MeadWestvaco believes that EPA has an 

 4 obligation to ensure that standards it requires are 

 5 imposed due to a reasonable risk to the health and the 

 6 environment and not due to a mathematical exercise. 

 7 Last, impose an adequate timeline for 

 8 compliance. EPA has proposed a three-year compliance 

 9 timeline for sources. We believe that this timeline is 

 10 in adequate due to the number of effected sources and 

 11 the fee engineering solutions available to industry. 

 12 We are committed to going our part to 

 13 protect and enhance the environment. We support 

 14 reasonable, balanced efforts to responsibly reduce 

 15 emissions, and we hope that EPA will join with us in 

 16 developing solutions that do not harm America's 

 17 manufacturers and manufacturing employees. Thank you. 

 18 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 19 questions? Would -- you asked about the compliance 

 20 schedule with -- under 112. It's pretty prescriptive; 

 21 you get three years, and then there's the alternative 

 22 for the fourth year that can be granted on a 

 23 facility-by-facility basis. Is that what you're 

 24 referring to there or something -- 

 25 MR. HARRINGTON: No. No, beyond 
 73 

 1 four years. 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Beyond four years. Okay. 

 3 Thank you. 

 4 Okay. The next two speakers will be 

 5 Martin Rollins and Don Grimm. 

 6 (Speakers approach.) 

 7 MR. ROLLINS: Good morning. My name is 

 8 Martin Rollins. I'm a Registered Professional Engineer 

 9 and president of H.M. Rollins Company in Gulfport, 

 10 Mississippi, a small consulting engineering firm, and 

 11 many of my clients would be impacted by these rules. 

 12 My comments are focused on biomass 

 13 combustion. My written statement will contain 

 14 additional details. It is my opinion that the public is 

 15 incapable of completing adequate review and comment on 

 16 these rules by the scheduled comment date. The EPA 

 17 should finalize a solid waste rule first so the 

 18 regulated entities are in a position to know how it 

 19 impacts the combustion rules. The Agency should seek 

 20 additional time from the court as needed. I would use 

 21 the EPA term "absurd results" to describe the boiler 

 22 proposals. As an example, the proposed dioxin limits 

 23 for a clean biomass boiler are as much as four orders of 

 24 magnitude lower than the standards in place for 

 25 hazardous incinerators. I believe that is an absurd 
 74 

 1 result. 

 2 Facilities that originally met the very 

 3 conservative health-based compliance option must now 

 4 install a series of control device costing millions of 

 5 dollars. Without a health-based compliance alternative, 

 6 most wood products facilities would either close down or 

 7 purchase natural gas boilers, which can be obtained at a 

 8 fraction of the cost of the required control. 

 9 The biomass fuel would then be sent to a 

 10 landfill where it would degrade to methane. The Boiler 

 11 MACT concludes there will be no biomass boilers 

 12 constructed major sources. That would be an absurd 

 13 result, given the government's push for renewable 

 14 energy. The floor analysis for area source boilers is 

 15 based largely on boilers so small they're exempt from 

 16 the numerical limits, rather than boilers typically 

 17 found in area sources. 

 18 It takes a very large boiler to be a 

 19 stand-alone major source. Most major source boilers 

 20 would be area source boilers if located elsewhere. An 

 21 absurd result is that a 100 million BTU-per-hour biomass 

 22 boiler located at an area source has a much lower CO 

 23 limit and a much shorter compliance averaging time than 

 24 the same boiler at a major source. 

 25 Biomass boilers at area sources represent 
 75 

 1 a low risk and the CO limits should be eliminated in 

 2 favor of tune-ups and work practices. If CO limits are 

 3 retained, they should not be more stringent than for 

 4 major sources. The Agency has done an inadequate job of 

 5 verifying data quality. There is data used in the 

 6 analyses for both rules that look suspect to a 

 7 knowledgeable individual, and there are some clear 

 8 errors such as the inclusion of data from a boiler 

 9 reportedly burning only heavy oil in the floor analysis 

 10 for biomass. 

 11 Appendix B-2 of the area source MACT floor 

 12 analysis shows that that limit was calculated using the 

 13 raw data, which checked as non-normal while the log data 

 14 was shown to be normal. Therefore, it would appear that 

 15 the CO limit in the proposed for biomass area sources is 

 16 incorrect. It is likely that many more errors exist in 

 17 other places. Rules should not be promulgated on 

 18 suspect data, and EPA should halt these proceedings 

 19 until a thorough data validation has been completed. 

 20 Most boilers burning biomass burn only biomass. The 

 21 major source floor data for biomass includes much data 

 22 from boilers burning significant percentages of 

 23 materials other than biomass, including natural gas, 

 24 heavy oil, tire-derived fuel, and undefined sludges. 

 25 Each of these materials has different combustion 
 76 

 1 characteristics and different levels of fuel-based HAPs. 

 2 It would be technically incorrect to consider this as a 

 3 representative of biomass combustion. EPA should set 

 4 limits for biomass boilers based on data from units 

 5 burning only biomass. EPA should consider a subcategory 

 6 for green biomass, which -- since it combusts 

 7 differently than dry biomass. 

 8 Combination boilers, those burning 

 9 multiple fuels, can be addressed through subcategories. 

 10 EPA's MACT floor analysis for biomass boilers is flawed. 

 11 Far less than the expected 6 to 12 percent of biomass 

 12 boilers anticipated by the statute can meet the proposed 

 13 limits without additional control. This is the result 

 14 of analyzing the data on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis 

 15 rather than source-by-source, relying on data obtained 

 16 from the top 12 percent of a subset of best performing 

 17 boilers, rather than the population of boiler as a whole 

 18 having insufficient data and relying on as few as two or 

 19 three data points largely at or below detection limits 

 20 to set limits for subcategories with large populations. 

 21 Setting limits for fuel-based pollutants for biomass 

 22 boilers without taking into consideration the natural 

 23 variability of biomass fuel as a whole. 

 24 In summary, I would suggest the following 

 25 to the Agency: Halt the proceedings and complete an 
 77 

 1 adequate data validation and analysis for all four 

 2 rules. Get the additional data needed to properly 

 3 represent the population. Re-propose the rules as 

 4 necessary. Obtain adequate time from the court to be 

 5 able to pursue these rulemaking in the Agency's 

 6 customarily professional manner. Finalize the solid 

 7 waste rule first. Provide a risk-based alternative. 

 8 Base the biomass boiler rules on data from burning only 

 9 biomass and include the natural variability of fuel-base 

 10 tax. Consider adding green biomass subcategories as 

 11 needed. Add combination fuel subcategories as needed. 

 12 Compute MACT floors on a unit basis, not pollutant 

 13 basis. Eliminate the CO emissions for area source -- 

 14 emission limits for various source biomass boilers and 

 15 use tune-ups and work practices to accomplish the same 

 16 goal. The CO limits are retained for area source units. 

 17 They should not be more stringent than from major source 

 18 units. Thank you for the opportunity to present these 

 19 comments. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Marc, 

 21 you have a question? 

 22 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, just one question. You 

 23 said that you encourage us to re-propose the rule and 

 24 present all four rules or just the Boiler MACT in 

 25 particular? 
 78 

 1 MR. ROLLINS: Honestly, you know, the 

 2 magnitude of the material that's in these dockets are 

 3 personally -- as I said in these comments, have focused 

 4 on the biomass issues having to do with both the area 

 5 source and major source boiler rules, so I really 

 6 haven't been able to get into the CISWI rule or the 

 7 solid waste rule, but just -- you know, I've been a 

 8 practicing professional in this field for more than 

 9 35 years, and I've grown up in the Clean Water Act 

 10 regulations all the way until now, and -- and I've been 

 11 helping industry comply with these for almost 40 years, 

 12 and I have never seen -- you know, and I provided 

 13 comments on rulemakings for all of those 40 years, and I 

 14 have never seen a rule come out of the Agency that I 

 15 think is clearly rushed. 

 16 It's not the kind of job that I've seen 

 17 the EPA do customarily, when you can go and find in -- 

 18 in a rather rapid and cursory review, the errors that 

 19 I've identified, we have to know there are a multitude 

 20 of other areas that are in these rules that I don't know 

 21 who's going to have the time to look at them by August 

 22 the 3rd. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. Next is Don 

 24 Grimm. 

 25 MR. GRIMM: Good morning. My name is Don 
 79 

 1 Grimm, and I represent Hood Industries, Incorporated, a 

 2 lumber and plywood manufacturer based in Hattiesburg, 

 3 Mississippi. We're a privately held company with three 

 4 sawmills, two plywood plants, and 14 distribution 

 5 centers. We employ approximately 1,000 people in 13 

 6 states. 

 7 I would like to focus on the following 

 8 issues in the proposed regulation. Number one, the 

 9 regulations being proposed are excessively stringent, 

 10 and the methodology used to define the "ideal" boiler 

 11 operation do not reflect real world operating 

 12 conditions. Two, the regulation will negatively impact 

 13 the use of biomass fuels, which is in direct conflict 

 14 with the political rhetoric of the current 

 15 administration and significantly increase the cost of 

 16 operations at wood products facilities. 

 17 Three, the regulatory impact analysis does 

 18 not accurately assess the impact of the regulation on 

 19 the subcategories of the wood products industry. Four, 

 20 the economic impact of these regulations will be 

 21 significant and will cause the closure of many 

 22 facilities that have been suffering multiple years of 

 23 business losses. The regulations are extremely 

 24 stringent and approach levels that are barely 

 25 detectable. The methodology used by the EPA to define 
 80 

 1 the regulatory levels do not, in my opinion, accurately 

 2 reflect real world conditions or operations. Boilers in 

 3 the real world are subject to a significant number of 

 4 operating variables including changes in fuel 

 5 conditionings, operating load swings in the 

 6 manufacturing operation being served, controls 

 7 efficiency just to name a few. 

 8 My experience has been that when control 

 9 devices are added to a piece of operating equipment, the 

 10 control devices introduce additional operating 

 11 variability that make consistent outcomes more difficult 

 12 to achieve. Biomass boilers utilize clean wood 

 13 residuals as the fuel, and that fuel is inherently 

 14 cleaner than many other types of fuel. That creates a 

 15 low base line of emissions and the cost to reduce those 

 16 levels to even lower regulatory limits is 

 17 disproportionate to the benefits achieved. 

 18 The proposed regulations will negatively 

 19 impact the use of biomass fuels for industrial boiler 

 20 use. The wood products industry has been using clean 

 21 wood residuals as a primary fuel for decades. In other 

 22 words, we were green before green was cool. The current 

 23 administration touts the use of biomass fuels as part of 

 24 the new energy policy. On one hand, the USDA has given 

 25 away over $148 million under the BCAP program for fuels 
 81 

 1 that were already being used and now these regulations 

 2 will restrict the use of these biomass fuels in the 

 3 future. Any new business models that may be 

 4 contemplating the use of biomass fuels may find the cost 

 5 of the regulation prohibitive. To me this is another 

 6 case of one body of government not acting in concert 

 7 with the direction of another body of government. 

 8 Conversion of a wood products plant to 

 9 natural gas is not economically viable. In our case, we 

 10 have calculated that the increase in operating costs to 

 11 use natural gas to be $31 million annually. That would 

 12 be a 34 percent increase in operating costs at a time 

 13 when the industry has sustained multiple years of 

 14 losses, and would not be economically sustainable. The 

 15 Regulatory Impact Analysis does not accurately measure 

 16 the impact on smaller plant facilities. By combining 

 17 all plant facilities together, the conclusions drawn do 

 18 not represent the economic impact to smaller operations. 

 19 The cost of capital investment to install control is 

 20 disproportionate when comparing a facility that 

 21 generates $100 million in annual revenue to a facility 

 22 that may only generate $50 million in annual revenue. 

 23 The equipment cost is -- the equipment cost does not 

 24 correlate to revenue and the ability to absorb the 

 25 capital cost is a disproportionate penalty to the 
 82 

 1 smaller plants. The Impact Analysis contains only data 

 2 through 2007 and thus ignores the most devastating 

 3 impact on shipments, employment, and other operating 

 4 parameters by not including the worst years of this 

 5 recession, which have been 2008 and 2009. If one looks 

 6 at the capacity utilization chart, Figure 2-15, one can 

 7 visually see that the elimination of 2008 and 2009 data 

 8 will skew the data and impact any conclusions drawn from 

 9 it. 

 10 The criteria used to classify an 

 11 "establishment" as large versus small is based on number 

 12 of employees. This is not a good methodology, in my 

 13 opinion, since some manufacturing processes are labor 

 14 intensive and others are highly automated. Production 

 15 capacity and emissions volume do not necessarily 

 16 correlate to facility employment. 

 17 The collapse of a new housing markets and 

 18 the recessionary decline in the U.S. economy has 

 19 severely impacted the wood products industry. I would 

 20 estimate that 35 to 40 percent of the industry capacity 

 21 has been curtailed or shut down. These regulations will 

 22 further reduce the probability of many of these 

 23 facilities restating when economic conditions improve. 

 24 In addition, I would predict that the 

 25 economic cost of complying with these new regulations 
 83 

 1 will cause new closures as small privately held sawmills 

 2 and plywood operations and other wood products 

 3 businesses come to the conclusion that trying to sustain 

 4 an operation that has had multi-year losses is simply 

 5 not a good decision. These closures will 

 6 disproportionately impact rural lower income 

 7 communities. 

 8 In our business, lumber prices have fallen 

 9 31 percent since the peak in 2005. It will be difficult 

 10 to rationalize the cost of installing additional control 

 11 equipment when that capital does not produce any 

 12 benefits to the business, and in fact will make U.S. 

 13 producers less competitive against off-shore suppliers 

 14 from Brazil, Chile, and China. No other nation in the 

 15 world has the environmental costs that we have in the 

 16 United States. 

 17 I am not anti-environment, but at some 

 18 point, if the cost of achieving improved environmental 

 19 metrics is the destruction of an economy then some 

 20 balance must be achieved. The EPA has the opportunity 

 21 to strike that balance by doing the following: One, ask 

 22 the court for more time to refine the relations and 

 23 achieve a more reasonable set of rules. Two, use EPA 

 24 discretion to protect public health while avoiding 

 25 unnecessary capital and operating costs. The estimated 
 84 

 1 costs for the wood products industry, for the 

 2 installation of control devices, is $6- to $7 billion. 

 3 We must ensure that the benefits derived from this 

 4 expenditure are real, and not just estimates by a panel 

 5 of experts who vary widely on their estimates of 

 6 benefits. 

 7 Three, set health-based emission rules 

 8 that reflect the true impact on people. Four, change 

 9 the methodology used to determine what the ideal MACT 

 10 boiler would operate like. The EPA's approach severely 

 11 biased the data and is not representative of the current 

 12 universe of operating boilers and in conflict with the 

 13 law. 

 14 I will conclude by anticipating that some 

 15 interest groups will characterize my comments as a 

 16 typical strategy of crying "poor man" when faced with 

 17 new environmental regulations and costs. After 

 18 suffering multiyear losses, the smaller privately held 

 19 business -- businesses are in fact poor. 

 20 To those who would attack my comments as a 

 21 typical business reaction, I would invite them to walk 

 22 in my shoes with the responsibility of trying to sustain 

 23 a company in the worst economic conditions of the past 

 24 70 years and maintain good paying jobs with good 

 25 benefits for over 1,000 families. Thank you for your 
 85 

 1 time to provide our views on the subject. 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, sir. Questions? 

 3 (No verbal response.) 

 4 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. At this time, I have 

 5 a couple more speakers. I'd like to invite Jan 

 6 Prusinski and Scott O'Hara to the table, please. 

 7 (Speakers approach.) 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Prusinski? 

 9 MR. PRUSINSKI: I'm Jan Prusinski. The 

 10 name is spelled J-A-N, P-, as in Paul, -R-U-S-I-N-S-K-I. 

 11 I'm the executive director of the Cement Council of 

 12 Texas. We represent the major cement manufacturers in 

 13 the State of Texas, and I wanted to make some short 

 14 comments on the proposed rule for identification of 

 15 non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes. 

 16 Our industry is -- is environment -- environmentally 

 17 responsible industry in Texas and in the United States. 

 18 We comply with environment laws and regulations. 

 19 Our concern with the proposed rule is that 

 20 it may severely limit the use of our industry to use 

 21 alternative fuels in producing Portland cement, which is 

 22 a necessary material in the construction of 

 23 infrastructure of buildings, homes, roads in the United 

 24 States. I'd like to focus on one particular aspect of 

 25 alternative fuels, and that is scrap tires. Scrap tires 
 86 

 1 are a major problem in this country, especially in Texas 

 2 along border areas, and really in the entire world. 

