OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA’S PROPOSED RULES REGARDING:

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional

Boilers and Process Heaters, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial

Solid Waste Incinerators Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste

Crystal City Marriott 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA

9:01 a.m. through 8:01 p.m.

June 15, 2010OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: EPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response: Laura Gentile , Acting Branch Chief for Communications EPA Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery: George Faison , Program Implementation and Information Division Mark Thomas , Program Implementation and Information Division EPA Office Air Quality Planning and Standards: Robert Wayland , Sector Policies & Programs Division EPA Office of General Counsel: Jonathan Averback Susmita Dubey EPA Region 3, Philadelphia: James Topsale

PUBLIC PRESENT: Timothy Hunt , Senior Director for Air Quality Programs, American Forest & Paper Association Jim Griffin , American Chemistry Council Bill Perdue , Vice-President Government & Regulatory Affairs, American Home Furnishings Alliance Jim Mullowney , President, Pharmacycle Tyrone P. Wilson , Director of Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association Matthew Todd , Policy Advisor, American Petroleum Institute Mary Sullivan Douglas , Senior Staff Advisor, National Association of Clean Air Agencies Douglas Greenhaus , Director of Environment, Health and Safety, National Automobile Dealers Association Alicia Oman , Director for Energy & Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers Joe Waters , President, VEXTOR Technologies, Inc. Henry Staudinger , Private CitizenOLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 3 PUBLIC PRESENT: (Continued)

Jeff Brediger , Director of Utilities, City of Orrville, Ohio and Chair of Generators Group, American Municipal Power Paul D’Eustachio , Private Citizen Janice Nolen , Vice-President for Policy & Advocacy, American Lung Association Tracey Norberg , Rubber Manufacturers Association Guy Martin , Director of Environment Stability, Domtar Corporation Andrew Francis , Citizen Representative, Allied Health Industries Scott Parker , Executive Director, National Oil Recyclers Association Jerry Brindle , Member U.S. Steel Workers Local 925, PPRC Regional Special Projects Director, AbitibiBowater Paul Fiore , Director of Government & Business Relations, Tire Industry Association Derek Swick , Policy Advisor, American Petroleum Institute Charles Bartley , Employee, MeadWestvaco David Wise , General Mechanic, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, Pulp & Paperworkers’ Resource Council Steve Peace , Member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Special Projects Director, Pulp & Paperworkers’ Resource Council Jim Pew , Earthjustice Louis Hengen , SFK Pulp Vernice Miller-Travis , Vice Chair Maryland State Commission on Environmental Justice & Sustainable Communities and Member of EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Robert Bessette , President, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners Todd Ragula , Environmental Health & Safety Manager, American Woodmark Corporation Kate Pollard , Field Organizer, Virginia Beyond Coal Campaign, Sierra Club Mark Mitchell , President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and a Public Health PhysicianOLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 4 PUBLIC PRESENT: (Continued)

Emily Enderle , Environmental Health Advocate, Earthjustice Leslie Fields , National Environmental Justice & Community Partnership Director, Sierra Club

- - -OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 5 C O N T E N T S Page Introductory Remarks........................... 7 Timothy Hunt ..................................16 Jim Griffin ...................................23 Bill Perdue ...................................32 Jim Mullowney .................................39 Tyrone P. Wilson ..............................48 Matthew Todd ..................................55 Mary Sullivan Douglas .........................62 Douglas Greenhaus..............................69 Alicia Oman ...................................77 Joe Waters ....................................82 Henry Staudinger ..............................87 Jeff Brediger .................................93 Paul D’Eustachio .............................101 Janice Nolen .................................106 Tracey Norberg ...............................111 Guy Martin ...................................118 Recess 10:58 a.m.-11:37a.m....................125 Andrew Francis ...............................125 Scott Parker .................................130 Jerry Brindle ...............................138 Recess 11:55a.m.–12:21p.m.................... 142 Paul Fiore ...................................142OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 6 Lunch Recess 12:25p.m.–2:03p.m ...............147 Derek Swick .................................151 Charles Bartley ..............................158 David Wise ...................................164 Steve Peace ..................................169 Jim Pew ......................................174 Louis Hengen .................................183 Recess 2:50 p.m.–3:06 p.m. ...................192 Vernice Miller-Travis ........................193 Robert Bessette ..............................202 Todd Ragula ..................................208 Recess 3:25 p.m.-3:58 p.m. ...................211 Kate Pollard .................................212 Recess 4:04 p.m.–4:59 p.m. ..................217 Dinner Recess 5:00 p.m.–6:32 p.m. ............218 Recess 6:32 p.m.–6:48p.m. ....................218 Mark Mitchell ................................220 Emily Enderle ................................227 Recess 7:02 p.m.–7:27 p.m. ...................235 Leslie Fields ................................236 Recess 7:37 p.m.–8:01 p.m. ..................246 Adjourn ......................................246

- - -OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 7

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 MS. GENTILE: Good morning, everyone. 2 Thank you for attending today’s public hearing on 3 the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 4 rules for industrial, commercial, and 5 institutional boilers and process heaters, 6 commercial and industrial solid waste 7 incinerators, and the identification of non8 hazardous secondary materials that are solid 9

waste. 10 We appreciate you taking the time to 11 address these proposals and we look forward to 12 your comments. 13 My name is Laura Gentile, and I’m the 14 acting Branch Chief for Communications at the 15 EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 16 Response; and I’ll be the Chair for today’s 17 hearings. 18 With me on the Panel today from –- 19 starting on my left are: George Faison of the 20 Program Implementation and Information Division 21 of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 8

Recovery; Robert Wayland from the Sector Policies 1 and Programs Division at the Office of Air 2 Quality Planning and Standards; Jonathan Averback 3 from EPA’s Office of General Counsel; and James 4 Topsale from EPA Region 3 in Philadelphia. 5 We’re here today to listen to your 6 comments on four proposed rules that EPA 7 announced on April 30 t h of this year. The 8 proposed rules were published in the Federal 9 Register on June the 4th. 10 Before we start the hearing, I would like 11 to give you some background and briefly describe 12 the four proposed rules we’re here to take 13 comments on today. Together, these rules will 14 significantly cut emissions of pollutants such as 15 mercury and lead, along with a number of other 16 pollutants from nearly 200,000 units across the 17 country. 18 Boilers and solid waste incinerators are 19 subject to different sections of the Clean Air 20 Act -– Section 112 for boilers, and Section 129 21 for incinerators. EPA Has previously issued 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 9

rules on these units. These rules were 1 challenged in court. 2 As a result, EPA had to reissue the rules 3 for the boilers. The Agency also must determine 4 which non-hazardous secondary materials are or 5 are not considered solid wastes when they are 6 burned. Previously, EPA has left this decision 7 up to the states which implement non-hazardous 8 solid waste programs under the Resource 9 Conservation and Recovery Act. 10 On April 29th of this year the EPA 11 Administrator signed four proposed rules. They 12 include three proposed rules under the Clean Air 13

Act and one rule under RCRA. 14 The first proposed rule is the National 15 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 16 for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 17 Boilers and Process Heaters that are major 18 sources of hazardous air pollutants. This 19 proposed rule is known as the Boiler MACT. 20 For these sources EPA is proposing 21 emission standards for new and existing large 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 10

boilers based on the maximum achievable control 1 technology, or MACT. EPA anticipates that coal-, 2 oil-, and biomass-fired boilers that currently do 3 not have emissions controls would need to install 4 controls in order to meet these proposed 5

standards. 6 For gas-fired boilers which have lower 7 air toxic emissions, EPA is proposing to require 8 sources to conduct an annual tune-up, and for all 9 existing sources to require an energy audit to 10 identify cost-effective means of reducing fuel 11

use. 12 The second proposed rule is the National 13 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 14 from Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 15 Boilers that are smaller of area sources of 16 hazardous air pollutants. For these boilers 17 EPA’s proposed standards would require sources to 18 reduce emissions by implementing measures that 19 will optimize and reduce fuel use. 20 EPA also is proposing to require certain 21 coal-fired boilers to install emission controls 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 11

that capture mercury and other hazardous metals. 1 EPA is not proposing emission standards 2 for gas-fired boilers as part of the area source 3 rule. This means that the proposed rules would 4 not apply to gas-fired boilers located at small 5 businesses, local governments, schools, and at 6 religious institutions. 7 The third proposed rule is the amendments 8

to EPA’s New Source Performance Standards and 9 Emission Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial 10 Solid Waste Incinerators, which we call the CISWI 11

Rule. 12 EPA is proposing new source performance 13 standards and emission guidelines for five CISWI 14 subcategories. As required by the Clean Air Act, 15 this rule includes proposed numerical emissions 16 standards for particulate matter, opacity, sulfur 17 dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, 18 carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and 19 dioxin and furan emissions. 20 The CISWI and boiler regulations are 21 closely related because similar units may be 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 12

considered boilers or incinerators based on 1 whether they burn solid waste materials. 2 The fourth proposed rule of today’s 3 hearing clarifies which non-hazardous secondary 4 materials are solid wastes when burned in a 5 combustion unit. 6 In general, non-hazardous secondary 7 materials burned in combustion units would be 8 considered solid wastes except for those 9 non=hazardous secondary materials that fall into 10 any of the following four categories: 1) 11 materials used as legitimate fuels that remain 12 within the control of the generator; 2) materials 13 that are legitimately used as ingredients; 3) 14 discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that 15 have been sufficiently processed into a 16 legitimate fuel or ingredient product; and, 4) 17 non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel 18 that do not remain within the control of the 19 generator for which EPA grants a facility’s 20 petition for a non-solid waste determination. 21 This proposed rule recognizes that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 13

traditional fuels are not solid wastes when 1 burned in a combustion unit. Traditional fuels 2 are those fuels that have been historically 3 managed as valuable fuel products rather than 4 being managed as waste materials. 5

