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

252

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 Environment3

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

254

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

255

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.....................................966

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

257

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 listen8

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 air10

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 considered11

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 an12

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 you13

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 to15

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 our16

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 environment17

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: "For18

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 renewable20

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 proposed22

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-up23

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 approaches24

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 $1525

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 our26

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 to29

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 a30

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 rule31

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 or32

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. For34

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 some35

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 CO236

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 of38

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 is39

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, further40

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 the41

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 facility42

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 which44

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 past46

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. If48

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 comments49

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 come50

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. We52

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 I53

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, and54

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, to55

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 we56

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 running57

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 have58

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 a59

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 the60

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 industry61

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 has62

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 more63

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 and67

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, EPA68

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 series70

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 nearly72

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, beyond73

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 absurd74

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 represent75

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 combustion76

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 an77

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 Don79

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 define80

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 fuels81

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 the82

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 regulations83

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 estimated84

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 your85

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 tires86

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, and87

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 such88

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 be90

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, the92

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, given93

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 and94

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 of95

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 need96

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 the97

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 different98

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 regulate99

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 Laura100

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 so101

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; not102

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 of103

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 the104

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 to105

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 the106

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, can107

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 general108

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. We109

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 ask112

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 setting113

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 potential114

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 the115

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 founded116

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. With118

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 to120

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 would121

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 and122

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 emitted123

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 we124

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 not125

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 the126

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 put127

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 truth128

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 for130

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 our133

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 protect134

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 whether135

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 to137

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 the138

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 in140

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 apparently141

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 any142

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 the143

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 the144

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 will146

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 other148

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 cleanup149

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 to150

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 the151

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, not153

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 when154

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-art156

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 the157

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 environment160

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 of162

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 and163

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, the164

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 this165

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 all166

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 and167

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 to168

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 expanding169

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 from170

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 your173

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 the174

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 young175

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 everywhere176

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 presence178

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 from179

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 three180

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