 3 There are about 300 million scrap tires produced or 

 4 really discarded in the United States every year. About 

 5 60 million of those scrap tires are burned in cement 

 6 kilns as alternative fuels. That's 20 percent of the 

 7 supply of scrapped tires that are used as alternative 

 8 fuels. 

 9 Now, what's the benefit of doing that? 

 10 Well, first of all, a scrap tire has about 33 -- 

 11 actually about 25 percent more BTU value, ton-per-kiln, 

 12 than a ton of coal, and about the same BTU value as oil 

 13 on a pound-for-pound basis. In the U.S., there were 

 14 about 12.6 billion -- I'm sorry -- 12.6 trillion BTUs of 

 15 energy generated in the cement industry through the use 

 16 of scrap tires. Now, this avoids the use of other 

 17 fuels, virgin fossil fuels such as coal or oil or other 

 18 materials. In all about 3.6 percent of the energy that 

 19 is used -- not electrical energy -- but is used to 

 20 produce Portland cement was done by scrap tires. 

 21 About 48 of the 113 or so cement plants in 

 22 the United States are licensed to use scrap tires, and 

 23 in Texas eight of ten plants can use scrap tires. Scrap 

 24 tires are -- are a good fuel. They limit the amount of 

 25 tires that are ultimately disposed of in landfills, and 
 87 

 1 of course scrap tires placed in a landfill, it's -- it's 

 2 there pretty much forever, and it attracts bugs and 

 3 insects and disease, rodents. The emissions that result 

 4 from the use of scrap tires are actually, and in most 

 5 cases, reduced from a cement plant that burns scrap 

 6 tires. 

 7 For instance, the dioxin and furan levels 

 8 that come out of a cement plant, which are generally 

 9 very small to begin with, are one-third of those -- 

 10 in -- in a plant to uses scrap tires, the dioxin/furan 

 11 levels are about one-third of those as a plant that does 

 12 not use scrapped tires, and this is to a statistically 

 13 significantly level. NOx emissions are also significant 

 14 to reduce. Particulates are about 35 percent reduced, 

 15 although particulates are very, very small to begin 

 16 with, and that is not a statistically significant 

 17 number. Additionally, SOx and metals emissions are 

 18 reduced. 

 19 Carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbons are 

 20 slightly increased through the use of scrapped tires, 

 21 but not to a statistically significant level. The -- 

 22 the rules that EPA is -- are proposing for the 

 23 identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that 

 24 are solid waste, we're really concerned that this would 

 25 compromise the ability for responsible industries such 
 88 

 1 as the Portland cement industry that officially utilize 

 2 these wastes in uses such as fuel that would -- that 

 3 would otherwise, if the wastes were not used, compromise 

 4 environmental quality. 

 5 And I'd like to end with a note from the 

 6 TCBQ. This is a quote from one of their publications 

 7 and -- and it was a publication on the problem with 

 8 scrapped tires within the State of Texas, and they said 

 9 that cement kilns, when burning tires at a high heat, 

 10 which cement kilns always do, and using pollution 

 11 controls, which again, cement plants always do, do not 

 12 compromise air quality. 

 13 Thank you very much for the chance to 

 14 comment on these rules. Our industry will be providing 

 15 written comments and constructive suggestions on how 

 16 to -- how we would like to see these rules modified so 

 17 that they do not compromise our ability to use secondary 

 18 materials as peoples [sic]. Thank you. 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 20 questions, Marc or Ken? 

 21 MR. THOMAS: Just one clarifying. Do you 

 22 know the name of the document or the TCBQ report that 

 23 you were citing? 

 24 MR. PRUSINSKI: I will have -- I don't 

 25 have it here. I can get it to you. 
 89 

 1 MR. THOMAS: In your written comment? 

 2 MR. PRUSINSKI: I will provide that in my 

 3 written comments. 

 4 MR. THOMAS: That will be great, thank 

 5 you. 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: Next, Scott. Scott, if you 

 7 could be careful not to let that wire hit that. It's 

 8 very sensitive. People were having problems with it 

 9 this morning. 

 10 MR. O'HARA: Is it okay now? 

 11 MR. WAYLAND: Yeah, it should be okay. 

 12 MR. O'HARA: Yeah, so my name is Scott 

 13 O'Hara. I'm a community organizer with the Texas 

 14 Campaign for the Environment. I'm also a concerned 

 15 resident of Texas. I'm here today first to applaud the 

 16 EPA for its increased standards on general emissions 

 17 with large plants. It's something that we definitely 

 18 need. 

 19 An increase in air quality is definitely a 

 20 big Houston. For many, many years we've had very low 

 21 quality, and only in the past couple years have we 

 22 increased it. However, we are still not at a -- you 

 23 know, on par with, you know, any sort of health 

 24 standards we need. 

 25 However, these benefits, I think, can be 
 90 

 1 negated by standards that will allow for local area 

 2 plants to burn local waste, whether it be tires or other 

 3 products on hand. This will be -- to increase local 

 4 pollution for Houston; especially, this is a big deal. 

 5 We have -- the number one excuse for students missing 

 6 school is asthma related. If we increase air emissions 

 7 from plants that are burning local waste, this will not 

 8 decrease, but increase. 

 9 I don't know if anybody noticed today, but 

 10 we actually have an ozone warning today. It's something 

 11 that happens a lot in the city. It's something that 

 12 will decrease with these new standards for local area 

 13 plants. Also, by allowing for these standards, benzine, 

 14 a known carcinogen, will increase in our air pollution. 

 15 Cancer rates have been on the rise for the past couple 

 16 of decades. This will not help to aleve the situation. 

 17 Lastly, I just wanted to close in saying 

 18 that, for the citizens of Houston, Texas and the United 

 19 States, I cannot seen any benefits for these local area 

 20 standards and burning local waste. It will only cause 

 21 increased health costs, increased deaths, and there is 

 22 no benefit to the local citizens. Thank you very much. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: I had one clarifying 

 24 question. You mentioned the -- the ozone day. 

 25 MR. O'HARA: Yes. 
 91 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: Do you guys know what 

 2 proportion in the Houston area comes from stationary 

 3 sources versus the mobile source population? 

 4 MR. O'HARA: Off the top of my head, no, I 

 5 could not tell you, but I can see what I can do. 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: Okay, thank you. 

 7 MR. O'HARA: Thank you. 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: The next speakers are Ben 

 9 Johnson and Phillip Huffeldt. 

 10 (Speakers approach.) 

 11 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Johnson when, you're 

 12 ready. 

 13 MR. JOHNSON: My name is Ben Johnson. I'm 

 14 an employee of MeadWestvaco, an hourly employee of 

 15 MeadWestvaco. We're a forest paper company in East 

 16 Texas. I'd like to begin by thanking you for the 

 17 opportunity to speak here on behalf of these hearings on 

 18 the Boiler MACT. 

 19 Our industry is like any other industry 

 20 struggling to recover. Our forest products industry has 

 21 been struggling to recover from the recession. Our 

 22 unemployment rate is still lingering around 10 percent. 

 23 The Clean Air Act rule was recently announced -- 

 24 specifically, Boiler MACT -- could be unsustainable for 

 25 much of the U.S. manufacturing processes, and also, the 
 92 

 1 very high paying jobs that it provides, unless there can 

 2 be some greater flexibility allowed in meeting these 

 3 targets. 

 4 Let me also say, the forest products 

 5 industry, in general, in my 20-year tenure, definitely 

 6 supports any -- and tries to address any serious health 

 7 threats from the air emissions and supports regulations 

 8 that sustain both the environment and nearly a million 

 9 jobs that our men and women enjoy. 

 10 Unfortunately, a proposed rule was 

 11 proposed on June 4th, does not accomplish these 

 12 objectives. The Boiler MACT, as published on June 4th, 

 13 would strike a severe blow to our manufacturing economy 

 14 is far more stricter than needed to protect the 

 15 environment. EPA has the opportunity, and in my view, 

 16 the responsibility, to meet -- to modify the 

 17 requirements and still be faithful to its legal 

 18 obligations under the Clean Air Act. 

 19 The Boiler MACT would require installation 

 20 of up to four different air pollution control devices, 

 21 and those would serve -- conflict, in some cases, with 

 22 some of our existing controls. The cost to individual 

 23 plants, such as the one that I work at, would be -- 

 24 could be as much as tens of millions of dollars in 

 25 additional capital, which may not be sustainable, given 
 93 

 1 the economic downturn and the fierce international 

 2 competition. And let me just say that. The fierce 

 3 international competition. 

 4 No other country in the world is imposing 

 5 requirements like these, which puts -- which makes a 

 6 very unlevel playing field for us. It puts us at a huge 

 7 competitive disadvantage. Across the forest products 

 8 industry, these rules could cost anywhere from $6- to $7 

 9 billion over the next two to four years when the 

 10 industry itself only made a fraction of that over the 

 11 last two years. 

 12 This would result in the severe hardships, 

 13 and something that I'm very passionate about, could cost 

 14 tens of thousands of job losses in the forest products 

 15 sector alone. And given the cost of other likely 

 16 environmental programs, the compound effects of the -- 

 17 the compound effects in job losses would be much larger 

 18 in a sector that's lost 350,000 jobs since the downturn 

 19 began in 2006. It's much greater than that when you go 

 20 back to 2001 and 2002. 

 21 We've identified several of the broad 

 22 areas for improvement in Boiler MACT. First of all, we 

 23 encourage that the EPA has invited comment and gives 

 24 Section 112, which allows facilities to avoid controls 

 25 where risks of structural pollutants like gases and 
 94 

 1 manganese are shown to be safe. We believe this 

 2 approach should be adopted and a final rule for use on a 

 3 facility-by-facility basis. 

 4 That's a surefire way to target investment 

 5 to only where problems exist, and it's absolutely 

 6 imperative that we take a health-based approach, given 

 7 the economic implications of this rule. 

 8 Secondly, the limits that EPA has set are 

 9 unnecessarily stringent because they do not reflect -- 

 10 the variability occurs in real world best-performing 

 11 boilers. These boilers go through warm-ups, shutdowns, 

 12 load swings, fuel mix, and fuel-quality changes. When 

 13 the EPA relies on the -- on the test data from a short 

 14 period of time, it's missing the inherent variability 

 15 that occurs in the real world even at -- even on some of 

 16 the best operating boilers. 

 17 Third, the data used in setting emission 

 18 limits is heavier by the top-performing units given the 

 19 way it was collected and sorted. This was borne out by 

 20 the fact only a handful of the existing units, indeed 

 21 all the limits, can you expect 12 percent of the 

 22 thousands of boilers in this country to achieve 

 23 limits -- to achieve those limits according to the law. 

 24 EPA needs to look at other available data to paint a 

 25 more realistic picture of boiler performance for each of 
 95 

 1 the hazardous particulates in this subcategory. 

 2 Finally, federal limits for biomass are 

 3 set extremely low because the baseline and emissions are 

 4 very low compared to other fuels. Emissions and 

 5 hydrogen chloride and dioxin and mercury are present in 

 6 very small amounts in wood and are inconsequential 

 7 sources of the pollutants, yet the costs to achieve 

 8 these very low levels become exponentially more 

 9 expensive and can't be consistently achieved. 

 10 The limits are unduly influenced by HAPs 

 11 that could not detect that the HAP-suggested emission 

 12 limits should be dropped or at least be replaced by 

 13 realistic work practices. So we believe that first the 

 14 EPA should use a reasonable method to set the max limits 

 15 based on what real best performing units can actually 

 16 achieve. EPA must factor into the MACT of variability 

 17 and operations, fuel, designs, as I previously stated, 

 18 and the performance across the main different types of 

 19 boilers. 

 20 Second, the EPA should revise its approach 

 21 from biomass boilers to ensure that these boilers are 

 22 not penalized until they start with a cleaner fuel. And 

 23 third, the EPA should include a health-structural 

 24 standard in the final Boiler MACT rule to target 

 25 environmental investments where there is a real need 
 96 

 1 based on rigorous demonstration of pollutants like 

 2 hydrogen chloride, manganese, and not pose an adverse 

 3 risk. Thank you very much. 

 4 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, sir. Any 

 5 questions? 

 6 (No verbal response.) 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 8 Phillip? 

 9 MR. HUFFELDT: Are we okay with the wires? 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Yeah, I think we're good. 

 11 MR. HUFFELDT: Well, thank you for the 

 12 opportunity to speak, and thank you for your comments. 

 13 My name's Phillip Huffeldt, and I was born and raised in 

 14 Houston, Texas. Actually, that's not exactly accurate. 

 15 I grew up, for a good portion of my childhood, in 

 16 La Porte, Texas, which is fairly close to a lot of 

 17 refineries and port traffic, and I can just say, as a -- 

 18 as a common citizen, I grew up with severe asthma and -- 

 19 you know, I'm -- I want do avoid too emotional of 

 20 testimony, because emotions tend to not weigh too highly 

 21 against the facts. 

 22 But I can tell you that, although it is 

 23 not known exactly what caused the asthma that I had as a 

 24 kid, I was hooked up -- or I had to use an oxygen 

 25 breathing machine for several years when it was the 
 97 

 1 worst. I -- I had to go through, you know, two or three 

 2 inhalers at a time. And I eventually did grow out of it 

 3 and now only have cold or exercise-induced asthma. And 

 4 it is proven that ozone and other particulates and -- or 

 5 particulates in other airborne pollutants and chemicals 

 6 have a strong connection to asthma, I don't have any 

 7 particular documents to cite for that, but I believe it 

 8 is readily available to the public. 

 9 And, you know, having grown up as one of 

 10 the -- that was affected by asthma, I can say that it is 

 11 not pleasant and definitely hinders your ability to 

 12 develop, when you lose hours and days of school and 

 13 these types of things. And going on to -- to this 

 14 proposal, first of all, thank you to the EPA for 

 15 definitely doing more to protect the air and the people 

 16 that breathe it in terms of fighting emissions and 

 17 telling the TCEQ to the Texas Emission on Environmental 

 18 Quality to strengthen their -- their actions and 

 19 protections and -- and actually getting refineries and 

 20 different plants to obey the Clean Air Act more -- more 

 21 or less. 

 22 And I can say, you know, that it is my 

 23 understanding that loopholes can be found, and it 

 24 appears that this particular proposal creates loopholes 

 25 for the burning -- local burning of all these different 
 98 

 1 substances; tires, plastics, et cetera, and, you know, 

 2 having -- having grown up next to the refineries and, 

 3 you know, most likely being affected by the air 

 4 standards there, I can say that this is most likely 

 5 going to lead to more -- more substances in the air and 

 6 more particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and the 

 7 different substances that help form the ozone. But I 

 8 would just like to say that -- please reconsider these 

 9 loopholes. 

 10 Please reconsider defining more carefully, 

 11 and regulating more carefully these different proposed 

 12 fuels, and do that with consideration to those that 

 13 really have no control over -- personally have no 

 14 control over what is happening in these plants, and in 

 15 these boilers and incinerators because, you know, all we 

 16 can do is vote and speak out such as at this hearing. 

 17 And so hopefully our testimony is as 

 18 common citizens and not as environmentalists. I do -- I 

 19 do work for the Texas Campaign for the Environment as a 

 20 community organizer, and perhaps people talking to us, 

 21 or different organizations like Air Alliance Houston, 

 22 can perhaps lend more to their quote/unquote vote in 

 23 society to help protect their own air standards, because 

 24 when these things get burned, I know there are certain 

 25 standards that are being proposed that will regulate 
 99 

 1 lead and mercury and particulate matter. 

 2 But overall, it -- I think it can go 

 3 without saying that often these things can go past the 

 4 regulations that not everyone obeys the regulations; 

 5 they do what they can to protect the bottom dollar, and 

 6 in the long run, a healthy society will do more to -- 

 7 without missing workdays or sick days -- sick days will 

 8 do more for the economy than being allowed to burn more 

 9 substances close to home. 

 10 And with that said, I would just urge you 

 11 to truly consider everyone's interest in this and not 

 12 just economic interest for industry professionals. We 

 13 don't vote for our lobbyists, for the lobbyists on 

 14 Capitol Hill, and every other Capitol Hill in states, 

 15 cities, and that sort of thing. So please take this 

 16 semi-emotional testimony as an addendum to my vote to -- 

 17 my vote of confidence in the government and your 

 18 administration. So thank you very much for this 

 19 opportunity and, you know, please let us -- thank you. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 21 questions? 