The rule also takes comment on 6 alternative approach that would broaden the 7 universe of non-hazardous secondary materials 8 considered to be solid waste. 9 EPA is required by a court order issued 10 by the U.S. District Court for the District of 11 Columbia to take final action on the proposed 12 emission standards by December 16th of this year. 13 EPA intends to take final action by that same 14 date on the proposed rule that identifies 15 materials that are non-hazardous solid waste 16

under RCRA. 17 More details about the proposed 18 amendments and instructions for submitting public 19 comments are available at the registration table. 20 We also have prepared a list for you of topics on 21 which we are specifically seeking comment. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 14

That’s also available in the registration area 1 and may be helpful to you as you’re commenting 2 today or submitting comments later on. EPA will 3 accept written comments on these rules today 4 until August 3rd, 2010. 5 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 6 the hearing. 7 Today’s hearing will work as follows: I 8 will call the scheduled speakers to the 9 microphone two at a time. When it’s time for you 10 to speak, please state your name, your 11 affiliation, and the rule or rules your verbal 12 comments are addressing. We may ask you to spell 13 your name for the court reporter, who is 14 transcribing your comments for the official 15

record. 16 To be fair to everyone, we ask that you 17 limit your testimony to six minutes each. We 18 have a timekeeping system consisting of green, 19 yellow, and red lights. 20 ] When you begin speaking, the green light 21 will come on. The yellow light will come on when 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 15

you have one minute left. We will ask you to 1 please stop speaking when the red light comes on. 2 Please remain at the table until both 3 speakers have completed their testimony. 4 We are here today to hear your comments 5 on these proposed rules; however, from time to 6 time any of us on the hearing panel may ask you 7 to clarify your testimony as we move forward. 8 If you have brought a written copy of 9 your comments, please give a copy to Brian 10 Kneiser, our court reporter sitting at my right. 11 All written comments –- all written copies of 12 comments, pardon me, will be submitted to the 13

docket. 14 We will work hard to ensure that everyone 15 has an opportunity to comment today. Today’s 16 hearing is scheduled to go until 8:00 p.m., but 17 we will stay later if necessary. We will take 18 breaks for meals during the day. 19 If you want to testify today but have not 20 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 21 registration table outside this room. For those 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 16

who have already registered to speak, we have 1 tried to accommodate your requests for specific 2 time slots. We ask for your patience as we 3 proceed through the list. We might need to make 4 some minor adjustments as the day progresses. 5 Thanks again for coming, and let’s get 6

started. 7 The first two speakers I want to call to 8 the table are first speaker Tim Hunt, second 9 speaker Jim Griffin. Yes, please come to the 10

table at the left of us –- the far left. 11 You can start speaking whenever you’re 12 ready, Mr. Hunt. 13 MR. HUNT: Okay. Thank you. Good 14 morning. 15 My name is Timothy Hunt. I am the Senior 16 Director for Air Quality Programs at the American 17 Forest and Paper Association. 18 Thank you for the opportunity to briefly 19 highlight our initial reaction to EPA’s proposed 20 four boiler-related rules published on June 4th. 21 I am making this statement on behalf of AF and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 17

PA, which represents the pulp paper and packaging 1 industry and forest land owners as well as the 2 American Wood Council, which represents over 60 3 percent of the wood products industry. 4 We in the forest products industry are 5 proud of our environmental stewardship using 6

renewable resources -– our forests -– to make 7 products that businesses and families use every 8 day while we sustain green jobs and continue to 9 shrink our environmental footprint. 10 My written statement provides more 11 details, but our primary concern is that EPA’s 12 rules as drafted would be unsustainable for the 13 forest products industry. Indeed, EPA’s 14 proposals would create serious disincentives for 15 the use of biomass and thereby increase use of 16 fossil fuels, which we believe is 17 counterproductive and contrary to the President’s 18 own energy policy. 19 Let me focus on Boiler MACT and then end 20 with a few comments on the other rules. 21 We believe EPA has significant discretion 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 18

in the MACT program to protect public health 1 while avoiding the unnecessary burdens these 2 proposed regulations could impose. Boiler MACT 3 could cost the forest products industry alone 4 over $6 billion in capital expenditures and 5 hundreds of millions more in annual costs unless 6 significant changes are made. 7 We are coming out of the worst economic 8 recession since the Great Depression, and the 9 forest products industry has lost over 350,000 10 jobs in the last three years. To be a 11 sustainable industry supporting high-paying jobs 12 and providing sustainable products, we need 13 sustainable environmental regulations. 14 Otherwise, costs of this scale will force 15 further mill closures and tens and even hundreds 16 of thousands s of additional job losses, 17 especially given other expected, significant 18 environmental regulatory costs. 19 Exports will drop, and imports will 20 increase since no other county is contemplating 21 requirements this extreme. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 19

We have identified four broad areas for 1 improvement in the Boiler MACT. 2 First, EPA should utilize its authority 3 in Section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act to set 4 health-based emission limits to protect the 5 environment and public health. This would avoid 6 unnecessary controls where emissions of threshold 7 pollutants, like acid gases, are low enough to be 8

safe. 9 We are encouraged that EPA has invited 10 comment on this approach and believe it should be 11 adopted in the final rule for use on a facility12 by-facility basis without complicated and 13 unnecessary procedures that would restrict its 14 use. It is the best way to target investments 15 only to where problems exist as Congress 16 intended. We can ill afford not to include such 17 a health-based emission limitations given the 18 economic implications of the rule. 19 Second, EPA should set more reasonable 20 limits that would reflect the variability of real 21 world, best performing boilers. Boilers go 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 20

through warm-ups, shutdowns, load swings, fuel 1 mix, and fuel quality changes, control efficiency 2 differences, and performance testing adjustments. 3 For example, EPA should collect long-term 4 carbon monoxide data from exhibiting CO monitors 5 which show large variations, rather than conclude 6

–- based on short-term data –- that CO 7 performance is steady. 8 Finally, some boilers are used for 9 limited periods of time for back-up and should be 10 treated differently than boilers running day in 11 and day out. 12 Third, EPA should base the limits on more 13 realistic data. The data used in setting 14 emission limits is heavily biased given the way 15 it was collected and sorted. EPA required the 16 best performing units to test and then took the 17 best of that small data set to the point where 18 they represent the best of the best performers –- 19 the top one percent, not the top 12 percent as 20 the law instructs. 21 Only a handful of existing units can meet 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 21

all the limits when you’d expect 12 percent of 1 boilers to achieve the limits. And for new 2 units, it’s unclear whether state-of-the-art 3 boilers could be guaranteed to perform at the 4 necessary levels. 5 In addition, we need to apply different 6 statistical approaches that align the data sets 7 and their use in the rule making. Ultimately, 8 EPA needs to look at other available data to 9 paint a more realistic picture of boiler 10 performance for each HAP and subcategory and make 11 sure real world best performing boilers can meet 12 the SET of HAP limits 13 Finally, EPA should not penalize clean 14 fuels like biomass. Several of the existing and 15 new source limits for biomass are extremely low 16 because the baseline of emissions is very low 17 compared to other fuels. Emissions of mercury, 18 dioxin, and hydrochloric acid are present in very 19 small amounts in wood and are inconsequential 20 sources of these HAPs, yet the costs become 21 exponentially more expensive and can’t be 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 22

consistently achieved. 1 The biomass limits are unduly influenced 2 by test that could not detect the HAP, which 3 suggests that the emission limits should be 4 dropped or at least replaced by alternative work 5 practices as was done for natural gas fired 6 boilers. 7 Finally, over 60 boilers burned biomass 8 with as little as 10 percent coal, but the 9 proposal classifies them as coal boilers, setting 10 unachievable CO limits. The CO limits of these 11 combination boilers should be the same as the 12 ones for biomass fired boilers. If we want to 13 continue to encourage and expand the use of 14 renewable carbon neutral biomass, the rule needs 15 to change dramatically. 16 Under Boiler MACT we need to – EPA should 17 set numeric limits for CO for biomass and oil18 fired limits located at small mills –- should not 19 set numeric limits for those but instead, set 20 good combustion practices and tune-up 21 requirements. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 23

In the non-hazardous secondary material 1 rule, EPA should define secondary material, 2 biomass materials like resonated trim, urban 3 wood, pulp paper, and wastewater residuals as 4 fuels and promote their use, which displace 5 fossil fuels as consistent with the President’s 6 call for greater use of renewable fuels. 7 We recommend EPA complete the definition 8 of non-hazardous solid rule making first and then 9 proceed with the promulgation of the other three 10

rules. 11 We strongly encourage the Agency to ask 12 the court for as much time as it needs to 13 finalize reasonable and well-supported rules. 14 Thank you for the opportunity to express 15 AF and PA’s and AWC’s initial views on these 16 critical rules. 17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hunt. 18 Mr. Griffin, whenever you’re ready. 19 MR. GRIFFIN: Good morning. My name is 20 Jim Griffin, and I’m speaking on behalf of the 21 American Chemistry Council, or ACC. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 24

We appreciate the opportunity to speak at 1 this Public Hearing and would like to address 2 EPA’s Boiler MACT proposal for major sources. 3 ACC is concerned about a number of 4 issues, including EPA’s methods and calculations 5 which result in extremely low standards, limited 6 use of subcategories, the emission limits for 7 process off-gases that are routinely used as 8 fuels in our facilities, failure to propose risk9 based standards for pollutants with health 10 thresholds, failure to take into account 11 compliance options, and underestimation of the 12 burden of the regulations. 13 EPA has proposed emission standards based 14 on a pollutant-by-pollutant approach that relies 15 on a different set of best performing sources for 16 each pollutant. ACC believes this methodology is 17 flawed and results in standards that are 18 unrealistic and are not representative of the 19 levels actually being achieved by the best 20 performers. 21 In other words, looking just at 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 25

individual HAP data from different best 1 performers without regard for the overall 2 performance of these sources results in a set of 3 standards that reflect the performance of a 4 theoretical set of best performing sources that 5 can simultaneously achieve the greatest emission 6 reductions for each and every HAP. This does not 7 reflect the actual performance of real sources. 8 What’s more, our preliminary analysis of 9 the proposed limits has determined that no one 10 source exists that can meet all the standards 11 concurrently. ACC believes that EPA should use 12 other methods to establish these emissions 13 standards which more accurately reflect the 14 emission levels being achieved in practice by the 15 best performers. 16 EPA’s method of setting MACT floors 17 rightly takes into account variability of fuel 18 sources. However, we are concerned about the 19 particular method of accounting for variability 20 because the underlying data are not in fact 21 representative of the range of expected 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 26

operations and true variability hat reasonably 1 should be expected from better performers. 2 The reason is that emissions data relied 3 upon in the proposal were produced during 4 reference method performance testing over a short 5 period of time. ACC recommends that EPA 6 reconsider its approach to adjusting the emission 7 limits that provide a realistic adjustment of 8

standards. 9 Further, it is our belief that the 10 proposed ultra low emission limits have been 11 established using flawed statistical methods, and 12 using inaccurate data that do not represent the 13 universe of boilers and must be corrected. 14 The resulting MACT floors are so low that 15 equipment manufacturers have informed some ACC 16 member companies that no known controls can be 17 specified to achieve compliance with emission 18 limits such as carbon monoxide and dioxin/furn. 19 ACC supports the Agency’s decision to 20 propose a work practice standard for Gas 1-fired 21 boilers and process heaters due to technological 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 27

and economic feasibility. ACC strongly 1 recommends that EPA also promulgate a similar 2 work practice standard for petrochemical gas and 3 chemical plant off-gas sources in the Gas 2 4 category since these gases have similar 5 composition and their emission profiles are 6 similar at the limits of detection. Gaseous 7 fuels are an efficient energy source, are one of 8 the cleanest-burning conventional fuels and have 9 very low emissions. 10 EPA proposes a beyond-the-floor standard 11 requiring major source facilities to perform an 12 energy assessment and that cost effective energy 13 conservation measures be identified. ACC 14 believes that these requirements are unnecessary 15 and burdensome since comprehensive program are 16 already in place such as Save Energy Now, 17 Responsible Care, and various corporate energy 18 programs. ACC also believes the proposed energy 19 assessment scope is extremely broad and well 20 beyond its authority. 21 EPA has chosen not to establish a health- 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 28

based emission standard for threshold pollutants 1 in lieu of a MACT standard. Based on our 2 preliminary review and bolstered by the work 3 performed by EPA in support of the health 4 threshold option included in the 2004 rule, ACC 5 strongly recommends that the Agency consider the 6 fact that the proposed standards for HCl are far 7 more stringent than needed to assure protection 8 of public health with an ample margin of safety. 9 EPA’s RIA estimates that the cost of the 10 Boiler MACT proposal to the chemical industry of 11 about 1.8 billion, which is less than half the 12 ACC estimate of 3.8 billion. EPA also projects 13 that about a quarter of the cost increase will be 14 passed through to consumers. 15 Because many basic chemical companies 16 face stiff global competition, it will be 17 difficult to pass through costs except during 18 times when the market it tight. 19 Raising the cost of capital will also 20 impact future investment and job growth in high21 paying manufacturing jobs, further slowing the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 29

economic recovery of the chemical industry. 1 The pollutant-by-pollutant method of 2 standard setting, along with the other approaches 3 being used by EPA, have led EPA to conclude in 4 its RIA that no new coal or biomass boilers will 5 be built, which is contrary to the need for 6 energy diversity in our country. 7 The concerns we have raised on the Boiler 8 Mack rule also apply to EPA’s proposed 129 9 standards for CISWI. ACC believes that EPA 10 should encourage as much as possible the burning 11 of fuel as non-hazardous secondary materials as 12 this will preserve virgin materials and result in 13 greater diversity of fuel sources. 14 In the past EPA has provided a minimum of 15 30 days for proposal comment and should have 16 provided affected parties with 120 days to review 17 and comment on these four interrelated rules, 18 rather than the 60 days allowed. EPA should also 19 then pursue with the court a similar extension to 20 the promulgation date for these rules. 21 Thank you very much for your time and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 30

consideration of our comments. 1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hunt and Mr. 2 Griffin. I appreciate your comments. You can 3 step down. 4 I would like to now call the next two 5 speakers up. The first one is Bill Perdue. 6

MR. WAYLAND: Can we ask them –- 7 MS. GENTILE: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. I’m 8 sorry, we have some clarifying questions before 9 you guys leave. 10 MR. WAYLAND: I just had one question for 11 both of you. You know, we went through an 12 information collection request to gather the data 13

that the rules are based on. 14 Both of you have called into question 15 that data and the completeness of that data and 16 its ability to represent this category. Will you 17 be submitting any additional data in your written 18 comments or perhaps as an amendment to today’s 19 comments? Or, can we expect to get additional 20

data? 21 MR. HUNT: We are working hard to –- now 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 31

that you’ve released the best performing units to 1 try to get additional information from them; but 2 we also ask that the Agency go out and collect 3 information from other sources, not just stack 4 tests but maybe emission factor information to 5 try to better represent the information that’s 6

out there. 7 So part of that we will take some 8 responsibility, but I think the Agency also needs 9 to do more work in gathering information that’s 10 out there and has not been gathered, particularly 11

the CO data. 12 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: I would concur with Tim’s 14 remarks and emphasize that ACC is also working 15 very hard to provide the Agency with appropriate 16 data that will further inform the statistics that 17 are needed to set realistic standards. 18 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 19 MR. HUNT: I’ll just add that one 20 frustration is that a number of our mills spent a 21 fair amount of money testing under Phase 2 as 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 32

boilers, and because of this issue around what is 1 a waste and a fuel, that data is not being used. 2 So there is some very good data out there from 3 facilities that were identified as top performers 4 at the time of the ICRN testing whose data is not 5 being used. 6 So we think the Agency can look outside 7 the best performers to others that look very much 8 like the best performers and have all the 9 characteristics of the best performers and use 10 that data given the relative paucity of the data 11

set. 12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 13 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much. 14 The next two speakers I want to call up 15 are Bill Perdue and Jim Mullowney. 16 Bill, feel free to start your comments 17 whenever you’re ready. 18 MR. PERDUE: Good morning. I’m Bill 19 Perdue, Vice-President Government and Regulatory 20 Affairs for the American Home Furnishings 21 Alliance. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 33