 22 (No verbal response.) 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, gentlemen, very 

 24 much. 

 25 Okay. Our next two speakers will be Laura 
 100 

 1 Gibson and Drew Covert. 

 2 (Speakers approach.) 

 3 MS. GIBSON: Hello. 

 4 MR. WAYLAND: Hello. 

 5 MS. GIBSON: My name is Laura Gibson. 

 6 Thank you so much for the opportunity to come and speak. 

 7 I'm a Houston resident. I was born here and raised 

 8 here. I also work for the Texas Campaign for the 

 9 Environment, and I'm very proud of that, because like 

 10 you are working hard to keep the air and water clean, 

 11 not for profit, you know, it's good work and I'm proud 

 12 of it. 

 13 But as a result of that, I'm alarmed and 

 14 concerned by the proposed deregulation of emission 

 15 controls and redefinition of solid waste. We've already 

 16 experienced the negative. Results are attributed to 

 17 deregulation in this country. Watching our banks fail 

 18 and living through the recession, which I think is 

 19 better described as a depression, yeah, has exemplified 

 20 the great need for accountability in all American 

 21 industries. 

 22 I no longer trust big business, 

 23 corporations, industry. My short life experience in 

 24 education has shown me that they don't always have my 

 25 best interest at heart. White collar crime is so 
 101 

 1 prevalent that it was offered as a course at my Alma 

 2 mater, which is St. John's. We need the Environmental 

 3 Protection Agency to protect us from the dangerous and 

 4 harmful pollutants that industry creates. I don't think 

 5 there's a price that can be put on human health. There 

 6 are some things that money can't cover up and fix; a 

 7 great example being the oil spill. BP can't write a 

 8 check yet to fix that. 

 9 So thank you so much for proposing 

 10 standards to control unregulated toxic air pollution. 

 11 Stand strong and continue to strengthen regulation. 

 12 There in place to protect human health. We rely on you 

 13 to do that, so thank you very much. 

 14 MR. WAYLAND: Questions? 

 15 MR. BOYCE: No, sir. 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 17 MR. COVERT: Hello. 

 18 MR. WAYLAND: Yeah, you're next. 

 19 MR. COVERT: My name is Drew Covert. I'm 

 20 a community organizer with the Texas Campaign for the 

 21 Environment. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for the 

 22 opportunity -- thank you guys for the opportunity to 

 23 speak. I've lived here in Houston for about two years. 

 24 The first thing when I moved here -- I moved from 

 25 Tennessee, and we have pretty clean air out there; not 
 102 

 1 many -- where I'm from, there's not many -- not much 

 2 industry around that can pollute. But the first thing I 

 3 noticed here was the horrible air quality. 

 4 The second I stepped foot off the plane, 

 5 you could smell it in the air, the oil, just the 

 6 pollution, in general. There are days, mostly the ozone 

 7 days, that Mr. O'Hara was mentioning that I can walk 

 8 around -- I can literally feel my lungs burning. The 

 9 sun is hot on your skin. You can feel the definite 

 10 effects of pollution that we face on a day-to-day basis 

 11 here just as a resident. 

 12 The proposition to deregulate what the 

 13 industry can burn in its incinerators is not only a 

 14 horrible idea. I believe it's ignoring all Houstonians 

 15 rights to clean air. The EPA has been doing an amazing 

 16 job for Houston in the past years, so it did a great job 

 17 raising the ozone standards, and I greatly appreciate 

 18 it. I greatly appreciate it. Don't take this massive 

 19 step backwards. 

 20 The EPA, as I look at them, they're 

 21 supposed to look after the people and not the industry. 

 22 Your job is to look after the Americans, not -- you 

 23 know, the -- the industry, who technically can vote -- 

 24 I'm not gonna get started on that. But by adopting this 

 25 rule, you're allowing the industry to pump millions of 
 103 

 1 pounds of dioxin and other chemicals into the local air. 

 2 Dioxin is a single -- it's the single worst human 

 3 carcinogen known to man, and its main cause is 

 4 incinerators. I can't really spell it out any clearer 

 5 than that. You're literally pumping the number one 

 6 worst chemical for human health into our air by allowing 

 7 this to happen. 

 8 So I ask you -- no, I implore you not to 

 9 let this happen. I really -- I just want you to ask 

 10 yourself, what I would I want in my community. I know 

 11 you guys know the answer to that question, so don't 

 12 trash us. Don't trash our lungs. Houston, I love this 

 13 city, but the pollution has made it to the point to 

 14 where I -- I feel that I cannot exist in this city. Do 

 15 it for us. That's all I have to say. 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 17 Questions? 

 18 (No verbal response.) 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, guys. We have 

 20 two more speakers signed up. Chris Kevlin and Vance 

 21 Nobe. And if I mispronounced that, I'm sorry. 

 22 (Speakers approach.) 

 23 MR. NOBE: Good morning. Thank you very 

 24 much for allowing the opportunity to speak on this 

 25 subject. First off, I did want to thank the 
 104 

 1 Environmental Protection Agency. You really have been 

 2 continuing to safeguard our -- the health and well-being 

 3 of the residents. 

 4 MR. WAYLAND: For the record, since this 

 5 is being transcribed, could you state your name. 

 6 MR. KOBE: Oh, yes. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: And your affiliation, 

 8 please. 

 9 MR. NOBE: Yes. My name is Vance Nobe, 

 10 and I'm with Akari Energy. We're a renewable energy 

 11 company and we developed renewable technology, as well 

 12 as power plants. 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

 14 MR. NOBE: Thank you. I did want to thank 

 15 the EPA for continuing to support and to really 

 16 safeguard the health and well-being of all the residents 

 17 in the country. Also, in light of all the recent 

 18 environment issues, especially locally here, I really 

 19 appreciate -- I think we're looking to you to help 

 20 continue on that support and keeping our environment 

 21 clean. 

 22 I only have a general comment as far as 

 23 changes in regulation, is that in the issue of biomass 

 24 and comparing it with coal-fired, biomass is one of the 

 25 renewable energies that we certainly are trying to 
 105 

 1 develop more. We're trying to develop a renewable 

 2 energy system to replace the current fossil fuel 

 3 technologies, and there are a lot of challenges with 

 4 that. 

 5 Any additional restrictions to emissions 

 6 related to biomass certainly adds additional challenges 

 7 to what is already existing. One of the issues with 

 8 biomass is the cost. You know, we're always trying to 

 9 develop new biomass-type facilities and new plants, but 

 10 we always have to compete with cost of existing fossil 

 11 fuel plants, so we're trying to always watch those 

 12 costs. Any new regulation -- this is in general -- any 

 13 new regulations that restrict emissions on biomass 

 14 plants, while small, any small changes can add 

 15 additional costs, which makes -- could make biomass 

 16 plants slightly less economically feasible. 

 17 So those small changes have a big impact, 

 18 and I know from overall, the -- the federal government, 

 19 the state government, and local agencies have been 

 20 certainly pushing for renewable energy, and where -- 

 21 areas where there is an abundance of biomass, pushing 

 22 for biomass. I mean, that's a good thing that helps 

 23 clean our environment. So on the one hand, it helps to 

 24 have biomass being pushed forward, but if on the other 

 25 hand we have additional regulations, which restrict the 
 106 

 1 usage of it, that creates a lot of hindrances. 

 2 So all I'm asking is that those 

 3 considerations be put in place into new regulations to 

 4 really free biomass to let us develop the biomass 

 5 facilities and -- and receive the continual encouraging 

 6 of the federal, state, and local levels. Biomass is a 

 7 very challenging technology, and we certainly want to 

 8 continue. 

 9 Right now in the country, only 4 percent 

 10 of the power generated is from biomass where 49 percent 

 11 is generated from coal-fired plants. So if -- if you 

 12 want to put regulation, you know, as a comparison, it is 

 13 good to put more regulation on coal-fired plants because 

 14 that's where majority of the emissions are coming from, 

 15 whereas biomass, it's such a flea bite right now. To 

 16 put more regulations on that really doesn't have an 

 17 impact on the environment, and it has a detrimental 

 18 affect because you impede growth in renewable energy. 

 19 And lastly, I'd like to say, I'm from -- I 

 20 have lived in Texas. I've been in Texas the last ten 

 21 years and I love this state. This is the best -- I 

 22 really love this state. I'm from Hawaii originally and 

 23 that's certainly a green state, but Texas is the land of 

 24 opportunity, and I really think that -- I really think 

 25 that the EPA, in partnership with local governments, can 
 107 

 1 really make a big difference. Thank you very much. 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Will 

 3 you be providing any written comments on this rule where 

 4 you might make some suggestions on how we can deal with 

 5 some of the issues of biomasses facing? 

 6 MR. NOBE: Absolutely. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Some recommendations or 

 8 something for us? 

 9 MR. NOBE: Yes, absolutely. It's a -- 

 10 it's a huge issue and there is -- you know, most of the 

 11 country, they -- they don't have much solar resources 

 12 and there's not enough wind resources, so what's left, 

 13 really biomass is one of the answers, and we need -- we 

 14 need your help. We need your support to go forward. 

 15 MR. WAYLAND: We look forward to your 

 16 comments. Thank you. 

 17 MR. NOBE: Sure. 

 18 MR. WAYLAND: Vance? 

 19 MR. KEVLIN: I'm Chris. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Sorry. Chris. I got your 

 21 names backwards. 

 22 MR. KEVLIN: Thank you for much for giving 

 23 me time to speak. I appreciate that very much. I'm 

 24 with -- I'm a community organizer with Texas Campaign 

 25 for the Environment, and I'd just like to make a general 
 108 

 1 comment on environmental regulations and rules. Like 

 2 since the '70s, the government has taken a big step to 

 3 increase air quality, in general, right? In every step 

 4 that they've taken, the business community has come out 

 5 and said that we're gonna lose thousands of jobs, it's 

 6 going to ruin our business, in all of its stuff like 

 7 that, and really, it hasn't -- like there hasn't been an 

 8 economic downturn that you can really blame on 

 9 environmental regulations. The economy is, though, a 

 10 lot more flexible and able to accept environmental 

 11 regulations in general, and in businesses are a lot more 

 12 flexible than they realize. 

 13 I mean, I -- it's just tougher for them to 

 14 make changes so when -- when looking to make -- to 

 15 change these rules, just keep that in mind when they 

 16 come out here and tell you it's gonna ruin our business, 

 17 we're going to -- thousands of people are going to be 

 18 unemployed. If you look at the past, that really hasn't 

 19 happened on a consistent basis. And that's just what -- 

 20 the comments I'd like to make. Thank you very much. 

 21 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. Any clarifying 

 22 comments? 

 23 (No verbal response.) 

 24 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. I 

 25 think what we're going to do is take another recess. We 
 109 

 1 have a half-dozen folks who are supposed to testify here 

 2 before lunch but they have not arrived yet, so rather 

 3 than break for lunch and have them show up, we're just 

 4 going to recess here. If you'd just stay in the general 

 5 area, we'll let you know. We're not supposed to break 

 6 for lunch here for about another 45 minutes, so let's -- 

 7 let's take a 15-minute recess until noon, and then we'll 

 8 reconvene the hearing. Thank you. 

 9 (Break taken from 11:43 a.m. to 12:03 

 10 p.m.) 

 11 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. We're going to call 

 12 the hearing here on the industrial boiler rules, the 

 13 CISWI rule, and the definition of solid waste back to 

 14 order. We have some new folks here. Just to remind 

 15 you, we have a six-minute time limit on your comments. 

 16 When you start talking, a little green light up here 

 17 will come on. A yellow light will come one when you 

 18 have two minutes, and a red light comes on when your six 

 19 minutes is up. 

 20 We're not holding you -- we're not holding 

 21 you strictly to that because everyone's been very good 

 22 about it, but just try to wrap -- when you see the red 

 23 light, just try to wrap. And then the other thing is if 

 24 you have written comments, if you -- if you would, 

 25 please, leave them with the court reporter over here. 
 110 

 1 It'll make it a lot easier for her as she goes back and 

 2 transcribes to actually have your written testimony, if 

 3 you have that. So do leave a copy with her as you leave 

 4 the -- the table with her. That would be great. 

 5 At this time, I'd like to call Scott 

 6 Moorhead and David Cothren to the table. 

 7 (Speakers approach.) 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Moorhead, you can begin 

 9 when you're ready. 

 10 MR. MOORHEAD: Good morning. My name is 

 11 Scott Moorhead, and I'm the mill manager at 

 12 International Papers, Texarkana, Texas mill. I thank 

 13 you for the opportunity to highlight our reactions to 

 14 EPA's four proposed boiler-related rules published on 

 15 June 4th. I am also submitting some written comments 

 16 that go along with these that will have a little more 

 17 detail than what I'll discuss today. 

 18 International Paper is among the largest 

 19 pulp and paper companies in the world, and as such is 

 20 among those companies most impacted by the Boiler MACT 

 21 rules and three other boiler rules. These rules have 

 22 placed an enormous burden on manufacturers in the 

 23 present economy for development of an imperfect 

 24 rulemaking process, and are formally restricted when 

 25 needing to protect human health and the environment. 
 111 

 1 EPA's proposed rules will create serious 

 2 disincentives for the use of biomass and alternative 

 3 fuels and thereby increased use of fossil fuels, which 

 4 we believe is counterproductive and contrary to the 

 5 country's energy interests. The rule will have 

 6 undeniable economic consequences. The forest products 

 7 industry has projected new equipment required under the 

 8 proposed rules will cost more than $6 billion over a 

 9 three-year compliance window plus billions more in 

 10 subsequent years for operating maintenance expense. 

 11 Those capital costs alone exceeds industry profit of 

 12 recent years. 

 13 At the Texarkana mill, in particular, we 

 14 make coated bleached paperboard with process steam from 

 15 biomass fired recovery furnaces that are not affected by 

 16 these rules and two power boilers, which are affected by 

 17 Boiler MACT. Biomass and natural possess and natural 

 18 gas are our primary fuels, but we can also fire oil or 

 19 alternative fuels that make sense from a cost, 

 20 efficiency and environmental standpoint. If finalized 

 21 without significant changes, the proposed Boiler MACT 

 22 rule will pose significant costs on our mill and result 

 23 in negative, unintended environmental and economic 

 24 consequences. 

 25 We strongly encourage the Agency to ask 
 112 

 1 the court for such time as it needs to finalize 

 2 reasonable and well supported rules that do not impose 

 3 unreasonable and unwarranted economic burden on the 

 4 country. We believe that EPA has significant discretion 

 5 within the MACT program to make prudent and the 

 6 appropriate regulatory judgments, judgments that do not 

 7 unnecessarily burden American industry. 

 8 We ask that EPA use its discretion and 

 9 identify three broad areas for improving the Boiler MACT 

 10 rule. First, EPA should set more reasonable limits that 

 11 reflect the variability of real-world best performing 

 12 boilers. We believe the proposed Boiler MACT CO limit 

 13 for boilers burning biomass in conjunction with coal 

 14 will not be achievable as a practical matter. 

 15 International Paper has seven boilers that 

 16 burn biomass with coal in amounts greater than 10 

 17 percent that classifies them as "coal" boilers under the 

 18 proposal that would be subjected to unachievable CO 

 19 limits. The CO limits for these combination boilers 

 20 should be the same as the ones for biomass-fired 

 21 boilers. If we continue to encourage and expand use of 

 22 renewable, carbon neutral biomass in this country, the 

 23 rule needs to change dramatically. 

 24 Second, EPA should base the Boiler MACT 

 25 limits on more realistic data. The data used in setting 
 113 

 1 emission limits is heavily biased, given the way it was 

 2 collected and sorted. EPA required the best performing 

 3 units to test and took the best of that small data to 

 4 represent the best performers; the top 1 percent, not 

 5 the top 12 percent that the law instructs. 

 6 Third EPA should utilize its authority in 

 7 section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act to set 

 8 health-based emission limits. Health-based limits would 

 9 avoid unnecessary overregulation of emissions that are 

 10 already well within acceptable levels. We can 

 11 ill-afford not to include such a based health-based 

 12 emissions limitation given the economic implications of 

 13 this rule. 

 14 In addition to the Boiler MACT, EPA's 

 15 proposed three other related rules that will affect the 

 16 forest protects industry and International Paper; Boiler 

 17 Generally Achievable Control Technology, GAKT, 

 18 Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Definitions, and 

 19 Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator MACT. 