The AHFA is the world’s largest and most 1 influential trade organization serving the home 2 furnishings industry. 3 Member companies operate several domestic 4 wood furniture manufacturing facilities and 5 comprise an extensive global supply chain that 6 provides a wide variety of home furnishings to 7 the U.S. consumer. Member companies provide 8 approximately 360,000 manufacturing jobs 9 throughout the U.S. and represent a $35 billion 10 segment of the nation’s economy. 11 The AHFA is deeply troubled by the 12 potential effects of the domestic furniture 13 manufacturing industry and the proposed emission 14 standards for major source industrial, 15 commercial, and institutional boilers and process 16 heaters –- the Boiler Rule -– and the 17 identification of non-hazardous materials that 18 are solid waste – the Waste Rule. 19 As proposed, these two rules threaten to 20 eliminate the longstanding environmentally 21 beneficial practice whereby furniture companies 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 34

generate heat and process steam at their plants 1 by combusting wood fuel generated from the 2 furniture manufacturing process. 3 The proposed rules are of great concern 4 to those of us who represent furniture 5 manufacturers and the employees of those 6 companies. Unless altered, the rules could 7 actually have the perverse environmental affect 8 of forcing the transition of furniture 9 manufacturing facilities from the use of wood as 10 a fuel to the combustion of fossil fuels while 11 simultaneously forcing the disposal in the 12 landfills of a clean, high BTU renewable fuel in 13 the form of wood generated from the furniture 14 manufacturing process. 15 At one facility located in North Carolina 16 we currently estimate that in order to do fuel 17 switching away from the combustion of wood fuel, 18 we estimate an annual cost of $200,000 to dispose 19 of this wood biomass. We also estimate that for 20 that one facility an additional 12,000 tons of 21 wood biomass fuel would be diverted to the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 35

landfill. 1 We also estimate that in order to do fuel 2 switching and move away from wood biomass and 3 switch to natural gas at that one facility with a 4 small Fire 2 boiler would cost $1.1 million to 5 fuel switch and continue its operation today. 6 One of our major concerns with the 7 proposal is the affect of the rules on wood-fired 8 boilers commonly used in the furniture industry. 9 Under current practices boilers in the furniture 10 industry are typically small and combust a kiln11 dried wood fuel which is generated during the 12 furniture manufacturing process. 13 The wood fuel is very dry, burns cleanly, 14 has a neutral CO2 emissions scoring and has a 15 high BTU value. However, as we understand it, 16 the Boiler Rule EPA has proposed would combine 17 these smaller dry-wood fuel boilers used in the 18 furniture industry into a broader biomass 19 subcategory that includes boilers fired by wet 20 fuel used in other industry sectors thereby 21 creating a single subcategory of emission sources 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 36

for evaluation. 1 By establishing a single large group of 2 boilers that use both dry wood fuel and wet wood 3 fuel, EPA effectively ignores the benefits and 4 unique characteristics of dry wood boilers by 5 imposing a single set of emissions standards on 6 the entire category. 7 Large boilers burning wet biomass fuels 8 have historically required costly controls as a 9 result of their inherently higher emissions. The 10 cost for small dry fuel boilers to meet standards 11 that have historically applied to wet biomass 12 boilers is prohibitive. 13 Currently, for that same boiler in North 14 Carolina we estimate a cost of about $1.5 million 15 to retrofit that boiler with a scrubber add-on 16 control end of pipe to continue operation of that 17 boiler in North Carolina. And the incremental 18 air quality benefit that would come from lumping 19 dry fuel boilers into such a category is 20 neglible. In fact, rather than make costly 21 investments in new controls -- control 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 37

facilities, a more likely outcome is that 1 furniture manufacturers will retire their wood2 fire boilers, replace them with natural gas or 3 fuel oil combustion boilers and simply dispose of 4 the dry wood fuel generated by the furniture 5 manufacturing processes in landfills. 6 As greenhouse gas neutral fuels would be 7 replaced by a fuel that emits substantial amounts 8 of greenhouse gases, we estimate that at this 9 same typical facility in North Carolina an 10 increase in CO2 to switch to natural gas of 11 10,500 tons annually. 12 This predictable outcome would not be 13 consistent with the intent of the rule. To 14 prevent this likely outcome from occurring, we 15 request that EPA revisit the proposal and 16 establish a distinct low moisture biomass 17 subcategory for dry wood fuel. 18 Having this subcategory which considers 19 the unique characteristics of these boilers and 20 the heat content of dry wood fuel would enable a 21 far more desirable economic environmental 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 38

outcome. 1 We’re also concerned with the exclusion 2 of the health-based compliance alternative of the 3 HCPA from the proposed rule. Section 112(d)(4) 4 of the Clean Air Act establishes a mechanism for 5 EPA to exclude facilities from certain pollution 6 control regulations and circumstances when these 7 facilities can demonstrate that emissions do not 8 pose a health risk. 9 Using the discretionary authority under 10 Section 112(d)(4), EPA may allow a facility to 11 demonstrate the potential proposed risk of 12 emissions for certain pollutants such as 13 manganese and hydrogen chloride from the 14 facility. If a facility can show that its 15 emissions are below the established thresholds 16 for levels posing a risk of human health, EPA can 17 use these data to exclude from requirement 18 sources from which emissions do not pose a risk. 19 Using HBCA at the outset would allow 20 facilities to comply based on health-based data 21 rather than taking the interim step of installing 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 39

emission control technology. 1 We believe the use of the HBCA as a 2 logical tool and that when a facility can meet a 3 more stringent health-based standard without the 4 necessity of expensive emission control 5 equipment, the HBC should be allowed. 6 Thank you for allowing our comments 7 today. 8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Perdue. 9 Mr. Mullowney, please feel free to start 10 whenever you’re ready. 11 MR. MULLOWNEY: Good morning. My name is 12 Jim Mullowney. I’m a chemist. I have almost 25 13 years’ experience in the hazardous waste 14 business, and at one point I did own a RCRA 15 hazardous transfer facility. 16 Currently I’m the President of 17 Pharmacycle, and I’m commenting on the CISWI 18 regulations. 19 Just quickly, what Pharmacycle does is we 20 collect human excrement from patients that are on 21 OSHA regulated chemotherapy drugs. Sounds kind 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 40

of gross, but it is kind of gross. 1 So, why would we do that? We’ll get into 2 that a little bit. 3 And the title of my presentation, which 4 usually takes over an hour -– I’m going to 5 condense it -– is called Drugs Are Chemicals, 6

Too. 7 So, the EPA, and industry and people, in 8 general, for the past 30 years have divided 9 pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals into two 10 different categories. Pharmaceuticals being 11 medicines and good for the environment and good 12 for people, and industrial chemicals being bad 13 and nasty, which is kind of –- if you look at 14 what the chemical structures are, most industrial 15 chemicals are designed to not react with the 16 environment -– paints, coatings –- they’re 17 designed to be resistant to the environment -- 18 where a pharmaceutical is designed to have a 19 specific effect on the human body. 20 So, we really should care what happens 21 with these pharmaceuticals. And with these 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 41

regulations on solid waste, I know from personal 1 experience that if it was not a RCRA hazardous 2 waste, we sent it to a non-RCRA landfill or to a 3 non-RCRA incinerator across the board. 4 Anything came in, easiest way make sure 5 it’s not a RCRA which was from 1976. So 6 regulations haven’t quite kept up with the amount 7 of chemicals that have been invented in the last 8 20 or 25, or 35 years. 9 So this regulation we have 165,000 10 pharmaceuticals coming into an incinerator, and 11 we’re testing for nine that come out, which it’s 12 impossible to test for all the chemicals that 13 come out, but there are some common sense things 14

that we need to look at. 15 The types of chemicals that we at 16 Pharmacycle handle are OSHA regulated hazardous 17 drugs. I don’t know if anybody’s familiar with 18 the OSHA Hazardous Drug Policy. Most of these 19 drugs are cytotoxic drugs. Most of the 20 treatments are for chemotherapy. These chemicals 21 were invented during World War II as chemical 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 42

warfare agents, and they’re now used to treat 1

cancer. 2 And the way these drugs work is that 3 being cytotoxic, they’ll break into the cancer 4 cell; they’ll attack the DNA; and they’ll break 5

off the chromosomes. So when the cancer cell 6 splits, it’s been mutated. We no longer have a 7 cancer cell. What we have, we really don’t know, 8

but we’ve cured cancer. 9 If it’s a hair cell, it’s no longer a 10 hair cell. We’ve cured hair. Your hair falls 11 out. And it works on skin cells and fast-growing 12

cells. 13 So, there’s an issue with how nasty these 14 chemicals are. We have -– some of the pictures I 15 like to use is –- this is a picture from Chemical 16 and Engineering News; and it’s a guy in a 17 spacesuit making a chemotherapy drug called 18 doxorubicin. So we’ve got guys in spacesuits 19 that make these pharmaceuticals. 20 We have pharmacists that are in Level 3 21 biological safety cabinets that are not allowed 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 43

to be exposed to these materials preparing the 1 drugs at a dose at some points that are at the 2 nanogram per liter. I’ll get back to that in a 3 minute. 4 So once this is prepared, the nurse is 5 given a splash shield and gloves and a hazmat 6 suit and injects it into the patient where the 7 patient is sent home to excrete the -– most of 8 the medicine. 9 The analogy I like to use is if you take 10 a vitamin and you haven’t taken a vitamin in 11 awhile and you go to the bathroom a couple hours 12 later, it looks like you ate your highlighter. 13 Well, that’s the vitamin passing through your 14 body unaltered. That happens with any sort of a 15 pharmaceutical –- anything you take. 16 So if you’ve got a drug that has a very 17 low absorption rate like a cytotoxic drug that’s 18 being made by a guy in a spacesuit, handled by a 19 pharmacist in a Level 3 biological safety 20 cabinet, handled by a nurse in a hazmat suit, 21 injected into the patient, we should care what 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 44

happens to this drug all the way through the 1

process. 2 The guy in the spacesuit has a suit 3 contaminated with materials. It’s not a RCRA 4 regulated drug. Where does it go? Solid waste 5 incinerator. The pharmacist -– I don’t know how 6 you make a nanogram per liter -– there is no real 7 scale. What you’d do is you’d start with a known 8 amount of the material; then you dilute it. It’s 9 called serial dilutions. 10 So that pharmacist in the Homer Simpson11 like glovebox is diluting this material to a 12 nanogram per liter or a part per trillion. What 13 happens to those dilutions? Well, it goes to 14 solid waste incinerators. It’s not regulated. 15 The tubings, the pipes -– they go to 16 incineration. So we have a chemical that is so 17 toxic that the absorption rate is less than one 18 percent, and it’s administered at a nanogram per 19 liter. 20 An analogy I like to use is if you had a 21 trillion one dollar bills and you stacked it like 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 45

a deck of cards and you turned it sideways, the 1 trillion would go from Boston to the middle of 2 Ohio. And you take that one part per trillion 3 and you inject it into a patient, and only one 4 cent gets into the body. And that one cent that 5 gets into his body makes his hair fall out and 6 nearly kills him. Ninety-nine percent of it 7 passes through the body. We should care what 8 happens to this chemical all along the process. 9 That’s why we at Pharmacycle, we collect the 10 sheets that get sweat and your shirts and 11 materials that –- and your urine and your feces, 12 and we do not send them to a solid waste 13 incinerator because we don’t know what’s coming 14

out the other end. 15 I know my time is up right now. Are 16 there any questions? 17 MS. GENTILE: What I would suggest, Mr. 18 Mullowney, if you want to submit your 19 presentation for the docket, we can include it 20 there, but I’ll ask the hearing panel if they 21 have any questions for either you or Mr. Perdue. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 46

MR. WAYLAND: I had one question for 1 Bill. 2 You asked us to consider a -– I think 3 I’ve got this small dry fuel boiler subcategory 4 to distinguish it from the larger biomass 5 category. 6 In your opinion do we have the data 7 currently to make such a distinction, or would 8 that be something you might be submitting 9 additional data on? 10 MR. PERDUE: No, we will submit 11 additional data, but we do believe, Mr. Wayland, 12 that you do have within your AP-42 factor a very 13 distinct emission factor for dry fuel that the 14 AHFA at the time the AFMA participated with EPA 15 in developing. So, that data set should be 16

there. 17 And like I said, there is a very distinct 18 already subcategory for dry wood fuel. 19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 20 MR. TOPSALE: I have a question. Bill? 21

MR. PERDUE: Yes. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 47

MR. TOPSALE: You mentioned wood. Is 1 that clean wood, or is some of the wood coated 2 with some substrate, a lacquer, or some other 3 chemical? 4 MR. PERDUE: The wood that we typically 5 combust in our boilers is clean, dry kiln wood 6 fuel with a moisture content of less than 8 7 percent with an 8,500 BTU fuel rating. 8 Now, in the course of the manufacturing 9 process there may be a very small amount of wood 10 in finished parts that may find themselves into a 11 silo; but it is less than one percent of what we 12 combust in our boilers. 13 MS. GENTILE: Any more comments from the 14 panel? 15 (No response.) 16 Thank you for your comments. Mr. Perdue 17 and Mr. Mullowney, you may step down now. 18 Our next two speakers are Tyrone Wilson, 19 followed by Matthew Todd. Please come to the 20

table. 21 Thanks, gentlemen. Mr. Wilson, you may 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 48

start your comments whenever you’re ready. 1 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 2 My name is Tyrone P. Wilson. I’m here 3 today representing the Portland Cement 4 Association, where I am Director of Regulatory 5 Affairs. Founded in 1916, PCA’s 28 cement 6 companies operate 102 manufacturing plants in 34 7 states, with distribution centers in all 50 8 states. PCA members account for 97.5 percent of 9 domestic cement making capacity. Portland cement 10 is an essential ingredient in concrete. 11 Thank you for this opportunity to address 12 this panel. The focus of my talk will be on the 13 identification of secondary non-hazardous solid 14

waste. 15 MR. WAYLAND: Could you get a little 16 closer to the microphone? I’m not sure everybody 17 in the back may be able to hear. 18 MR. WILSON: Okay. 19 The rule, as proposed, could greatly 20 narrow the scope of secondary materials currently 21 in use as alternative fuels and ingredients 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 49

during cement processing, or, at the very least, 1 subject those facilities using secondary 2 materials to Clean Air Act Section 129 3 incinerator emission standards. Cement plants, 4 like many industrial facilities, are not 5 incinerators. 6 Moreover, cement plants are already 7 regulated under stringent emission standards 8 pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 112 9 authorities, which when developed were crafted to 10 reflect the industry’s long-term practice of 11 using secondary materials. 12 Among common alternative ingredient 13 materials used by many cement manufacturing 14 facilities are foundry sand, mill scale, and 15 steel furnace slag. Among alternative fuels, 16 scrap tires provide the best example due to the 17 industry’s long-standing use of this secondary 18 material. In the United States where more than 19 300 million scrap tires are generated annually, 20 Portland cement plants use more than 50 million 21 as fuel and ingredient, thereby diverting those 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 50

materials from landfills. Furthermore, almost 1 700,000 tons of scrap tires were consumed in 2 cement kilns in the United States in 2007. Of 3 those, whole tires comprised approximately 75 4 percent versus 25 percent for shredded tires. 5 The environmental benefits of utilizing 6 scrap tires as a supplemental fuel in the 7 Portland cement process are multifold. When 8 whole tires are combusted in cement kilns, the 9 steel belting becomes a component of the clinker, 10 an intermediate product. This steel belting may 11 replace some or all of the iron required by the 12 manufacturing process. Pound for pound, tires 13 have more fuel value than coal, and the use of 14 tires as fuel can actually reduce certain 15 emissions. 16 EPA states that tire-derived fuel 17 contains about the same amount of energy as oil 18 and 25 percent more energy than coal. This means 19 that each ton of tire-derived fuel used by a 20 Portland cement plant has the potential to 21 replace 1.25 tons of coal. The United States 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 51

Department of Energy has estimated that the 1 combustion of tire-derived fuel produces less CO2 2 per unit of energy than coal. Furthermore, when 3 compared to many U.S. coals, the tire-derived 4 fuel results in lower NOx emissions. This 5 advantage is also acknowledged by EPA. 6 EPA has also indicated that the proposed 7 rule could lead to more tires being dumped, 8 rather than incinerated or burned as fuel. 9 Indeed, the use of byproducts such as tire10 derived fuel conserves natural resources used for 11 fuel and raw materials and is a practice 12 widespread in the cement industry and other 13 manufacturing sectors here and around the world. 14 The EPA solid waste proposal, if 15 implemented, would stigmatize the practice of 16 reusing byproducts, jeopardizing their future use 17 and contravene the very intent of RCRA. 18 Moreover, the rule would have the effect of 19 classifying cement plants as solid waste 20 incinerators, as I mentioned previously. 21 We do not believe that Congress intended 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 52

for Clean Air Act Section 129 to be used for 1 regulating industrial manufacturing facilities. 2 Congress developed Section 112 for this purpose. 3 Incinerators are not for production 4 vessels. They’re designed primarily to destroy 5 waste. Therefore, it would be misguided and 6 damaging to the cement sector if EPA were to 7 group cement kilns and similar fuel-burning 8 systems under the regulatory requirements 9 designed for incineration of waste material. Our 10 industry recovers useful energy and utilizes 11 ingredients that would otherwise be mined. 12 We believe the proposed rule is a 13 significant step back from what the Agency 14 proposed in January ANPRM with regard to the 15 following: the concept of discard; the narrow 16 application of the term processing; uncertainties 17 surrounding the non-waste determination petition 18 process; establishment of certain legitimacy 19 criteria for both fuels and ingredients; and the 20 alternative approach. 21 All of these areas, among others, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 53

represent issues that jeopardize the future use 1 of non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels and 2 ingredients. Our written comments will provide 3 more detail in support of the industry’s views 4

and concerns on these matters. 5 In conclusion, we request that EPA 6 construct a final rule that reflects the 7 realities of the industry while encouraging 8 existing beneficial use practices that reduce 9 emissions and improve energy efficiency. These 10 environmentally beneficial practices have been 11 employed in the cement industry for many years 12 and in many countries around the world and should 13 be enhanced rather than discouraged. 14 Diverting potential secondary materials 15 from fuels –- excuse me, from landfills is a 16 major benefit of the alternative use practices 17 employed by the cement industry today and should 18 not be stigmatized by enforcement under Clean Air 19 Act Section 129. The cement industry is 20 appropriately regulated in -– under Clean Air Act 21 Section 112, and we believe the rule, as 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 54

proposed, provides no environmental or economic 1 gain to the industry or general public. Failure 2 to remedy the flaws in the proposed rule will do 3 material harm to our industry and its employees 4 and will worsen the world’s most intractable 5 environmental challenges. 6 Thank you. 7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 8 Any clarifying questions right now before 9 we go to the next speaker? 10 MR. FAISON: A quick one. You mentioned 11 about discard and a couple other -– but you 12 mentioned the non-waste petition process, and I 13 think you mentioned the context it was kind of 14 step back, but I wanted you to maybe elaborate on 15 kind of your views on the non-waste petition 16 process and –- 17 MR. WILSON: Okay. Well, our reading and 18 understanding of the non-waste -– non-waste 19 determination petition process as described in 20 the proposed rule, we feel there are a lot of 21 uncertainties associated with it. And like I 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 55