 20 Under Boiler GACT, we believe EPA should 

 21 not set numerical limits for CO for biomass and 

 22 oil-fired boilers located at small mills, but instead 

 23 set good combustion practices and tune-up requirements 

 24 that will achieve the same results at far lower cost. 

 25 The solid waste definitions EPA set have the potential 
 114 

 1 to seriously restrict which types of biomass may be 

 2 burned for their carbon-neutral energy and which may be 

 3 pushed into the waste stream. In the Non-Hazardous 

 4 Secondary Materials rule, EPA should define these 

 5 secondary biomass materials like urban wood and 

 6 wastewater residuals as fuels and promote their use 

 7 which displaces fossil fuels and is consistent with the 

 8 country's call for greater use of renewable fuels. 

 9 Finally, many of the same concerns about 

 10 the data quality in Boiler MACT also are relevant to the 

 11 CISWI rule. 

 12 The public's task providing meaningful 

 13 comments is complicated by EPA not setting -- settling 

 14 the question of what is a "solid waste" under RCRA 

 15 first. We recommend EPA complete the Definition of 

 16 Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rulemaking first and 

 17 then issue a Notice of Data Availability for the new 

 18 preliminary floor units for public comment, and only at 

 19 that point proceed with the promulgation of the three 

 20 Clean Air Act rules. 

 21 Overall, we believe Boiler MACT and the 

 22 other boiler rules are far too restricted, will place 

 23 enormous burden on manufacturers, that they impose the 

 24 justifiable limits and will pose a large unnecessary 

 25 economic burden on the country, and that EPA has the 
 115 

 1 opportunity to modify these requirements while being 

 2 faithful to its legal obligations. 

 3 Again, my written remarks submittal 

 4 contains more detailed information on points made today. 

 5 I thank you for the opportunity to express our views in 

 6 this proposal. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. 

 8 Moorhead. Any clarifying questions? No. Thank you 

 9 very much. 

 10 Mr. Cothren? 

 11 MR. COTHREN: Good afternoon. My name is 

 12 David Cothren. I am one of four National Special 

 13 Projects Coordinators at large for the Pulp and 

 14 Paperworkers Resource Council. I am an hourly 

 15 maintenance mechanic for International Paper. Thank you 

 16 for the opportunity to comment on the EPA's four 

 17 proposed boiler-related rules published on June 4th. I 

 18 am making this statement on behalf of the Pulp and 

 19 Paperworkers Resource Council member chapters across the 

 20 continental United States and the employees of the 

 21 Texarkana mill. 

 22 The PPRC believes the rules proposed by 

 23 the EPA on boilers -- on Boiler Maximum Achievable 

 24 Control Technology will greatly affect our country, our 

 25 companies, and our American jobs. The PPRC was founded 
 116 

 1 on the principle of seeking a balance between protecting 

 2 the environment and maintaining good jobs in all sectors 

 3 of the forest products industry. The forest products 

 4 industry has been through some really tough times 

 5 recently and we have lost many jobs. The PPRC logged 

 6 over 255 curtailments with mill closures in 2009, on our 

 7 Web site, pprc.info. On the May 2010 unemployment 

 8 report just released, the rate of 9.7 percent 

 9 unemployment is facing our nation. Our manufacturing 

 10 facilities do not need this new financial burden placed 

 11 on them by these new proposed EPA rule changes. There 

 12 are 23 forest products boilers and 115 more boilers 

 13 across the great State of Texas. With the proposed 

 14 changes, the protected cost to change these boilers to 

 15 meet the new proposed rules are estimated at $1.89 

 16 billion just for Texas alone. 

 17 Boiler MACT will set emissions limits for 

 18 hazardous air pollutants from gas, liquid, or solid-fuel 

 19 fired boilers and process heaters located at 

 20 universities, in small municipalities, food product 

 21 processors, furniture makers, federal facilities and a 

 22 wide range of manufacturers, not just the forest 

 23 products industry. The EPA's proposed Boiler MACT is so 

 24 stringent that it will result in significant and 

 25 unnecessary job losses if finalized in its current form. 
 117 

 1 It would impose extremely costly controls even where 

 2 there is no significant environmental or health 

 3 benefits, which is contrary to the direction Congress 

 4 provided in the Clean Air Act. 

 5 The paper and forest products industry 

 6 currently employs nearly 900,000 workers. The forest 

 7 products industry has lost some 350,000 additional -- or 

 8 350,000 additional jobs since the beginning of the 

 9 downturn in 2006, 100,000 jobs lost last year alone. 

 10 Approximately 75 mills have closed in the last 

 11 five years. These mill closures were not due to Boiler 

 12 MACT but the economy and foreign competitors. China is 

 13 one of the major players and they are not held to the 

 14 same rigorous environmental standards these American 

 15 companies are. We need a level playing filed. The 

 16 entire U.S. paper industry only made $1 billion in the 

 17 last two years. 

 18 This imposed -- this imposed cost will cut 

 19 more American jobs. The PPRC believes that the forest 

 20 products industry will be greatly affected. Most of the 

 21 paper companies across our nation are in rural areas of 

 22 the states where the backbone of our nation has an 

 23 agricultural base. We do not need to see these forest 

 24 products jobs go away. We need to keep America working 

 25 because we are American workers trying to survive. With 
 118 

 1 these new costs coming so close on the heels of the 

 2 recent economic downturn, the would be unavoidable and 

 3 severe financial distress and economic disruption for 

 4 the workers, families, and communities for whom paper 

 5 and wood products companies are the primary, or the only 

 6 economic engine. My mill boasts a payroll of $70 

 7 million and more than $4 million is paid annually in 

 8 property taxes, which mainly benefit the local school 

 9 districts. There are sales taxes in excess of $909,000 

 10 and approximately $350 million spent in vendor 

 11 supplier-wood relationships. 

 12 Mill employees take seriously their role 

 13 as good neighbors and actively volunteer, counsel and 

 14 coach in a variety of different forums. The mill's 

 15 employees have made United Way contributions totaling 

 16 more than $3 million since the mid-1980s to help 

 17 strengthen our communities, improve literacy and provide 

 18 for basic health and human services. 

 19 The forest and paper products industry 

 20 were green even before there was a label for being 

 21 green. We have had green jobs for over a century, but 

 22 only until recent years has there been a "buzzword" for 

 23 being environmentally responsible. The forest products 

 24 industry will always be the best environmental stewards 

 25 of our forest and land. We are sustainable, renewable, 
 119 

 1 and the greenest. We do not want our jobs, livelihood, 

 2 and communities destroyed by your legislated rules that 

 3 bring about unintended consequences of jobs lost. Your 

 4 unintended consequences of stringent rules will put more 

 5 mills on our map. There are American workers' names 

 6 that go with the numbers on our map. The hourly workers 

 7 are almost always the first to go. 

 8 The PPRC urges you to "Seek a Balance" 

 9 between the environment and industry. I urge you to 

 10 make a correct legislated decision to keep the forest 

 11 products industry strong, healthy, and profitable. 

 12 Thank you. 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 14 Question? Comments? 

 15 (No verbal response.) 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Our next two speakers 

 17 will be Scarlet Russell and Bridgette Yawn. 

 18 (Speakers approach.) 

 19 MS. RUSSELL: Okay. I'm Scarlet Russell, 

 20 obviously. So first of all, I just want to say thank 

 21 you so much for taking the steps in order to really -- 

 22 to try to send regulations on these boilers. It's been 

 23 ten years coming, so thank you so much. I have been 

 24 living in the Houston area since '97 so I really do 

 25 appreciate y'all finally taking those steps in order to 
 120 

 1 really protect human health and our environment, so 

 2 thank you. I appreciate it. 

 3 And I just have a few statistics here that 

 4 the Environmental Protection Agency provided me. So 

 5 after, you know, having these regulations on major and 

 6 source boilers and process heater emissions, it reduced 

 7 and developed 15,000 pounds of mercury emissions per 

 8 year, 340,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 50,000 tons 

 9 per year of particulate matter just by production. And 

 10 you guys know this, otherwise you wouldn't have taken 

 11 these steps in order to have this happen. 

 12 Okay. So as you know, that would alone, 

 13 just with the particulate matter and the sulfur dioxide 

 14 alone would prevent 2,000 to 4,800 premature deaths per 

 15 year. That's not even like incidents of illnesses; 

 16 that's premature deaths, so that's really awesome, so 

 17 that's saving lives in a way. So thank you. I really 

 18 appreciate that. That's awesome. You know, it 

 19 completely makes sense, because on your Web site, your 

 20 commission statement says, "To protect human health and 

 21 safeguard the natural environment; air, water, land, 

 22 upon which life depends." To continue on that verbatim, 

 23 "All Americans are protected from significant risks and 

 24 human health and the environment when they live, learn, 

 25 and work. So it totally makes sense that y'all would 
 121 

 1 have this happen. 

 2 However, what doesn't make sense is your 

 3 definition, or the proposed definition, of "solid 

 4 waste." Let me see here. By having these, you know, 

 5 shredded tires, spent solvents, spent chemicals, and 

 6 plastics, by having them -- you know, by having the -- 

 7 gosh, I'm nervous -- having the definition of "solid 

 8 waste" narrowed would allow for them to burn these 

 9 materials in order to produce their own fuel with 

 10 absolutely no regulation, without absolutely no 

 11 obligation to report or identify the toxins that they're 

 12 putting in our air that we breathe daily. To me, this 

 13 doesn't make any sense. I don't understand how that is 

 14 protecting human health. 

 15 Maybe -- I mean, I'm not a scientist, but 

 16 to me, common sense would say that having -- making the 

 17 guidelines -- or the definition of solid waste more 

 18 strict to where they can't burn these items which are 

 19 known to release mercury, lead, formaldehyde -- there's 

 20 more on here that I can't find -- benzine, dioxins. I 

 21 mean, you guys -- we all the know how awful that is. It 

 22 causes mutations, cancer, asthma, and that's among a few 

 23 of the awful health conditions that it would cause. 

 24 And in order -- I mean, if this happens 

 25 where you would narrow the definition of solid waste and 
 122 

 1 allow them to burn these spent chemicals, solvents, 

 2 plastics, rubber as fuel, goes unregulated and without 

 3 the community being able to know, I don't understand how 

 4 that correlates with the Environmental Protection 

 5 Agency's mission statement. 

 6 We definitely want -- we want zero 

 7 tolerance, not zero protection. Industry has been 

 8 getting away with murder for -- practically murder for a 

 9 very long time, and I think we should have -- actually, 

 10 I know we should have a definite separation of the 

 11 Environmental Protection Agency and loving industry. 

 12 Jobs are not to love industry; it's to protect human 

 13 health, water, air, and land quality. It's not to 

 14 cradle poor industry that makes massive profits every 

 15 year; it's not -- it's not to baby them and say, oh, 

 16 okay, well, you don't want to fork over billions of 

 17 dollars in order have these things regulated. That 

 18 doesn't make sense. Like how the gentlemen before us, 

 19 which I'm sure hard working men, they highlighted that 

 20 their property taxes that they pay goes to benefit 

 21 schools. 

 22 What benefit does it do if the toxins that 

 23 they're pumping out of their factories are harming 

 24 childrens' health? You guys know that children are the 

 25 most susceptible to these toxins that are being emitted 
 123 

 1 into the air, so I mean, I would really like to 

 2 definitely press to please do what the Environmental 

 3 Protection Agency was formed to do, which is to protect 

 4 our public health and our water and our air; not to baby 

 5 corporations and to let them get away with putting awful 

 6 chemicals into our air. 

 7 And so yeah, in a nutshell, I want to 

 8 thank you for making the first steps. Again, thank you. 

 9 However, please don't take two steps backwards by not 

 10 strictly defining solid waste. It doesn't make any 

 11 sense. That's all I have. 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 13 Questions and comments? 

 14 Okay. Ms. Yawn? 

 15 MS. YAWN: Thank you very much. My name 

 16 is Bridgette Yawn. I'm here as a concerned citizen 

 17 about the issue as far as the definition of solid waste, 

 18 and I'd like to thank the Environmental Protection 

 19 Agency for their efforts towards reducing toxic air 

 20 pollution for the entire nation and the City of Houston. 

 21 Thanks a bunch. 

 22 It's been, yeah, a good ten years coming, 

 23 and within the ten years, we know that our asthma rates 

 24 have doubled in the past ten years. The standards for 

 25 better air quality are way overdue and it's time that we 
 124 

 1 move forward into the right direction, which is a clean 

 2 and healthy future for ourselves and our children here 

 3 in the City of Houston and the whole country, the whole 

 4 world. You know, we all breathe the same air and drink 

 5 the same water, right? 

 6 So -- so yeah, the EPA's decision to 

 7 eliminate unreasonable exemptions from refineries and 

 8 chemical plants, paper mills and other major polluters 

 9 is a huge step in that direction, so again, thank you. 

 10 So with all of this progress of eliminating the toxic 

 11 junk that we breathe, and ozone and the smog, taking -- 

 12 taking a step backwards is taking a dangerous risk for 

 13 our economy and our human health, and I think that we 

 14 can all agree on that. 

 15 The way that we define solid waste when it 

 16 is used for industrial facilities that use process 

 17 heaters and broilers, is -- it's crucial to the lives of 

 18 thousands, and it's so funny how such a small definition 

 19 can make or break the lives of thousands of people every 

 20 year that breathe the air we have here in the City of 

 21 Houston. And yeah, you know, I'm sure we all saw the 

 22 ozone alert sign coming in from 45 today. We're gonna 

 23 see that sign up for the next few months, we all know 

 24 that. 

 25 But again, it's important that we are not 
 125 

 1 taking the step backwards into that wrong direction, but 

 2 we are moving forward. So, yeah, Scarlet, again, it 

 3 doesn't make any sense. Solid waste that -- shredded 

 4 tires, spent chemicals, spent solvents, coal mining 

 5 waste, used motor oil, and other kinds of toxic waste. 

 6 It's -- it's -- that sounds more like industrial toxic 

 7 carcinogens, things that cause cancer, asthma, autism, 

 8 mutations, lung disease, all of which of these things 

 9 have been gradually multiplying within the past few 

 10 decades. 

 11 Last week, my grandfather died of lung 

 12 cancer and never smoked a day in his life, you know, the 

 13 close -- like the closest person in my life that has 

 14 passed away. And I'm supposed to be lucky for that, you 

 15 know, I'm lucky that I even have grandparents. And 

 16 again, let's not take a step backwards on defining solid 

 17 waste. It's industrial waste. It causes cancer. 

 18 People die from it every year, and people in this room, 

 19 we could all die from these things, as well. 

 20 So please -- again, thank you so much for 

 21 letting us come to testify, but again, please do not 

 22 allow these industrial facilities to burn waste under 

 23 uncontrolled and unmonitored ways. It exposes us to 

 24 toxics pollution and deprives us from the right to know 

 25 what that pollution is, and I think that we have the 
 126 

 1 right to know what that pollution is if we could very 

 2 well possibly produce children without birth 

 3 deficiencies or, you know, in the future, die of cancer 

 4 or lung disease. So again, we've been making all of 

 5 this progress within the past ten years; it's been a 

 6 long time coming, so please let's make this step into 

 7 the forward, right direction, for a clean and healthy 

 8 future for ourselves and our children and not taking 

 9 step backwards. And yeah, again, thank you. 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. Any questions, 

 11 comments? 

 12 (No verbal response.) 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you ladies very much. 

 14 Our next two speakers will be Shannon Simkins and Lyla 

 15 Lagner. Ms. Simkins, you can start when you're ready. 

 16 MS. SIMKINS: Okay, cool. I'll keep it 

 17 short and sweet. I know you've all been here a long 

 18 time. So yeah, thanks for having us. Yeah, it's just 

 19 something I wrote I'm just gonna read. So thank you for 

 20 finally proposing emission standards for incinerators. 

 21 The Clean Air Act is a great step in the right 

 22 direction, but unfortunately you've accompanied it with 

 23 a pretty terrible idea. 

 24 Raising the air quality standards and then 

 25 providing a loophole for industry facilities to put 
 127 

 1 whatever they want into the air is just an ironic thing 

 2 for the Environmental Protection Agency to do. This is 

 3 a great chance to show off some of the innovative 

 4 leadership, not bow down to mindless corporate greed. 

 5 So yeah, saving corporations money is a terrible excuse 

 6 to put the public's health at risk. Even worse, this is 

 7 all industries taking no responsibility, be completely 

 8 unregulated, and do whatever they want to our air. It 

 9 is y'all's job to keep this exact situation from 

 10 happening. 

 11 By making them unaccountable, you're 

 12 directly making yourselves accountable. Is it somehow 

 13 okay that at least 1,900 people will die every year 

 14 because of your proposed loophole? Oh, yeah it is 

 15 because you're saving industries money. I grew up in 

 16 Baytown, Texas surrounded by refineries. The landscape 

 17 was pretty bleak, but at least there was some pollution 

 18 regulation. What I mean by that is, the sky was pink at 

 19 night and the air smelled like absolute crap only 

 20 sometimes. I can't imagine living in a town like that. 

 21 My home town is the nearby industrial facilities had 

 22 absolutely no regulation. I'll have lead and mercury, 

 23 benzine, dioxins, and formaldehyde for breakfast. Why 

 24 don't you throw in some severe asthma and cancer with 

 25 that, too. Sorry if it's offensive, but it's the truth 
 128 

 1 whether or not it's hard to swallow. 

 2 What I'm getting at, is that you're all in 

 3 the position to do everything you can to stop these 

 4 terrible things, so you need to do everything you can to 

 5 stop them. You know, instead, you're proposing to allow 

 6 facilities to burn waste in uncontrolled and unmonitored 

 7 facilities. I'm pretty sure if you and your children 

 8 lived in Baytown, Houston, or any similar area, you 

 9 wouldn't even consider this ludicrous definition of 

 10 solid waste to be acceptable. 

 11 Like, are you really going to sit here and 

 12 tell me you don't matter, but this does? It's just 

 13 ridiculous. Don't give into greed and ridiculous 

 14 industrial lobbyists. I'm pretty disgusted with the 

 15 whole situation, but I know that, like, deep down you're 

 16 real human beings and that you can make the right 

 17 decision, the -- really the only decision, like, you 

 18 just have to wake up and make it. 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. Questions? 

 20 (No verbal response.) 

 21 MS. LAGNER: Okay. Hey, I'm Lyla Lagner, 

 22 and I'm a campaigner with the Texas Campaign for the 

 23 Environment, and I haven't written anything; I'm just 

 24 going to kind of talk for a minute. 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: Sure, that's fine. 
 129 

 1 MS. LAGNER: So a couple of months ago, 

 2 the EPA had a similar panel meeting here to discuss 

 3 raising the ozone standards for the entire region. 

 4 There were only three in the entire country and it was 

 5 awesome to hold it here, because obviously Houston has 

 6 some of the worst air quality in the entire country, and 

 7 we have a lot of people living in this city that have 

 8 asthma and upper respiratory diseases, and it's because 

 9 you can't breathe the air. 

 10 And I think everybody in this room can 

 11 acknowledge that, and so when we came here, we went out 

 12 into the neighborhoods around the Hobby Airport, which 

 13 is where there's a ton of pollution. I mean, if you 

 14 take 45 southbound, you're gonna hit about -- I mean, 

 15 there are oil refineries, there are petrochemical 

 16 plants, and these places are already pretty unregulated, 

 17 as far as what they're allowed to pump into the 

 18 atmosphere that we're expected to be able to breathe. 

 19 And so we went out into neighborhoods 

 20 trying to get people to come to the meeting and write 

 21 letters discussing the ozone standards, and we generated 

 22 hundreds of letter from even like small children who 

 23 said, you know, "I have asthma," or, "I have lung 

 24 cancer." 

 25 And so the ozone standards were raised for 
 130 

 1 Houston, so thanks for doing that. So what I find 

 2 ironic is that we're now discussing, you know, letting 

 3 industries that make billions of dollars that could 

 4 easily just fix their machinery or do -- you know, they 

 5 don't need -- they could easily be spending money on 

 6 improving the way that they do their business, the way 

 7 that they pump toxic crap into our air, but they don't 

 8 want to spend that money. 

 9 They want to make more money by, you know, 

 10 just saying, oh, well, never mind. We'll just 

 11 deregulate it so these people won't know what we're 

 12 dumping into their air whether or not it's mercury, 

 13 lead, arsenic, dioxins, stuff that we all know causes 

 14 birth defects and cancer. 

 15 I mean, I don't -- I don't understand how 

 16 that is an acceptable compromise at all. We've already 

 17 raised the ozone standards. Why would we let these 

 18 companies put more junk into our air and not have it be 

 19 regulated at all. People living near those places where 

 20 they're going to be doing this aren't the rich people 

 21 that live in Houston and River Oaks; they're people that 

 22 live in small houses and pay rent and, you know, 

 23 can't -- can't always afford buy their kids -- like, do 

 24 we have to start buying our kids gas masks pretty soon? 

 25 I mean, these people can't afford to do that. 
 131 

 1 So they're the ones that are really at 

 2 risk here, and I think their public health and safety is 

 3 worth a hell of a lot more than a couple of million 

 4 dollars for a refinery we or petrochemical company that 

 5 makes more profit in one year than anybody in any of 

 6 those neighborhoods combined. So yes, that's pretty 

 7 much all I have, and I think also we need to start 

 8 talking about corporate responsibility in a way that 

 9 makes sense. 

 10 You know, these are industries that -- 

 11 they -- they're accountable to their shareholders before 

 12 the public. And I mean, obviously, we can look at BP 

 13 and the Chevron spill, and all these events that are 

 14 happening. And it's because, for years, we've said, 

 15 "Oh, well. Don't worry. Just take care it yourself. 

 16 We trust you." So I don't understand why we would be 

 17 doing more of that. We need to be -- have more 

 18 regulations, not less. We need to make sure that 

 19 they're held accountable, and so doing this -- saying, 

 20 hey, burn whatever you want, just call it fuel so that 

 21 nobody will know what it is, I understand how that makes 

 22 no sense and I think it's a ridiculous idea, so don't do 

 23 it. Thanks. 

 24 MR. WAYLAND: Thanks very much. Any 

 25 questions? 
 132 

 1 (No verbal response.) 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. We have one more 

 3 speaker before we're gonna take a 90-minute recess for 

 4 lunch. Laura Hutchinson. 

 5 MS. HUTCHINSON: My name is Laura 

 6 Hutchinson. I also work for Texas Campaign for the 

 7 Environment, but I'm here as a concerned private citizen 

 8 because I -- you know, I appreciate you giving us the 

 9 opportunity to speak up here, you know, let you know how 

 10 we feel about this. 

 11 First off, just address the -- the 

 12 semantics of what we're talking about here. Toxic waste 

 13 is still toxic waste regardless of what you do with it. 

 14 The molecules that cause cancer and asthma, they don't 

 15 care why they're being burned. That doesn't make them 

 16 any less dangerous or any less likely to cause cancer or 

 17 asthma or birth defects. It doesn't -- you know, it 

 18 doesn't make it safer or cleaner when you burn these 

 19 things; it just changes them. It puts them into the 

 20 air, it doesn't -- yeah, it doesn't make them safer. So 

 21 with that said, when -- you know, when people have 

 22 cancer because they live next to a refinery, or when 

 23 kids grow up with asthma, or sometimes they don't grow 

 24 up because some kids die from asthma, the industry has a 

 25 name for these costs to our families and our 
 133 

 1 communities. They cause these externalities. That 

 2 means that they don't factor these into the budget, into 

 3 the business model. Instead, they just pass these costs 

 4 onto everyone else and we have to bear these costs, our 

 5 communities, our children, our grandparents. This is 

 6 where the EPA comes in. 

 7 It's because of this economic model that 

 8 you need someone to protect public health. That's why 

 9 you guys are here, because it's your job to protect 

 10 public health and to defend the public against the 

 11 industry who may not care about their health. And it's 

 12 your job to put these health costs back into the 

 13 equation to make them answer to public health. The 

 14 industry -- the industry doesn't need protection; they 

 15 have -- they have all the power -- almost all of it. 

 16 You know, they have an awful lot of money and they can 

 17 spend it on lawyers. 

 18 But we do still have government regulatory 

 19 agencies that still hold the power, but it's not -- you 

 20 know, it's not easy and you -- you know, you guys will 

 21 need to hang onto this. But you know, the -- the kids, 

 22 the elderly, the folks who are just surviving who can't 

 23 afford lawyers, they might not even be afford doctor 

 24 visits, they might not be able to afford treatment for 

 25 their illnesses. It's -- it's you guys' job to protect 
 134 

 1 these people. That's why there is an Environmental 

 2 Protection Agency, you know, because the industry is 

 3 absolutely not -- you know, the industry isn't going to 

 4 regulate itself. The industry is only going to be 

 5 regulated by profit. That's what they're for, and I 

 6 mean that's -- that's fine; that's how they work, you 

 7 know, it's their job to make money, but someone else 

 8 needs to oversee these industries and someone needs to 

 9 make sure they follow the law. 

 10 And so it -- I mean, basically, we're -- 

 11 we're just asking you to do your job and make sure that 

 12 the industry is not allowed to burn toxic waste, that 

 13 they're, you know, not allowed to negligent public 

 14 health, because these -- you know, the community needs 

 15 you right now. They need you to look out for them, 

 16 because really no one else will if you don't. So yeah, 

 17 that's keeping it a bit short. I'm sure you guys have 

 18 heard it all by now. I just wanted to drill that home. 

 19 So thank you so much for having me. 

 20 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Do you 

 21 guys have any comments or questions? 

 22 (No verbal response.) 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. I'd like to thank 

 24 everybody who took time out of their busy schedule this 

 25 morning to come, whether you came to speak or whether 
 135 

 1 you came solely to listen, to hear what's going on. We 

 2 value your input. We're going to recess now for about 

 3 90 minutes -- maybe not quite 90 minutes; maybe about 

 4 70 minutes. We'll reconvene the hearing at 2:00 o'clock 

 5 this afternoon in this room. But for now until 

 6 2:00 o'clock, the hearing is now in recess. Thank you. 

 7 (Recess taken from 12:39 p.m. to 2:04 

 8 p.m.) 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: We're going to reconvene 

 10 today's hearing. Ken's in the building somewhere. 

 11 Hopefully he will get here by the time we start, but he 

 12 slipped out for a second. Hopefully he'll be back 

 13 momentarily. 

 14 I want to thank you again for attending 

 15 today's hearing. We're here to hear public comments on 

 16 the four rules that were recently proposed by the 

 17 Environmental Protection Agency. Three of those rules 

 18 are under the Clean Air Act, two under Section 112, the 

 19 Major and Area Source Industrial Boiler MACT, and GAKT 

 20 respectively, and the third rule out of the air -- the 

 21 commercially incinerator rule, more commonly know as the 

 22 C-S-I-W-I or CISWI rule, and we are also here to take 

 23 comment a RCRA rule that defines non-hazardous solid 

 24 waste. So those will be the four rules we're taking 

 25 comment on here this afternoon. 
 136 

 1 My name is Bob Wayland. I'm the leader of 

 2 the energy strategy group in the sector of policies and 

 3 programs division, which is part of the office of air 

 4 quality planning and standards and research, North 

 5 Carolina. I'm the hearing chair for today, and joining 

 6 me at the table are Marc Thomas, who is in the program 

 7 implementation and information division EPA's office of 

 8 resource conservation and recovery, and Ken Boyce, down 

 9 here on the end, who is from the local EPA Region 6 

 10 office in Dallas, Texas. 

 11 Just some ground rules, housekeeping 

 12 rules. Each person will be called two at a time to come 

 13 to the table here to my left. You will have six minutes 

 14 to present your testimony. There's a green, yellow and 

 15 red light up there on the table that will come on. A 

 16 green light will come on when you start. When you have 

 17 approximately two minutes left, the yellow light will 

 18 come on, and then when the red lights come on and start 

 19 blinking, you should wrap up your comments as quickly as 

 20 possible. 

 21 I'm not going to pull a hook and pull you 

 22 off at exactly six minutes, because everybody this 

 23 morning has been more than generous and try to stick 

 24 within the time limit, but if you go a minute or two 

 25 over, we're not going to -- you're not going to 
 137 

 1 disappear in the ceiling somewhere. So we'll give you 

 2 the time you need to speak. 

 3 We are here to hear your comments as part 

 4 of the rulemaking process. We appreciate the time and 

 5 the expense that a lot of you have gone to, to be here 

 6 this afternoon and we look forward, at this time, to 

 7 reconvene the hearing and hearing your public comments. 

 8 One reminder, the docket for this rule will be accepting 

 9 written public comments until midnight on August the 3rd 

 10 of 2010. So you have about six weeks to still put 

 11 information into the written docket, which will become 

 12 part of the official record for this rulemaking. This 

 13 rulemaking is scheduled to go final on or before 

 14 December 16th of 2010 of this year. 

 15 So with that, I'll call the next two 

 16 speakers. Arturo Blanco and Randy Schiefer. Oh, and I 

 17 did forget. If you would each -- since this is being 

 18 transcribed to go into the docket, if you would -- 

 19 everybody speaker, would you please state your name. If 

 20 it's a difficult pronunciation, please spell it so that 

 21 she can get it right in the record and state the company 

 22 or group that you are affiliated with or representing 

 23 today. Thank you. 

 24 (Speakers approach.) 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Blanco, you have the 
 138 

 1 floor. 

 2 MR. BLANCO: Thank you. My name is Arturo 

 3 Blanco and I am past co-president of NACAA, the National 

 4 Association of Clean Air Agencies, which is the 

 5 association of state local air pollution agencies in 53 

 6 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas 

 7 across the country. I am also Bureau Chief of Air 

 8 Quality Control in the Houston Department of Health and 

 9 Human Services. 

 10 On behalf of NACAA, thank you for this 

 11 opportunity to testify on four related regulations EPA 

 12 has proposed under Sections 112 and 129 of the Clear Air 

 13 Act. The proposed rules will substantially reduce 

 14 emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and 

 15 criteria pollutants from a broad sector of industrial 

 16 commercial and institutional boilers and from commercial 

 17 solid waste incinerators. After coal-fired power 

 18 plants, these combustion units are among the largest 

 19 emitters of toxic and criteria pollutants in the 

 20 country. Accordingly, the benefits to public health and 

 21 welfare that will result from a well-considered rule 

 22 would be substantial across the country and here in 

 23 Houston, which is the fourth largest city in the nation 

 24 with a broad industrial-based economy in energy, 

 25 manufacturing, transportation and others. 
 139 

 1 NACAA strongly supports adoption of timely 

 2 final regulations for each of these sectors that meet 

 3 both the letter and the intent of the law. If EPA fails 

 4 to adopt a standard in a timely fashion, or fails to 

 5 adhere to the statute and the rule is overturned again, 

 6 the public health benefits will be delayed and state and 

 7 local agencies could be faced with the significant 

 8 burden of developing MACT for several thousand permits 

 9 on a case-by-case basis. 

 10 NACCA appreciates this opportunity to 

 11 provide EPA with our initial impressions of the 

 12 proposal, and will also submit detailed written 

 13 comments. Overall, NACAA is pleased that the recent 

 14 proposals are a vast improvement over earlier efforts 

 15 and that EPA is generally on the right track. However, 

 16 there are several critical areas that appear to be 

 17 unworkable or unsupportable on the rulemaking record. 

 18 When the court vacated the earlier ICI Boiler MACT rule 

 19 and state and local permit authorities were faced with 

 20 developing case-by-case MACT permits, NACAA collected 

 21 existing test data from over 40 state and local 

 22 permitting agencies, including hundreds of data points 

 23 that NACAA used to calculate MACT floors, which were 

 24 substantially lower than those adopted by EPA in its 

 25 earlier rule. The NACAA database was provided to EPA in 
 140 

 1 June of 2009. 

 2 Many units combust mixtures of fuels. 

 3 When switching fuels, emissions of one HAP may increase 

 4 while those of another HAP may decrease without clear 

 5 correlation. In its model permit guidance, NACAA 

 6 considered only those results where a source was burning 

 7 100 percent of one category of fuel during the test. 

 8 Under NACAA's recommended approach, sources would be 

 9 separately tested for compliance with each applicable 

 10 limit. NACAA also noted that during compliance testing, 

 11 sources may be able to establish unit-specific 

 12 correlations for operation of different fuels. 

 13 EPA apparently did not use any of the 

 14 testing in the NACAA database to establish the MACT 

 15 floors. The EPA data includes numerous entries where a 

 16 source was combusting different, which NACAA believes 

 17 will be difficult to translate into enforceable MACT 

 18 limitations. While the NACAA and EPA data sets often 

 19 produce generally consistent results, EPA cannot exclude 

 20 from the calculation of the top performing 12 percent 

 21 the testing conducted for other compliance purposes as 

 22 required by state and local permit officials. 