said, we’ll go into a lot of those in detail, but 1 it –- you know, there are questions about the 2 frequency of how this petition process may be 3 applied. I mean, how often would a company have 4 to undergo such a -– you know, such a rigorous 5 requirement? You know, how many -– how do 6 vendors play into this thing? 7 We just feel that there are a lot of 8 questions associated with it that have not been 9 addressed in the proposed rule; and for that 10 reason –- other than the fact that we feel it’s 11 really unnecessary because we’re dealing with 12 non-hazardous materials; so we really feel just 13 right off the bat that that whole process is 14 really a system that doesn’t have to be applied 15 to these materials. 16 MR. FAISON: Thank you. 17 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Wilson. 18 Okay. Mr. Todd, whenever you’re ready. 19 MR. TODD: Good morning. My name is 20 Matthew Todd. I’m a Policy Advisor at the 21 American Petroleum Institute. My comments today 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 56

are on behalf of API and NPRA, the National 1 Petrochemical and Refiners Association. API is 2 the primary trade association of America’s oil 3 and natural gas industry which represents more 4 than 400 members involved in all aspects of the 5 industry. NPRA is a national trade association 6 representing more than 450 members, including 7 virtually all U.S. refiners and petrochemical 8

manufacturers. 9 First and foremost, we support the work 10 practices for natural and refinery gas units as 11 proposed and believe that this approach should 12 also extent to fuel gas from petrochemical 13 operations. In the proposed rulemaking, EPA is 14 taking comment on setting numerical emission 15 limits for all gas-fired boilers and process 16 heaters. In response, I’d like to summarize four 17 specific points. 18 First, a sound national energy policy –- 19 national energy and regulator policy must 20 recognize the important role gaseous fuels play, 21 both in our economy and in reducing both 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 57

conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. 1 Second, it cannot have been Congress’ 2 intent for EPA to set emission limits or MACT 3 floors for multiple hazardous air pollutants for 4 source categories without addressing or 5 demonstrating whether or not they are achievable 6 in combination. For this rulemaking, there is no 7 indication that any of the so-called best 8 performers are achieving these standards today; 9 and in fact, from the data collected, there isn’t 10 a single unit currently achieving all five 11 emission limits. 12 Third, there are unintended consequences 13 of proposing emission standards that would 14 require the installation of control devices that 15 have not been demonstrated to achieve the 16 proposed numeric emission limits and that would, 17 in actuality, increase energy consumption and 18 increase emissions. 19 Finally, gas-fired boilers and heaters 20 have extremely low emissions, pose little or not 21 health risk to the public; and, therefore, EPA 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 58

should use its authority to encourage their use 1 by allowing work practices that give operators 2 the flexibility they need to maximize combustion 3 efficiency and thereby minimize emissions. 4 I’d like to provide some additional 5 detail on these points. First, a vast majority 6 of our industry’s boilers and process heaters 7 rely on clean-burning fuel, whether it’s natural 8 gas, refinery gas, or gas from our petrochemical 9 operations for the efficient operation of our 10 facilities. However, we are not alone as many 11 other industries, institutions, and government 12 facilities also rely on these gaseous fuels to 13 keep this nation going efficiently. EPA should 14 continue to recognize the benefit of these clean 15

fuels. 16 Second, there appears to be a shift in 17 the method that EPA is using to set emission 18 limits, and we all know its name – Franken MACT. 19 Franken MACT comes to life when EPA sets 20 emission limits based on the best performing 21 units on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis without 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 59

considering whether or not those limits are 1 achievable in combination. In fact, in this 2 rulemaking, EPA has used emissions in calculating 3 numerical limits that are at the very bounds of 4 our ability to even measure the pollutant. As a 5 result, there’s not a single gas-fired boiler or 6 process heater that’s been demonstrated to meet 7 all five of the proposed numerical emission 8 limits for such units. It cannot have been 9 Congress’ intent for EPA to set emission limits 10 without regard to feasibility. This is a drastic 11 shift from EPA’s historical technology-based 12 approach which has been practiced and proven 13 effective over the past 30 years. EPA needs to 14 get back to setting achievable standards that are 15 based on sound science. 16 Third, there are unintended consequences 17 of requiring the installation of pollution 18 control devices that have not been demonstrated 19 collectively to achieve the standards. For 20 instance, the proposed CO limits for gas-fired 21 units will require operating at much higher 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 60

oxygen levels than typical, which will lead to 1 increased fuel use and, as a result, increased 2 CO2 emissions. This is also true for oil-fired 3 units. In fact, emissions of all pollutants 4 other than CO will also increase because of the 5 increased fuel use. Remarkably, the proposal 6 does not indicated how the low CO levels will be 7 achieved. Are we to take this as an indication 8 that EPA’s own analysis shows that it’s 9 unachievable? TO complicate matters, EPA has 10 also included in this proposed rule precedent11 setting energy assessment and ongoing energy 12 management requirements that apply well beyond 13 this source category which, we believe, will 14 further highlight the inconsistency between the 15 low CO levels and the optimum operation of 16 boilers and process heaters. 17 Fourth, with regard to this rule, the 18 Agency should avoid promulgating provisions that 19 despite requiring significant capital and 20 operating costs, will result in negligible 21 emission reductions, could have the perverse 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 61

effect of discouraging gas use, and could 1 increase the emission of other pollutants. It’s 2 well known that gas-fired boilers and process 3 heaters have very low emissions and pose 4 negligible risk to the public. Therefore, EPA 5 should establish final work practices as Congress 6 intended in this situation, which give operators 7 the flexibility they need to maximize efficient 8 combustion and thereby minimize emissions. 9 In closing, we support work practices for 10 natural and gas-fired –- natural and refinery gas 11 units as proposed and believe EPA should extend 12 this to include fuel gas from petrochemical 13 operations. While my comments today have focused 14 on gas-fired boilers and heater, I should add 15 that many of the same issues apply for liquid16 fired sources as well. Our detailed comments 17 will expand on points raised and will include 18 additional information on the standards for oil19 fired units. 20 Thank you for allowing me to provide this 21 testimony. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 62

MS. GENTILE: Thank you. Any clarifying 1 questions from the panel? 2 MR. WAYLAND: Just one. Mr. Todd, you’re 3 talking about the fuel gas from petrochemical 4 operations. Will your written comments provide 5 more data on that sub categorization, or –- 6

MR. TODD: Yes. 7 MR. WAYLAND: -- do you think we have 8 sufficient information in the existing database? 9 MR. TODD: We’re going to supply detailed 10 comments on that exact position. 11 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 12 MS GENTILE: Thank you for your comments, 13 Mr. Todd and Mr. Wilson. You may step down now. 14 We appreciate your comments. 15 The next two speakers are Mary Sullivan 16 Douglas, followed by Douglas Greenhaus. Please 17 come on up to the table. 18 Thank you. Mary Sullivan Douglas, feel 19 free to start whenever you’re ready. 20 MS. DOUGLAS: Okay. Thank you. 21 My name is Mary Sullivan Douglas, and I 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 63

am a Senior Staff Associate with NACAA, the 1 National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which 2 is the association of state and local air 3 pollution control officials in 53 states and 4 territories and over 165 metropolitan areas 5 across the country. 6 On behalf of NACAA, thank you for this 7 opportunity to testify on four related 8 regulations EPA has proposed under Sections 112 9 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rules 10 will substantially reduce emissions of HAPs and 11 criteria pollutants from a broad sector of 12 industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers 13 and from commercial solid waste incinerators. 14 After coal-fired power plants, these combustion 15 units are among the largest emitters of toxic and 16 criteria pollutants in the country. Accordingly, 17 the benefits to public health and welfare that 18 will result from a well-considered rule are 19 substantial. 20 NACAA strongly supports adoption of 21 timely final regulations for each of these 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 64

sectors that meet both the letter and the intent 1 of the law. If EPA fails to adopt a standard in 2 a timely fashion or fails to adhere to the 3 statute and the rule is overturned again, the 4 public health benefits will be delayed. In 5 addition, state and local agencies could be faced 6 with the significant burden of developing MACT 7 for several thousand permits on a case-by-case 8 basis. 9 After analyzing the proposals more 10 thoroughly, NACAA will submit detailed written 11 comments. However, we appreciate this 12 opportunity to provide EPA with our initial 13 impressions. Overall, NACAA is pleased that the 14 recent proposals are a vast improvement over 15 earlier efforts and that EPA is generally on the 16 right track. However, there are several critical 17 areas that appear to be unworkable or 18 unsupportable on the rulemaking record. 19 When the court vacated the earlier ICI 20 Boiler MACT rule and state and local permit 21 authorities were faced with developing case-by- 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 65

case MACT permits, NACAA collected existing test 1 data from state and local permitting agencies. 2 Over 40 agencies provided hundreds of data points 3 that NACAA used to calculate MACT floors, which 4 were substantially lower than those adopted by 5 EPA in its earlier rule. The NACAA database was 6 provided to EPA in June of 2009. 7 Many units combust mixtures of fuels. No 8 clear correlation has been established to 9 evaluate the emissions performance of different 10 units combusting different mixtures of fuels –- 11 and indeed, when switching fuels, emissions of 12 one HAP may increase while those of another HAP 13 may decrease. In its model permit guidance NACAA 14 considered only those results where a source was 15 burning 100 percent of one category of fuel 16 during the test. Under NACAA’s recommended 17 approach, sources would be separately tested for 18 compliance with each applicable limit. NACAA 19 also noted that during compliance testing, 20 sources may be able to establish unit-specific 21 correlations for operation of different fuels. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 66

EPA apparently did not use the testing in 1 the NACAA database to establish the MACT floors. 2 The EPA data includes numerous entries where a 3 source was combusting different fuel mixes, which 4 NACAA believes will be difficult to translate 5 into enforceable MACT limitations. While the 6 NACAA and EPA data sets often produce generally 7 consistent results, EPA cannot exclude from the 8 calculation of the top performing 12 percent the 9 testing conducted for other compliance purposes 10 as required by state and local permit officials. 11 EPA’s approach is to categorize source 12 categories according to fuels that they are 13 designed to combust and allow sources to comply 14 with what EPA apparently considers the least 15 stringent standard for any of the fuels that it 16 may combust. NACAA believes that this approach 17 is likely to be unworkable for many sources. 18 Several options have been proposed for 19 which EPA offered little or no justification and 20 analysis. Some are of doubtful legality o—in 21 particular, the clearly erroneous suggestion that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 67

EPA could establish risk-based exemptions at 1 levels less stringent than the MACT floor. NACAA 2 recommends that EPA avoid options that carry a 3 substantial risk of a lawsuit that delays 4 implementation of these important public health 5 protections. 6 The proposal to not set a MACT floor or 7 MACT emission limit for large, gas-fired boilers 8 is another example. EPA’s principal argument for 9 it is that imposing MACT limits on gas-fired 10 boilers doubles the anticipated cost of the rule. 11 However, unlike the beyond-the-floor analysis, 12 there is no cost test for the MACT floor. 13 Moreover, EPA has apparently not considered or 14 provided information in its proposal that would 15 enable the public to evaluate whether excluding 16 natural gas units from numeric MACT limits is in 17 the public interest. Further, while the 18 discussion of cost to the industry is extensive, 19 EPA fails to analyze or calculate the full 20 benefits of these rules to the public. 21 With respect to variability, without any 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 68

justification EPA applies a statistical test that 1 requires 99 percent confidence that a standard 2 has been exceeded before a violation is 3 established. EPA also appears to calculate this 4 factor on the basis of variability of individual 5 test runs, even though the applicable standard 6 requires averaging three individual test runs to 7 reduce the variability that would be present in 8 individual runs. In other rules EPA has used a 9 90-percent confidence factor applied to the 10 average of three runs to calculate variability. 11 The general result of requiring a higher 12 confidence level is that the standard is higher 13 than it otherwise would have been. 14 In conclusion, the proposals are a marked 15 improvement over EPA’s earlier efforts. If the 16 Agency follows the law and simply bases its 17 decisions on the available data, very significant 18 reductions of both toxic and criteria pollutants 19 will result at costs that appear to be reasonable 20 and manageable. NACAA urges EPA to complete 21 these rules in a timely, thoughtful, and lawful 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 69

manner. 1 Thank you for this opportunity to 2 testify, and we look forward to providing more 3 thorough comments by the comment deadline. Thank 4

you. 5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Douglas. 6 Do we have any clarifying comments for 7 Ms. Douglas from the panel? 8 (No response.) 9 Thank you. Mr. Greenhaus, whenever 10 you’re ready to start your comments. 11 MR. GREENHAUS: Good morning. My name is 12 Douglas Greenhaus, and I am the Director of 13 Environment, Health and Safety for the National 14 Automobile Dealers Association. NADA represents 15 over 16,000 franchised automobile and truck 16 dealers who sell new and used motor vehicles and 17 engage in service, repair, and parts sales. The 18 majority of our members are small businesses as 19 defined by SBA. 20 We intend to file written comments on the 21 proposed waste identification and area source 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 70

NESHAP rules that are partially the subject of 1 this hearing. Today, I’m just going to make two 2 points: Number 1 – These proposals should 3 exclude used motor oil; and, Number 2 -– Over4 regulating used motor oil risks increasing harm 5 to the environment. 6 Since at least 1992 the used oil 7 recycling system has been guided by the 8 comprehensive EPA regulations set out in 40 CFR 9 Part 279. These rules were mandated by Congress 10 in the 1980’s, and they govern how used motor oil 11 is collected by dealerships and other vehicle 12 maintenance facilities and how it is subsequently 13 managed, both on site and off site. Notably, 14 Part 279 resulted from over 10 years of careful 15 deliberation by EPA, a process which involved the 16 studied examination of every aspect of used oil 17 management, including its recycling as a fuel in 18 burners and boilers. I began working on the 19 development of these rules in the early 1980’s as 20 an EPA enforcement attorney and have been 21 involved with their development and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 71

implementation ever since. I can assure you that 1 every legitimate issue of concern was raised and 2 resolved during those many years of rulemaking. 3 Consequently, I find it somewhat 4 disconcerting to see EPA devoting precious Agency 5 resources attempting to address used oil in the 6

context of the area source NESHAP and waste 7 identification proposals under consideration. 8 When the proposals were recently issued, my first 9 reaction was what am I missing. Could EPA have 10 determined that used motor oil poses some newly11 discovered risk to human health or the 12 environment that calls for further regulation? 13 Well, the answer to that question is an 14 unequivocal no. Moreover, the fine-tuned used15 oil recycling system EPA helped to foster has 16 never worked more effectively. Virtually all 17 used oil collected at vehicle maintenance 18 facilities is properly recycled, with do-it19 yourselfer oil more than ever finding its way 20 into the system. In addition, the used motor oil 21 recycled today is significantly cleaner than in 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 72

the ‘80’s and ‘90’s due to the cleaner properties 1 of new oil, the reduced likelihood for in-vehicle 2 contamination, and the minuscule potential for 3 cross-contamination or adulteration during 4 collection and processing. Simply put, given 5 that there is nothing broken that requires 6 fixing, EPA should exclude used motor oil from 7 both its identification and area source 8 proposals. 9 Given that it is legal for do-it10 yourselfers to change their own oil in a manner 11 that may result in soil, water, or air 12 contamination, EPA has long recognized the 13 importance of requiring proper used oil 14 management while encouraging more used oil to 15 enter into the legitimate recycling system. 16 Thus, EPA crafted Part 279 to help reduce the 17 hundreds of millions of gallons of used oil that 18 are mismanaged by do-it-yourselfers each year. 19 For example, 40 CFR 279.23 allows used 20 oil collected from motor vehicles brought in for 21 service and from do-it-yourselfers to be burned 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 73

in small on-site space heaters, recognizing both 1 the efficacy of using motor oil as a fuel in on2 site space heaters and the need to encourage the 3 recycling of do-it-yourselfer oil. Many small 4 business vehicle maintenance facilities recycle 5 used motor oil as a space heater fuel, and in 6 doing so they, Number one, reduce their reliance 7 on comparable petroleum-based fuels, achieving 8 significant energy savings in the process; two, 9 they reduce or eliminate the potential for off10 site management liability; and three, they 11 enhance the collection of do-it-yourselfer used 12 oil. 13 Now, any unnecessary regulatory costs or 14 burdens imposed on dealerships and other small 15 business facilities recycling used motor oil, 16 such as to the imposition of testing, 17 recordkeeping, or incineration mandates, would 18 decrease the amount of do-it-yourselfer oil 19 brought into the legitimate used oil recycling 20 system, resulting in increases in the amount of 21 such oil poured on the soil, down the drains, or 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 74

into trash barrels. 1 Moreover, used oil sent for off-site 2 management, whether on- or off-spec, as defined 3 in the regs, should not be considered solid waste 4 for purposes of triggering Section 129 5 incineration mandates. Part 279 distinguishes 6 between on- and off-spec used oil for legitimate 7 off-site blending, marketing, and burning reasons 8 and has served to appropriately protect the 9 environment for many years. 10 There is simply no environmental 11 justification for the artificial diversion of any 12 used motor oil to Section 129 permitted 13 facilities. Upending the sensitive economics of 14 the used oil recycling system predictably will 15 result in some amount of the used oil – excuse 16 me, of the used oil falling outside of the 17 system. Do we really want to risk going back to 18 the days of improper road oiling or the mixing of 19 used oil into heating oil for inner city 20 apartment buildings? I think not. 21 In conclusion, used oil properly recycled 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 75

as a fuel pursuant to 40 CFR Part 279 should be 1 considered exempt traditional fuel under the h 2 waste identification rule and exempt from many 3 new requirements under the area source NESHAP. 4 I thank you for your consideration. 5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Greenhaus. 6 Does the panel have any clarifying 7 questions for Mr. Greenhaus. 8

MR. TOPSALE: I have one. 9 You mentioned the do-it-yourself motor 10 oil as used at small businesses. Is there any 11 information available about the chemical 12 constituents that motor oil primary concern heavy 13 metals, cadmium, lead? 14 MR. GREENHAUS: You talking about for the 15 do-it-yourselfer oil? 16