 23 EPA's approach is to categorize sources 

 24 according to fuels that they are "designed to combust," 

 25 and allow sources to comply with what EPA apparently 
 141 

 1 considers the "least stringent" standard for any of the 

 2 fuels that it may combust. NACAA believes that this 

 3 approach is likely to be unworkable for many sources and 

 4 may not be legal. 

 5 Several options have been proposed for 

 6 which EPA offered little or no justification and 

 7 analysis. Some are also of doubtful legality; in 

 8 particular, the clearly erroneous suggestion that EPA 

 9 could establish risk-based exemptions at levels less 

 10 stringent than the MACT floor. NACAA recommends that 

 11 EPA avoid options that carry a substantial risk of a 

 12 lawsuit that delays implementation of these important 

 13 public health protections. 

 14 The proposal not to set a MACT floor or 

 15 MACT emission limit for large gas-fired boilers is 

 16 another example. EPA's principal argument for it is 

 17 that imposing MACT limits on gas-fired boilers doubles 

 18 the anticipated cost of the rule. However, there is no 

 19 cost test for the MACT floor. Also, EPA has not 

 20 included information in its proposal for the public to 

 21 evaluate about whether excluding natural gas units from 

 22 numeric MACT limits is in the public interest. Further, 

 23 EPA's cost discussion fails to analyze or calculate the 

 24 full benefits of these rules to the public. 

 25 With respect to variability, without any 
 142 

 1 justification EPA applies a statistical test that 

 2 requires 99 percent confidence that a standard has been 

 3 exceeded before a violation is established. EPA also 

 4 appears to calculate this factor on the basis of 

 5 variability of individual test runs. This is in 

 6 contrast with a 90-percent confidence factor applied to 

 7 the average of three runs to calculate variability, as 

 8 used by EPA in other rules, and as required by the 

 9 applicable standard. The general result of requiring a 

 10 higher confidence level is that the standard is higher 

 11 than it otherwise would have been. 

 12 In conclusion, the proposals are a marked 

 13 improvement over EPA's earlier efforts. If the Agency 

 14 follows the law and simply bases its decisions on the 

 15 available date, very significant reductions of both 

 16 toxic and criteria pollutants will result at costs that 

 17 appear to be reasonable and manageable. NACAA urges EPA 

 18 to complete these rules in a timely, thoughtful, and 

 19 lawful manner. Thank you for the opportunity to 

 20 testify. 

 21 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, sir. I had one 

 22 question with regard to the large gas-powered units. 

 23 Are you requesting that we set emission limits or do not 

 24 set emission limits for those? 

 25 MR. BLANCO: You're talking about the 
 143 

 1 10 million BTU-per-hour? 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: I may have misunderstood 

 3 your statement. I just wrote down that you didn't like 

 4 the lack of emission limits for large gas-fired units, 

 5 and I was just trying to better understand which one of 

 6 those -- 

 7 MR. BLANCO: I think the issue is the 

 8 enforceability of it in terms of how those -- 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. 

 10 MR. BLANCO: -- and the written comments 

 11 will provide a lot of detail about that. 

 12 MR. WAYLAND: Okay, thank you. 

 13 Mr. Schiefer? 

 14 MR. SCHIEFER: Thank you, Bob. Can you 

 15 hear me okay? 

 16 MR. WAYLAND: Sure. 

 17 MR. SCHIEFER: Okay. I'm Randy Schiefer. 

 18 I'm representing Norbord Industries, headquartered in 

 19 Toronto, Canada. Norbord is an international 

 20 manufacturer of panelboard products, and Norbord 

 21 operates seven oriented strand board mills in six 

 22 states; Minnesota, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 

 23 Mississippi, and Texas. 

 24 My remarks will focus on six issues 

 25 concerning the rule in question. The first is the 
 144 

 1 proposed the emission limits. Norbord supports the 

 2 reasonable emission standards that would protect public 

 3 health and are environmentally responsible. While 

 4 Norbord shares the same EPA with commitment to clean 

 5 air, several of the proposed limits approach 

 6 unachievable levels of -- to the point of being absurd. 

 7 For instance, some of the proposed 

 8 emission limits approach levels which can barely be 

 9 detected, with industry-standard testing devices. 

 10 Fossil versus biofuels. The forest industry has been, 

 11 and continues to be, the largest consumer of biofuels. 

 12 The rule as proposed ironically would impede 

 13 environmental progress that many companies are achieving 

 14 through greater and more efficient use of carbon-neutral 

 15 biomass and would force the use of fossil fuels, which 

 16 is face far less stringent requirements under the 

 17 proposed rule. 

 18 Norbord suggests that the EPA requires 

 19 this approach to recognize the carbon-neutral 

 20 contribution of the biomass boilers in existence and 

 21 ensure that these boilers are not penalized because they 

 22 used an inherently cleaner fuel from the start. Boiler 

 23 diversity. The December final rule fails to recognize 

 24 the extent of the boiler diversity in the industry. The 

 25 rule as written will entail extremely expensive fixes; 
 145 

 1 in some cases, may not be achievable. If the EPA were 

 2 to provide a more flexible approach in Boiler MACT, its 

 3 goals could be achieved without unnecessary regulatory 

 4 costs and potential for loss of jobs. Realistic 

 5 standards. Norbord feels that a reasonable approach 

 6 would be to set emission standards based on the 

 7 best-performing units -- that the best-performing can 

 8 currently achieve. For example, the rule fails to 

 9 target areas where improvements can be made, and instead 

 10 requires installation, in some cases, of up to four 

 11 different air and pollution control devices, which will 

 12 conflict with other existing pollution control 

 13 requirements. 

 14 Willingness to work together. Norbord 

 15 proposes greater effort be made to involve industry 

 16 experts in establishing technically sound and 

 17 cost-effective options and emission limits. Facilities 

 18 should have the option to avoid installing controls 

 19 where risk analysis determines emissions are within safe 

 20 limits. EPA's goals can be achieved without excessive 

 21 regulatory compliance costs which could cripple 

 22 industries to compete internationally. We can do the 

 23 reasonable thing now rather than resort to court 

 24 challenges later. 

 25 And finally, costs. The rule will 
 146 

 1 substantially increase compliance costs. The proposed 

 2 changes come at a time when mill closures/curtailments 

 3 have reduced OSB board production by nearly 50 percent. 

 4 Regulations that do little to improve the environment 

 5 eventually threaten jobs and can lead to permanent 

 6 rather than temporary closures. 

 7 And I close on a personal note. Norbord 

 8 has two OSB mills in Texas; one located in Nacogdoches, 

 9 the other at Jefferson. Within the past three years, 

 10 Norbord has invested over $10 million at each location 

 11 on PCWP MACT improvements. Unfortunately, the Jefferson 

 12 mill was closed indefinitely January 2009 due to 

 13 economic conditions (our products are used directly in 

 14 the housing industry). One hundred employees lost their 

 15 jobs. The decision to re-opening this mill will be 

 16 measured against several factors, not the least of which 

 17 would be additional capital investment to meet more 

 18 stringent environment standards. Thank you. 

 19 MR. WAYLAND: Any clarifying questions 

 20 from you guys? 

 21 (No verbal response.) 

 22 MR. WAYLAND: If you'll hand them to this 

 23 young lady over here. Thank you. 

 24 Okay. Our next two speakers this 

 25 afternoon will be Cynthia Redwine and Matthew Caves. 
 147 

 1 (Speakers approach.) 

 2 MR. WAYLAND: Ms. Redwine, you can start 

 3 when you're ready. 

 4 MS. REDWINE: Okay. Thank you. Good 

 5 afternoon. My name is Cynthia Redwine. I'm the 

 6 director of environmental health for the American Lung 

 7 Association of the central states. We serve Arkansas, 

 8 Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

 9 First, I'd like to thank you for this 

 10 opportunity to speak today and share our thoughts. 

 11 These comments will apply to all of the proposed rules, 

 12 and will provide more thereupon in the docket. The 

 13 American Lung Association is committed to fighting for 

 14 healthy air. We save lives through the prevention of 

 15 lung disease and the promotion of lung health. 

 16 The key to that work is supporting cleanup 

 17 of emissions from widespread pollution sources. We have 

 18 long been concerned about industrial, commercial, and 

 19 institutional boilers and solid waste incinerators, 

 20 toxic air pollution, including sulfur dioxide and 

 21 particulate matter. The American Lung Association 

 22 strongly supports EPA requiring cleanup of major source 

 23 and areas where its industrial, commercial, and 

 24 institutional boilers and solid waste incinerators. 

 25 These chemical plants, refineries, paper mills and other 
 148 

 1 industrial commercial and institutional sources have 

 2 been sources of life-threatening and life-altering gases 

 3 and particles in communities all across the nation. 

 4 I personally don't want anyone in my 

 5 family having to breathe the polluting air coming from 

 6 these plants, especially my newborn daughter. I'm 

 7 concerned that these boilers and incinerators produce 

 8 particulate matter, the most dangerous of widespread air 

 9 pollutants. I'm also concerned with CT and it spreading 

 10 mercury and lead, hazardous metal to children -- that 

 11 harms childrens' brains and limiting their ability to 

 12 learn and remember what they've learned. 

 13 Many of the other air toxics pollutants 

 14 seen from these sources cause cancer including, 

 15 formaldehyde, dioxin, furans, and hydrochloric acid. My 

 16 mother is battling cancer, and I hope to do all I can to 

 17 shelter myself and the rest of our family from such a 

 18 cruel disease. Because these devices are so numerous 

 19 and so widespread the air pollution infiltrates 

 20 communities across the nation. 

 21 Their harm settles heaviest on those who 

 22 live near them, communities often that are poor, less 

 23 educated and populated by minorities. Study after study 

 24 confirms that it can harm these individuals far more 

 25 than it does others. The boiler and incinerator cleanup 
 149 

 1 will save lives, up to 5,000 every year because of the 

 2 changes put in place by these requirements beginning in 

 3 2013, as estimated by the EPA. Less polluted air should 

 4 also prevent over 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, avoid 

 5 over 35,000 cases of worsened asthma, and eliminate 

 6 nearly 3,400 hospital and emergency room visits each 

 7 year. 

 8 As the EPA estimates that cleaner air from 

 9 cutting emissions from major areas with source boilers 

 10 will amount to up to over $43 billion each year 

 11 beginning in 2013 in savings. There are overwhelming 

 12 benefits that far outweigh costs to cleaning up our air. 

 13 Specifically, the American Lung Association urges the 

 14 Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen the 

 15 proposed ruleless for incinerators, and for the -- to 

 16 narrow the definition of solid waste, which opens the 

 17 huge loophole that threatens public health. 

 18 We urge the EPA not to allow industry to 

 19 burn waste in uncontrolled and unmonitored facilities. 

 20 On behalf of children of developing lungs, kids 

 21 suffering from asthma in our communities next door to 

 22 these facilities, and adults whose health is so 

 23 compromised they can't be here to speak. We urge the 

 24 EPA to strengthen these requirements on boilers, 

 25 incinerators, and solid waste. All of us deserve to 
 150 

 1 breathe healthy area, and we're counting on the EPA to 

 2 deliver cleaner, healthier area in every community. Too 

 3 many people have suffered for too long. It is -- now is 

 4 the time to require all these plants to clean up. Thank 

 5 you. 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 7 questions or comments? 

 8 (No verbal response.) 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, ma'am. 

 10 Mr. Caves? 

 11 MR. CAVES: My name is Matt Caves, C-A-V-, 

 12 as in Victor, -E-S. I'm an attorney with the Oklahoma 

 13 Department of Environmental Quality, and I'm here to 

 14 speak on the identification of non-hazardous secondary 

 15 materials as solid waste. First, the Oklahoma 

 16 Department of Environmental Quality, ODEQ, appreciates 

 17 the opportunity to make oral comments during this public 

 18 hearing process. We will submit additional written 

 19 comments with supporting data. 

 20 Before I start, I'd like to provide a very 

 21 brief background of the state tire program in Oklahoma. 

 22 The Oklahoma Waste Tire Recycling Act originally came 

 23 into effect July 1st of 1989. The state legislature 

 24 declared it a policy of the state to, quote, "Encourage 

 25 recycling of used tires," end quote. As intended by the 
 151 

 1 act, in the past ten years alone, Oklahoma has 

 2 remediated approximately 280 illegal tire dumps removing 

 3 almost 550,000 used tires. Initially, illegal tire 

 4 dumps were very large. As the tire program has matured 

 5 in the state, illegal tire dumps have become smaller 

 6 because Oklahoma has more viable outlets for these used 

 7 tires. 

 8 Annually, approximately 3.3 million used 

 9 tires are processed and/or recycled in Oklahoma. The 

 10 use of tires as a tire-derived fuel in cement kilns has 

 11 led to a large percentage of used tires being processed, 

 12 recycled and/or reused annually. Currently, cement 

 13 kilns in Oklahoma account for approximately 

 14 1.85 million, which is almost 56 percent of Oklahoma's 

 15 3.3 million used tires annually. 

 16 As a result, the ODEQ requests that EPA 

 17 leaves the use of whole tires and/or shredded tires as 

 18 an attractive option for the cement kilns. Without 

 19 cement kilns, Oklahoma could not recycle and reuse such 

 20 a large number of used tires on an annual basis. 

 21 Without cement kilns, the number of illegal tire dumps 

 22 would grow exponentially. Further, changing the 

 23 definition of solid waste to include used tires that 

 24 have been discarded; and used tires that have been 

 25 discarded to be processed, with steel belting removed, 
 152 

 1 would be disastrous in Oklahoma's tire program. 

 2 Over the years, various technical reports, 

 3 some published by EPA, have supported the use of whole 

 4 or shredded tires as TDF in cement kilns. 

 5 Throughout the rulemaking process, the EPA 

 6 is appearing consistent regarding the combustion of used 

 7 tires and cement kilns. The advance notice of the 

 8 proposed rulemaking appeared to support the use of TDF 

 9 in cement kilns. The preamble to the notice of proposed 

 10 rulemaking appeared the same, though the text has 

 11 changed and there are some inconsistencies. 

 12 EPA is not provided -- EPA is not provided 

 13 an explanation of this change and/or any basis for the 

 14 change other than relying on the definition of discarded 

 15 tires only. The ODEQ believes an exemption should be 

 16 provided for state tire programs already in existence. 

 17 Such an exemption would be straightforward and clear -- 

 18 for such an exemption should be straightforward and 

 19 clear. Such an exemption should be without a lot red 

 20 tape and/or the petition process that's been identified 

 21 as an alternative. State tire programs currently in 

 22 existence should be grandfather into the rulemaking 

 23 process. These programs have proven effective -- to be 

 24 effective. Further the use of whole and/or shredded 

 25 tires as a TDF should be encouraged by EPA, not 
 153 

 1 discouraged or prohibited. The use of one ton of whole 

 2 or shredded tires in cement kilns is the equivalent of 

 3 1.25 tons of coal combustion. 

 4 Further, when whole tires are combusted in 

 5 cement kilns, the steel belting becomes a component of 

 6 clinker replacing some or all of the iron required by 

 7 the manufacturing process. Dealing with discarded tires 

 8 and the force processing of whole tires only increases 

 9 energy use across the board. If EPA disallows the 

 10 combustion of whole or shredded tires in cement kilns 

 11 merely because they were discarded, extra energy will 

 12 not only be required in the processing of the whole 

 13 tires, but also in the removal of the steel belts from 

 14 used tires. 

 15 Even further, if crumb rubber is combusted 

 16 in cement kilns, the iron component has to be 

 17 reintroduced back into the kilns separately. Why 

 18 require the removal of steel belts if they can be 

 19 advantageous. How is that beneficial? The combustion 

 20 of whole and/or shredded tires as TDF and cement kilns 

 21 saves energy. The combustion of whole and/or shredded 

 22 tires is economically feasible. If the recycling or 

 23 reuse of tires as a TDF is prohibited as a result of 

 24 this rulemaking, what is Oklahoma to do with their used 

 25 tires? There is no benefit to the environment when 
 154 

 1 illegal tire dumps increase exponentially and/or 

 2 monofill landfills are required because they have to be 

 3 created, as a result of the lack of use or beneficial 

 4 use of the used tires. 

 5 With an increase of illegal tire dumps, 

 6 there's also an increase of risk of fires, there's also 

 7 an increase of diseased vectors. There's no benefit to 

 8 EPA when it pushes the retirement of additional energy 

 9 and the processing of the used tires when the whole or 

 10 shredded tire can be used without the processing. A 

 11 review of the notice of public rulemaking appears to 

 12 indicate EPA is pushing for increased use of coal and 

 13 cement kilns. 

 14 EPA should be pushing for the use of 

 15 alternative fuels that provide for recycling and reuse 

 16 of used tires. Why disallow or hinder state tire 

 17 programs that are currently working? State tire 

 18 programs provide both environmental and economic 

 19 benefits. Currently, effective state tire programs 

 20 should be grandfathered and the state tire programs 

 21 should be encouraged, not encumbered. Thank you for the 

 22 opportunity. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, sir. Any 

 24 comments, questions from you guys? 

 25 (No verbal response.) 
 155 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you both very much. 

 2 Thank you very coming. 

 3 Our next two speakers will be David 

 4 Bonistall and Pat Moore. 

 5 (Speakers approach.) 

 6 MR. BONISTALL: Good afternoon. My name 

 7 is David Bonistall. I am the vice president of 

 8 environmental, health, and safety for NewPage 

 9 Corporation. NewPage Corporation is the largest coated 

 10 paper manufacturer in North America, based on production 

 11 capacity, with $3.1 billion in net sales for the year 

 12 ending 2009. Our U.S. paper mills are located in 

 13 Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

 14 Wisconsin. Around 49 percent of our energy comes from 

 15 renewable sources. We generate about 86 percent of the 

 16 energy we use. 

 17 On June 4th, EPA proposed four related 

 18 rulemakings. My comments today will address the 

 19 proposed Boiler MACT rule, the proposed non-hazardous 

 20 solid waste materials definition, and our significant 

 21 concerns that each pose to our company. 

 22 At NewPage, we have 27 boilers impacted by 

 23 the proposed Boiler MACT rule; 12 solid fuel, three 

 24 liquid fuel, and 12 natural gas. Even though many of 

 25 our solid fuel boilers currently have state-of-the-art 
 156 

 1 controls, they still will not consistently meet the 

 2 proposed Boiler MACT standards. 

 3 We are in the process of reviewing and 

 4 conducting detail site-specific engineering review to 

 5 determine the Boiler MACT compliance costs for NewPage. 

 6 However, preliminary cost estimates for NewPage indicate 

 7 capital expenditure of greater than $100 million, and 

 8 potentially several million dollars in additional annual 

 9 operating costs for these facilities. These costs are 

 10 significant and will put NewPage at a distinct 

 11 disadvantage as we compete in a global marketplace with 

 12 other paper producers located in jurisdictions that do 

 13 not have to comply with these requirements. EPA needs 

 14 to be including flexibility options that allow for 

 15 alternate compliance approaches. To address areas of 

 16 concern while minimizing regulatory compliance costs, we 

 17 recommend following flexibility improvements. 

 18 EPA needs to include the use of Clean Air 

 19 Act Section 112(d)(4) to establish health-based emission 

 20 limitations on a facility-by-facility basis using a 

 21 reasonable demonstration method without unnecessarily 

 22 complicated procedures. This will target environmental 

 23 investments where there is a real need. 

 24 EPA needs to include a total select metals 

 25 unit as an alternative compliance approach for the 
 157 

 1 proposed PM standard. EPA needs to provide alternative 

 2 organic HAP limits for units that coke-fire coal and 

 3 biomass. These units are being penalized under the 

 4 proposed subcategories. Our units that fire more than 

 5 10 percent coal and biomass are placed in a coal 

 6 subcategory, but will have trouble meeting the organic 

 7 HAP limits. As a compliance strategy, units may have to 

 8 switch away from biomass and burn more coal. This 

 9 unintended consequence of replacing biomass and fossil 

 10 fuel is contrary to national policy and encourages the 

 11 use of more renewable biomass fuel. 

 12 EPA needs to include further 

 13 subcategorization to address small or limited-use units. 

 14 EPA needs to maintain the work practice standard for 

 15 natural gas. For determining the MACT floor, EPA needs 

 16 to use emission information that is representative of 

 17 the subcategory, and takes into account unit operating 

 18 variability and how best-performing a units perform 

 19 across the HAPs being regulated. EPA has used a "best 

 20 of the best" data set and has "cherry picked" the best 

 21 data to establish the proposed limits on a 

 22 pollutant-by-pollutant basis. This approach has 

 23 resulted in very stringent limits that are not 

 24 reflective of the actual performance of one or more 

 25 units. 
 158 

 1 The EPA needs to be clear that 

 2 tire-derived fuel is a fuel and not a waste. Defining 

 3 the classification of TDF based on wire content is 

 4 arbitrary and does not relate to environmental impact. 

 5 Our vendors that supply TDF as a boiler fuel are not 

 6 able to meet the "relatively wire-free requirement." If 

 7 TDF is considered a waste and not a fuel, we will 

 8 potentially cease to use and replace about a 100,000 

 9 plus tons per year of TDF with coal at a significantly 

 10 higher cost. 

 11 We are very concerned that these proposed 

 12 rules are far more restrictive than needed to protect 

 13 the environment. Industry cost estimates for compliance 

 14 with these rules is in the range of $20 to $50 billion 

 15 and significantly higher than EPA's cost estimates. 

 16 These high costs, at a time when the 

 17 nation is recovering from the recession, are not 

 18 sustainable and will result in further loss of 

 19 high-quality manufacturing jobs in the United States as 

 20 companies close or relocate offshore. Thank you for the 

 21 opportunity to comment. NewPage will be submitting 

 22 detailed comments by the August deadline. 

 23 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much for your 

 24 comments. Do you have any questions? 

 25 (No verbal response.) 
 159 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Moore? 

 2 MR. MOORE: Good afternoon. My name is 

 3 Pat Moore. I'm the mill manager at the Luke mill. The 

 4 Luke mill is located in Luke, Maryland as part of 

 5 NewPage Corporation. At the Luke mill, we manufacture 

 6 about 530,000 tons per year of coated-free sheet papers 

 7 for use in the commercial and publication printing as 

 8 well as one-sided coated papers for label applications. 

 9 Our products enhance society's well-being while 

 10 providing good jobs for American men and women in a very 

 11 rural area. 

 12 The Luke mill has been an active and 

 13 significant presence in the surrounding region since 

 14 1888. The mill encompasses about 228 acres and is 

 15 located in three counties in two states; Alleganey and 

 16 Garrett counties in Maryland and Mineral County in West 

 17 Virginia. We employ about 970 individuals with 

 18 high-quality green jobs with annual employee wages and 

 19 benefits totaling more than $82 million. These are very 

 20 good paying jobs and are important for the survival of 

 21 surrounding small and rural communities. Most of our 

 22 employees are also our neighbors living within 25 miles 

 23 of the mill, yet some of them live right across the 

 24 street from us. At the Luke mill, we take our corporate 

 25 responsibility to protect and sustain the environment 
 160 

 1 and our natural resources very seriously. Clean air and 

 2 clean water are very important for the health and 

 3 availability of the basic raw materials that we use to 

 4 manufacture paper. Throughout the history of the Luke 

 5 mill, we've invested in state-of-the-art equipment to 

 6 include in the quality of our products and the 

 7 efficiency of our operations. We have made significant 

 8 investments in high-grade materials and technologies was 

 9 to ensure the Luke mill is safe, cost competitive, and 

 10 environmentally sound. 

 11 On June 4th, the EPA proposed that Boiler 

 12 Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule and three 

 13 other related rules. My comments today will address the 

 14 proposed Boiler MACT rule. 

 15 At the Luke mill, we have three boilers 

 16 impacted by the proposed Boiler MACT rule, two solid 

 17 fuel boilers, and one natural gas boiler. We are 

 18 concerned that the proposed Boiler MACT rule is far more 

 19 restrictive than needed to protect the environment. We 

 20 believe EPA has significant discretion with the MACT 

 21 program to use various approaches to allow flexibility 

 22 for the regulated community while still protecting 

 23 public health and the environment and avoiding the 

 24 unnecessary burdens and associated costs the proposed 

 25 rule could pose. 
 161 

 1 At Luke, we invested over $32 million to 

 2 install a baghouse for our boilers to ensure compliance 

 3 with the previous Boiler MACT rule. We find it very 

 4 disturbing that our new state-of-the-art baghouse does 

 5 not comply with the proposed particulate matter emission 

 6 limit. We are still in the process of conducting an 

 7 engineering review to determine what enhancements are 

 8 needed to improve the performance of the baghouse so it 

 9 can meet the proposed particulate matter limits. 

 10 We are also evaluating costs for 

 11 compliance with the other Boiler MACT proposed limits. 

 12 In addition to the $32 million we already spent, our 

 13 preliminary information indicates that Luke will need to 

 14 invest another $14 and a half million to ensure 

 15 compliance with proposed Boiler MACT limits. These 

 16 costs are very significant for my mill and will put us 

 17 at a disadvantage not have to comply with these 

 18 requirements. I am concerned that these additional 

 19 costs will impact our ability to compete successfully in 

 20 a global marketplace. 

 21 If EPA provides more flexible approaches 

 22 for compliance alternatives in the rule, public health 

 23 and the environment will still be protected without 

 24 unnecessary costs. I would like to suggest for EPA's 

 25 consideration the following options to address areas of 
 162 

 1 concern while minimizing regulatory compliance costs. 

 2 EPA should utilize Clean Air Act Section 

 3 112(d)(4) to establish health-based emission limitations 

 4 to protect the environment and public health. This will 

 5 avoid the use of unnecessary controls when emissions of 

 6 pollutants are low enough to be safe. The use of 

 7 health-based emission limitations will be no more 

 8 stringent or less stringent than needed and will also 

 9 target environmental investments where there is a real 

 10 need. 

 11 EPA should include total select metals 

 12 limit as an alternative compliance approached for the 

 13 proposed particulate matter standard. EPA should 

 14 include further subcategorization to address small or 

 15 limited use units. The EPA should maintain the work 

 16 practice standard for natural gas units. 

 17 I would like to conclude with a process 

 18 recommendation for EPA. As a facility manager, it is 

 19 very difficult for me to determine what my requirements, 

 20 obligations and potential costs would be for Boiler MACT 

 21 when EPA has yet to determine what is a "fuel" and what 

 22 is a "waste." Please finalize the definition of 

 23 non-hazardous solid waste first, then stabilize the data 

 24 set and boiler and floor determinations with "boiler" 

 25 units, request more information to fill data gaps and 
 163 

 1 then come back to the reasonable Boiler MACT proposal. 

 2 Please also ask the courts for as much time is needed to 

 3 finalize a rule that is reasonable, meets the intended 

 4 objectives and is well thought through. Thank you for 

 5 the opportunity to provide comments and for your 

 6 attention. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Any questions? Thank you, 

 8 gentlemen, very much. We have two additional speakers, 

 9 James Klein and Jason Frederick. 

 10 (Speakers approach.) 

 11 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Klein, whenever you're 

 12 ready. 

 13 MR. KLEIN: Good afternoon my name is 

 14 James Klein. I am the current chair of the Clean Air 

 15 Economy Coalition of Corpus Christi, Texas. I'm here 

 16 representing 400 members and far many more supporters of 

 17 our organization, as well, including organizations such 

 18 as the Beach Act Coalition of Corpus Christi, Surf 

 19 Riders Foundation of Corpus Christi, as well. 

 20 We organized a little over two years ago, 

 21 about two and a half years ago, to promote low-emissions 

 22 energy in the Corpus Christi area, in Oasis County, San 

 23 Patricio County, and in Nueces County, as well, and air 

 24 quality in Corpus Christi is a concern to us. Corpus 

 25 Christi has the highest concentration -- well, the 
 164 

 1 second highest concentration of refineries in the United 

 2 States second only to Los Angeles. We have six 

 3 refineries in a community of 300,000 people, and in 

 4 addition to that, a new Agency, the Las Brisas Energy 

 5 Center is proposing to build a toxic waste incinerator 

 6 in downtown Corpus Christi to burn petroleum. 

 7 TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental 

 8 Quality, will consider are the air permit, permit number 

 9 85- -- is it 85013 -- at its June 30th meeting in Austin 

 10 next week at the Las Brisas Energy Center application -- 

 11 air permit application, and we intend to attend that 

 12 meeting. 

 13 I should tell you that in Oasis County, 

 14 San Patricio County, and Nueces County medical societies 

 15 have all come out against Las Brisas. I believe that 

 16 it's going to be harmful to the community's health, 

 17 already concerned by the absorbently high asthma rates 

 18 in Corpus Christi and surrounding areas and birth 

 19 defects in the area, as well. They're especially 

 20 concerned about current emissions already -- very high 

 21 emissions of SO2 in the communality, particulate matter, 

 22 as well, and very high rates of emissions coming from 

 23 this new proposed plant. 

 24 There are 28,000 schoolchildren who will 

 25 live -- who will go to school within five miles of this 
 165 

 1 proposed plant. Currently, the Las Brisas Energy Center 

 2 is claim/arguing that the MACT analysis is not needed 

 3 because petroleum coke is not defined such as energy or 

 4 as a waste product. We would ask that -- that some 

 5 clarification be provided for that. At the same time, 

 6 as well, there is another study going on in Corpus 

 7 Christi concerning benzine releases from current 

 8 existing refineries in the area. 

 9 This is conducted by a local group called 

 10 the Citizens for Environmental Justice, conducted after 

 11 ten years of refusal to bond the Texas commissioner on 

 12 environmental quality to conduct such a study. That 

 13 year-end study determined there were absorbantly high 

 14 benzine levels in people living in the Hillcrest 

 15 community immediately adjacent to several refineries in 

 16 the northern part of Corpus Christi. 

 17 In Addition to that, as we determine now, 

 18 as a consequence of that study, that hundreds of 

 19 millions of dollars worth of hydrocarbons are in the 

 20 ground and the groundwater beneath the Hillcrest 

 21 neighborhood currently right now seeping into people's 

 22 homes and into their bloodstreams. We would urge that 

 23 the EPA -- TCEQ, as well, and specifically the EPA move 

 24 toward a more cumulative study of emissions -- to look 

 25 at the emissions not just at any one plant, but of all 
 166 

 1 those in the immediate vicinity, whether it be looking 

 2 at SO2 or mercury or lead or particulate matter or what 

 3 have you. And yes, I do intend to submit written 

 4 comments regarding all this, as well, by the August 3rd 

 5 deadline, as well. Thank you for giving me a chance to 

 6 speak. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Okay. 

 8 Thank you, sir. 

 9 Mr. Frederick? 

 10 MR. FREDERICK: Good afternoon. My name 

 11 is Jason Frederick of Total Petrochemicals, and I am 

 12 speaking today on behalf of the Plastics Division of the 

 13 American Chemistry Council, which represents many of the 

 14 nation's leading manufacturers of plastic resins. I am 

 15 here today to provide testimony on the proposed rule 

 16 defining what non-hazardous secondary materials are 

 17 solid wastes for purposes of regulation under Section 

 18 129 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule is 

 19 important to ACC's Plastics Division because the 

 20 plastics industry has a robust and long-standing 

 21 commitment to supporting efforts to address end-of-life 

 22 issues for plastics, and notably, we also promote the 

 23 recycling of plastics as a valuable fuel source. We 

 24 strongly support the use of non-hazardous secondary 

 25 materials as fuel as a means to conserve resources and 
 167 

 1 promote greater diversity of fuel sources. 

 2 For today's hearing, we would like to make 

 3 three key points. First, plastics have a very high 

 4 inherent fuel value. The BTU of plastics is higher than 

 5 coal, which means that plastics that cannot be 

 6 mechanically recycled should be used as fuel rather than 

 7 being landfilled. 

 8 Second, markets are emerging which assess 

 9 value to plastics as fuel source. Even in this 

 10 difficult economic climate, we're seeing innovation and 

 11 growth in conversion technologies that can take 

 12 hard-to-recycle plastics and/or municipal solid waste 

 13 and convert these to different forms of energy. Some 

 14 technologies are converting municipal solid waste to a 

 15 gas, others are converting plastics to a synthetic crude 

 16 oil, and some existing companies are blending 

 17 postconsumer plastics with biomass materials and using 

 18 this fuel to displace coal and petroleum coke in cement 

 19 kilns. In a draft report dated October 2008, for the 

 20 EPA titled "Trends in Beneficial Use of Alternative 

 21 Fuels and Raw Materials" for the Cement Sector, the use 

 22 of plastics-based fuels are mentioned as promising 

 23 alternatives to coal. 

 24 And third, the regulatory structure should 

 25 not unduly burden the ability of the industry to look to 
 168 

 1 plastics as an appropriate source of fuel. 

 2 ACC has been highly successful launching 

 3 multiple programs to reuse and recycle plastics. We 

 4 fully support EPA's general solid waste hierarchy or 

 5 reduce, reuse, recycle, and energy recovery. Landfill 

 6 disposition should be a last resort. As the U.S. EPA 

 7 looks to identify which non-hazardous materials should 

 8 be considered solid waste and which would be considered 

 9 fuel, we support a regulatory regime that would not harm 

 10 the fledgling industry of producing fuels containing 

 11 secondary plastics. 

 12 We see very strong benefits to expanding 

 13 the recovery of energy beyond traditional 

 14 waste-to-energy facilities and cement kilns, and 

 15 ensuring that regulations are not so overly tightened 

 16 that refuse derived fuels containing postconsumer 

 17 plastics cannot remain a viable option for recovery 

 18 energy at industrial and commercial boilers. As this 

 19 nation rises to meet President Obama's challenge of 

 20 becoming more energy independent, combating climate 

 21 change, and promoting a more sustainable planet, we must 

 22 not curtail potential markets for fuels that will 

 23 simultaneously reduce the amount of valuable secondary 

 24 materials going to this nation's landfills. 

 25 We have invested heavily in expanding 
 169 

 1 recycling, but we are here today to state that it is 

 2 critical that we continue to support sound regulatory 

 3 policy that doesn't stifle innovation and energy 

 4 independence. Additional written comments will be 

 5 submitted with respect to how the rulemaking should 

 6 apply to plastics. Thank you. 

 7 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 8 Questions? Comments? 

 9 (No verbal response.) 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, gentlemen, very 

 11 much. Our next speaker will be Hilton Kelly. 

 12 (Speaker approaches.) 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Mr. Kelly, please state your 

 14 name and your affiliation. 

 15 MR. KELLY: Yes, good afternoon everyone. 

 16 My name is Hilton Kelly. I'm with the Community 

 17 Empowering Developing Association in Port Arthur, Texas. 

 18 I am also a NEJAC member, National Environmental Justice 

 19 Advisory Council to EPA. I have a few comments today, 

 20 and I would like to hit on a few points concerning some 

 21 of the issues on the table today, and it pertains to 

 22 solid waste and boilers. 

 23 We want to first thank the Environmental 

 24 Protection Agency administration, Lisa Jackson, for 

 25 taking the steps to control toxic air pollution from 
 170 

 1 chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, and other 

 2 industrial sources that are making our air unsafe to 

 3 breathe. The EPA new rules will finally make the 

 4 largest of these facilities control the emissions from 

 5 their boilers and process heaters. It is about time. 

 6 These standards are ten years overdue and our families 

 7 and communities need the protection these rules will 

 8 provide. Especially important to us is EPA's decision 

 9 to eliminate the outrageous malfunction exemption. In 

 10 other words, the exemptions of our chemical plants, 

 11 refineries, and other major polluters to violate the 

 12 emission standards and blanket our communities in toxic 

 13 pollution over and over again without any 

 14 accountability. 

 15 Closing that loophole means that these 

 16 facilities will have to run their boilers and process 

 17 heaters responsibly. We know that powerful industry 

 18 lobbyists are lining up to oppose this rule. They want 

 19 loopholes and exemptions. They want the rules weakened 

 20 and delayed, but these rules will prevent 4,800 

 21 unnecessary deaths every year and will save billions of 

 22 dollars in costs. Lisa Jackson, do not cave in to 

 23 industrial pressure. Make these rules stronger, not 

 24 weaker, and we issue them without delay -- please issue 

 25 them without delay. 
 171 

 1 Although EPA's rule for major source 

 2 boilers deserves applause, EPA's definition of 

 3 non-hazardous solid waste is dangerous and 

 4 irresponsible. By defining industrial wastes as 

 5 "fuels," the proposal will allow all but a few 

 6 facilities to burn spent chemicals, spent solvents, 

 7 scrap plastic, industrial sludge, coal mining waste, 

 8 used motor oil and other wastes in boilers and process 

 9 heaters with no obligation to control or monitor their 

 10 toxic pollution, and no obligation to report the 

 11 identity and quality of their toxic emissions to EPA, 

 12 state permitting authorities, or the public. 

 13 EPA's proposal claims this result is 

 14 acquired by law. That claim is false. Lisa Jackson, 

 15 you have the authority to bring the toxic emissions from 

 16 these industry incinerators under control. Please do 

 17 not allow industrial facilities to burn their waste in 

 18 uncontrolled and unmonitored facilities. It exposes us 

 19 to toxic pollution and deprives us of the right to know 

 20 what pollution is. 

 21 And also, on a more personal note, in the 

 22 City of Port Arthur, Texas, we have an incinerator 

 23 facility called Veolia, and for the last three or four 

 24 years, Veolia has been petitioning our federal 

 25 government very hard, our military, Office of Defense, 
 172 

 1 to bring in mustard gas contaminated waste to burn in 

 2 the City of Port Arthur. Port Arthur is home to at 

 3 least 20 refineries, small and large, and we are being 

 4 disproportionately impacted at this particular time and 

 5 have been for over 50 years. Veolia is an incinerator 

 6 facility and they propose to burn mustard gas in our 

 7 community once again. 

 8 Two years ago, they brought in VX nerve 

 9 gas from back east to burn in the City of Port Arthur; 

 10 we protested that, but still, it was -- it fell on deaf 

 11 ears, and they brought it in anyway. This incinerator 

 12 has no way of measuring the toxicity level of this 

 13 mustard gas. They have no way of proving that all the 

 14 mustard gas is 99.99 percent destroyed, other than 

 15 models that they have used. Port Arthur has a 

 16 disproportionate number of people in it with severe 

 17 respiratory problems, and most of the time, when people 

 18 die in our community, it's because of cancer. 

 19 Enough is enough already. Port Arthur is 

 20 disproportionately impacted, and so is the Louisiana 

 21 area. It's time for it to stop, and we ask Lisa Jackson 

 22 to do everything she can to protect the citizens of Port 

 23 Arthur, Texas and other communities like it, and I thank 

 24 you-all for your time. 

 25 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you, sir, for your 
 173 

 1 comments. Any questions? 

 2 (No verbal response.) 

 3 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

 4 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 

 5 MR. WAYLAND: The next speaker will be 

 6 Rosalia Guerrero. 

 7 MS. GUERRERO: Good afternoon. 

 8 MR. WAYLAND: Good afternoon. 

 9 MS. GUERRERO: Thanks for having us. My 

 10 name is Rosalia Guerrero, that's R-O-S-A-L-I-A, 

 11 G-U-E-R-R-E-R-O. Again, I'd like to say thank you for 

 12 coming and listening to -- having this opportunity to 

 13 give these comments. I'm -- I'm a mom, on-again, 

 14 off-again community educator, and -- and have been born 

 15 and bred here in the Gulf Coast, Houston's industrial 

 16 area. 

 17 My comments today will relate to the 

 18 proposed air toxic standards for all for the 

 19 institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerator 

 20 units. I've been going through the information. I have 

 21 been. I see where it's like mercury, lead, cadmium 

 22 particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, dioxins. This is 

 23 serious stuff, and I'm glad to see that EPA is looking 

 24 at this seriously. I'm here to encourage you to use all 

 25 your power that EPA -- that has available to protect the 
 174 

 1 environment. 

 2 I encourage you to best-performance 

 3 standards that are available out there, even if that 

 4 means cherry picking data. I'm not against that. If 

 5 that is what you need to do to fulfill your mission and 

 6 to protect us here, the American people. I'm not a 

 7 scientist or an engineer, but, you know, I know that a 

 8 discarded tire on the side of the road is trash and not 

 9 fuel. There are other ways -- I've seen other ways that 

 10 tires and other type of materials can be recycled into 

 11 other more useful materials, not necessarily have to be 

 12 burned. I -- I do realize something has to be done with 

 13 them, but they don't necessarily have to be burned. 

 14 It has always been my experience that the 

 15 EPA doesn't take into account -- when the developing 

 16 standards, they don't take into account costs, that -- 

 17 the costs that have to be made. However, since it has 

 18 been brought up consistently throughout the day, I would 

 19 like to add to that discussion; birth defects, asthma, 

 20 bronchitis, heart attacks, cancer, premature death. 

 21 These are some of the outcomes of being exposed to the 

 22 air toxins that have been previously discussed, and I 

 23 would like to see how much that costs. There is a cost 

 24 associated with that. 

 25 Last week, I was asked to go visit a young 
 175 

 1 mother on the east end who lives next to a source that 

 2 has already been cited for releasing some of the toxins 

 3 previously mentioned. Because I spoke Spanish, they 

 4 asked me to go talk to her and try to explain to her why 

 5 her child was born with half a brain and suffered for 

 6 six months and died. I really didn't have an answer for 

 7 that. 

 8 All I could do was share her -- her 

 9 concern. She was also -- she was extremely upset, and 

 10 I'd like to know how much that's worth. It was very 

 11 difficult speaking with her, her trying to take care of 

 12 her family, and still having two other children figuring 

 13 out how -- what she was going to do living next to -- to 

 14 the source, and if anybody was gonna do anything about 

 15 it. I didn't know what to tell her, but it did prompt 

 16 me to come and give a few comments today. 

 17 On top of that, I'm a huge believer in -- 

 18 everyone needs a job. I do realize the economy, that 

 19 everyone needs to make a living. I'm a big believer in 

 20 the ingenuity of the American businessman. Usually, 

 21 what made this country great, and I truly believe that 

 22 if you set that bar however you set it, they're going to 

 23 meet it, and they're going to make a profit. That is 

 24 what makes America great. And -- and I'm sure they'll 

 25 be able to do it, and -- and do it well. And everywhere 
 176 

 1 it's been my experience, and research has shown, where 

 2 there is a good environment, there's always a good 

 3 economy. Bad environment, always -- is -- is bad -- bad 

 4 economics at the end of the day. I thank you for 

 5 listening to my comments. 

 6 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. Any 

 7 questions? 

 8 (No verbal response.) 

 9 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much for 

 10 taking the time to come. At this time, we are out of 

 11 registered speakers. Is there anyone in the room who 

 12 wishes to speak? I mean, we'll be here until 8:00 

 13 o'clock; we're not going anywhere, but if -- if there's 

 14 no one here at this time to speak, we'll recess the 

 15 hearing momentarily until we get a couple more people to 

 16 come and speak. 

 17 So if you're in the room and you want to 

 18 speak, please see the lady that just walked out the 

 19 door. 

 20 MS. CRAFT: I just signed up. 

 21 MR. WAYLAND: Oh, no, that's fine. You 

 22 can come on up. 

 23 MS. CRAFT: Okay. 

 24 MR. WAYLAND: Our next speaker will be 

 25 Elana Craft. 
 177 

 1 (Speaker approaches.) 

 2 MS. CRAFT: Good afternoon. I'm Elana 

 3 Craft, health scientist with Environmental Defense Fund, 

 4 a national non-profit, nonpartisan organization that 

 5 strives to use market-based principles to solve some of 

 6 our toughest environmental challenges. I'd like to 

 7 thank the EPA today for taking this step to control 

 8 toxic air pollution from chemical plants, refineries, 

 9 paper mills and other industrial sources. These new 

 10 rules, ten years overdue, will finally address mercury 

 11 and other toxics from over 13,000 large industrial 

 12 boilers; utilities, petroleum, chemical, paper and 

 13 plastic industrial facilities nationwide. 

 14 These industrial boilers emit about 

 15 16,000 pounds of mercury annually. The second largest 

 16 source of man-made mercury air emissions. In water 

 17 bodies, this mercury can transform into methylmercury, a 

 18 potent neurotoxin that bio accumulates and completes to 

 19 human exposure through fish consumption. Mercury is 

 20 associated with impaired brain development in children. 

 21 As outlined in an EPA report from November 

 22 of 2009, concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish 

 23 tissue from lakes and reservoirs have been found in 

 24 nearly all 50 U.S. states. As reported in the 2008 

 25 biannual National Listing of Fish Advisory, the presence 
 178 

 1 of these toxic compounds in fish tissue have led to fish 

 2 consumption advisories, and 43 percent of our nations's 

 3 lakes, meaning that pregnant women and other sensitive 

 4 populations should be especially careful to limit their 

 5 intake of certain fish species. 

 6 Especially important to us is EPA's 

 7 decision to eliminate the malfunction exemption. We 

 8 believe that closing the loophole means that facilities 

 9 will have to run their boilers and process heaters 

 10 responsibly. While we applaud the EPA's role for major 

 11 source boilers and eliminate the malfunction exemption, 

 12 we believe that EPA's definition of non-hazardous solid 

 13 waste is woefully negligent. By defining industrial 

 14 waste as fuel, the proposal will allow all but a few 

 15 facilities to burn spent chemicals, spent solvents, 

 16 scrap plastics, industrial sludges, coal mining waste, 

 17 used motor oil, and other wastes and boilers and process 

 18 heaters with no obligation to control or monitor their 

 19 toxic pollution, and no obligation to report the 

 20 identity or quality of their toxic emissions to EPA, 

 21 state permitting authorities, or the public. Burning 

 22 solid waste, shredded tires, scrap plastics, and spent 

 23 solvents can produce high levels of toxic air pollution 

 24 including lead, mercury, benzine, dioxins and 

 25 formaldehyde. This leaves many communities at risk from 
 179 

 1 the severe adverse health effects that expose -- that 

 2 exposure to toxic emissions can cause. 

 3 Within these communities, children, the 

 4 elderly, and people with existing health problems are 

 5 most vulnerable. Cleaning up boilers and incinerators 

 6 will save thousands of lives, and we are counting on EPA 

 7 to follow through with strong standards that will 

 8 deliver cleaner, healthier air to every community. 

 9 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. 

 10 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much for 

 11 coming. Any questions, guys? 

 12 (No verbal response.) 

 13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. I know 

 14 it's a hot day to get outside and come to a public 

 15 hearing. Is there anyone else in the room that would 

 16 like to address the hearing? If not, by my watch, I 

 17 think it's ten after three; is that right, local time, 

 18 more or less? Ten after three, is that -- okay. We're 

 19 going to recess the hearing until somebody comes to 

 20 speak. 

 21 Like I say, we will -- we're committed to 

 22 be here until 8:00 o'clock, and if somebody comes in at 

 23 8:00 o'clock, we will stay longer. But so that you 

 24 don't have to sit in here and just stare at us, I'm 

 25 going to recess the hearing until we get two or three 
 180 

 1 more people that want to speak, and then if you don't go 

 2 far, we'll grab you and bring you back in and we'll 

 3 reconvene the hearing, but for now we're in recess. 

 4 Thank you. 

 5 And again, let me remind any that came 

 6 late. If you have written testimony that you read from, 

 7 if you'll make sure this lady to my right gets a hard 

 8 copy of it, it'll make sure it's in the docket. Thank 

 9 you. 

 10 (Recess taken from 3:07 to 5:00 p.m.) 

 11 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. We're going to 

 12 reconvene the hearing for the purpose of adjourning for 

 13 dinner. Seeing that there's no one registered at this 

 14 time to participate in the hearing. We're going to 

 15 adjourn for 90 minutes and gather back here at 6:30 p.m. 

 16 for the last part of public hearing today. Thank you. 

 17 (Recess taken from 5:00 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.) 

 18 MR. WAYLAND: Good evening. We're here 

 19 now to reconvene the evening session of this public 

 20 hearing on the industrial boiler MACT and the definition 

 21 of solid waste. The hearing is now back in session, but 

 22 seeing that we have no scheduled participants to speak 

 23 at this time, we're going to recess until further 

 24 notice. Thank you. 

 25 (Recess taken from 6:35 to 7:44 p.m.) 
 181 

 1 MR. WAYLAND: This concludes today's 

 2 hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's four 

 3 rulemakings. It's now 8:00 o'clock, and we're closing 

 4 the hearing here Houston, Texas. Thank you for your 

 5 participation and your comments. We appreciate the time 

 6 and effort that you put into coming out to speak with us 

 7 today. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Safe 

 8 travels. 

 9 (Whereupon, at 8:00 p.m., the Public 

 10 Hearing was adjourned.) 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25