MR. TOPSALE: Yes. 17 MR. GREENHAUS: Typically, the 18 dealerships recommendation to the dealerships is 19 -– the NADA has recommended to the dealerships is 20 that we segregate the do-it-yourselfer oil that 21 people bring in and that we, if they can, do a 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 76

chlorine test on it; but that’s about all that we 1 have in the way of test data. 2 And to the extent that they do segregate 3 it and ship it off site, perhaps some of the 4 transporters and processors have some data. 5 We would be happy to look and submit for 6 our written comments on any data regarding pure 7 do-it-yourselfer oil. 8 MR. FAISON: You said that you also 9 supported off-spec off-site oil should be exempt 10 as well; is that –- 11 MR. GREENHAUS: Right. If you look at 12 the regulations, I think that the citation is 13 279.12(c) –- the regulations in 279 specifically 14 talk about what you do with off-spec used oil. 15 And the specifications were set back in the days 16 when there were particular concerns for 17 particular constituents. 18 And, by the way, I don’t think too many 19 of those that are in the specifications in 279 20 are the HAPs of concern that you seem to be 21

focused on. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 77

So, I would take a hard look at not only 1 the specifications in 279 but also what’s 2 permissible with respect to -- by the way, also, 3 off-spec oil is permissible to be processed in 4 the on-site space heaters I was talking about. 5 MR. FAISON: Thank you. 6 MS. GENTILE: Any more comments from the 7 panel? 8 (No response.) 9 Thank you, Ms. Douglas and Mr. Greenhaus. 10 I appreciate your comments. 11 The next two speakers I’d like to call to 12 the table are Alicia Oman followed by Joe Waters. 13 Please come up to the table when you get a 14

chance. 15 Ms. Oman, please start your comments 16 whenever you’re ready. 17 MS. OMAN: Good morning. My name is 18 Alicia Oman, and I am the Director for Energy and 19 Resources Policy at the National Association of 20 Manufacturers. The NAM is the largest industrial 21 trade association in the United States, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 78

representing over 11,000 small, medium, and large 1 manufacturers in all 50 states. 2 The NAM is the leading voice for the 3 manufacturing economy in Washington, D.C., which 4 provides millions of high-wage jobs in the U.S. 5 and generates more than $1.6 trillion in GDP. In 6 addition, 80 percent of NAM members are small 7 businesses which serve as the engine for job 8 growth. 9 The EPA’s proposal to impose more 10 emission standards on industrial boilers will cut 11 across all sectors of the NAM membership, 12 including the chemical, auto, metalworking, 13 petroleum refining, and forest and paper sectors. 14 New standards for industrial boilers will have an 15 immediate impact on our members’ bottom line. 16 In that regard, NAM and its members have 17 an important interest in EPA’s proposed Boiler 18 MACT Rule and appreciate the opportunity to 19 provide the following comments: 20 Manufacturers are attempting to fully 21 recover from the steepest economic downturn since 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 79

the 1930’s and bring back the 2.2 million high1 wage jobs lost during the previous recession. 2 Federal policymakers should create conditions 3 that will lead to economic expansion and not 4 stifle the vitality necessary to create jobs and 5 technologies that will continue to improve the 6 nation’s air quality. Imposing stricter mandates 7 on the manufacturing sector will not accomplish 8 any of these objectives. 9 NAM and its member companies are 10 confronting an avalanche of additional rules and 11 regulations from EPA, including the 12 reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard, the 13 reconsideration of the 2007 PM standard, the 14 Proposal to Regulate Coal Ash, and the imposition 15 of first-time regulations on greenhouse gas 16 emissions. 17 While there are aspects of the proposed 18 rules that the NAM supports, our overriding 19 concern is that compliance costs associated with 20 the more stringent Boiler MACT rule will hinder 21 manufacturers’ ability to add jobs as the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 80

recovery attempts to gain more attraction. 1 The NAM supports EPA’s decision to rely 2 on work-practice standards in lieu of emission 3 limits for certain gas-fired boilers and believes 4 that EPA should provide for work-practice 5 standards on all gas-fired units within this 6

rule. 7 The NAM believes that EPA’s HAP-by-HAP 8 approach to setting the MACT floor violates the 9 Clean Air Act. EPA has essentially cherry picked 10 the best data in setting each HAP standard 11 without regard for the sources from which the 12 data came. This results in a combined set of 13 standards for purely hypothetical boilers that 14 may never have actually been achieved by any 15 single real world source. 16 EPA’s new floor MACT policy is setting 17 extreme limits that are drastically different 18 than EPA’s GACT limits which will confuse the 19 public about the real health risks of such units. 20 Furthermore, the NAM believes that the 21 data EPA gathered to support these rules were 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 81

biased towards so-called top-performing 1 facilities. This has resulted in proposed 2 standards that are far too stringent and not 3 representative of the subcategories to which they 4 apply. 5 The NAM is continuing its review of the 6 data and analyses underpinning the proposed rules 7 and will be providing more complete comments once 8 the review is finished. Manufacturers are 9 particularly concerned about how EPA addressed 10 the issue of the variability of the data. EPA’s 11 proposed limits may not appropriately address the 12 variability in emissions of various HAPs. 13 In addition, NAM is examining whether 14 EPA’s proposed limits were unduly impacted by 15 issues associated with the limits of detection. 16 Thank you for your attention, and the NAM 17 looks forward to submitting a full set of 18 comments to the Agency. 19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Oman. Does 20 the panel have any more –- any clarifying 21 questions for Ms. Oman at this time? 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 82

MR. WAYLAND: Just ask one -– I’m asking 1 all of you guys since my group is responsible for 2 the final rule. 3 You also called into question the 4 database and how it was used. Will NAM be 5 submitting any data to support their claims, or 6 are you just asking us to go back and look at 7 what we currently have? 8 MS. OMAN: We plan on supporting some 9 additional data. 10 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 11 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Ms. Oman. 12 Mr. Waters, whenever you’re ready. 13 MR. WATERS: Thank you for allowing me to 14 speak today. 15 My name is Joe Waters. I am President of 16 VEXTOR Technology. We are a non-hazardous 17 processing facility located in Medina, Ohio. 18 We have –- today I want to talk about the 19 secondary non-hazardous waste as an alternate 20

fuel. 21 VEXTOR developed a method of making what 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 83

we call an engineered fuel whereby we are 1 combining many different types of non-hazardous 2 industrial commercial solid waste into what we 3 would call an engineered fuel -– in other words, 4 a fuel designed to meet the specification of a 5

fuel to the end user. Our main market target 6 initially has been the cement and lime kilns. 7 The process basically includes a 100 8 percent QC of all material coming in, both, most 9 importantly to make sure it’s non-hazardous 10 waste, and secondly, to determine whether it 11 qualifies an ingredient in the processing of the 12 fuel to meet the end spec. 13 The processing basically includes the QC, 14 inventory management, ingredient, and the 15 qualification, formulation, and then into a 16 shredding, blending, mixing operations to reduce 17 particle size to make a homogenous material that 18 meets an energy spec, and a chemical spec, and a 19 physical spec. 20 In the cement kiln industry in particular 21 the fuel substitutes were called, but also, since 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 84

there is no residue left over, the residue from 1 the engineered fuel is included in the cement 2 clinker, and hence, it has to meet not only the 3 fuel and energy spec but has to meet a product 4 spec. It also cannot do any physical damage to 5 the cement kiln itself, the refractory brick, the 6 feeding systems, et cetera. 7 What we look for is organic content, low 8 moisture, a non-detect mercury, low halogen, low 9 sulfur, and very little metals. Of course, the 10 material’s already been prequalified as a non11

hazardous waste. 12 Some of the examples of the ingredients 13 would include non-recyclable paper and plastic, 14 and cardboard, mixed wood, types of sawdust, 15 shredded consumer products, latex adhesive waste, 16 MRF debris -- municipal recycling facility debris 17 –- oil debris, Banbury or ring oil sludges. 18 These are waste streams from the tire 19 manufacturing industry –- resins and gels, carbon 20 black, and non-recyclable plastic, soy based 21 inks. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 85

The final spec that we have to meet is on 1 the order of 10,000 plus BTUs, less than two2 tenths a percent chlorine, less than 10 percent 3 moisture, no mercury -– non-detect mercury -– 4 small particle size, and it also must be 5 physically conveyed either by conveyer or 6 pneumatic. 7 The experiences we’ve had so far are with 8 cement and lime kiln testing. We have -– we were 9 delivering this engineered fuel to a long-dry 10 kiln in Pennsylvania for about a year and a half. 11 We did a 50 percent replacement of coal on an 12 equal BTU basis. There was -– we qualified for 13 air emission; the cement kiln qualified for air 14 emissions under PA DEP. There has been no 15 negative effect on the clinker or the kiln 16 itself. 17 And I guess my purpose here today is to 18 just show that there is an example -– a practical 19 example of being able to take non-hazardous solid 20 waste and convert them into a product that we 21 have sold. We sell it confidentially, but on the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 86

order of about 50 percent of the value of coal. 1 It has –- it’s been used up to about 50 percent 2 replacement of the coal. The spec will vary 3 depending on if it’s used in a pre-calciter, a 4 cement kiln, or the hot end of the cement kiln, 5 or in a lime kiln. Particle size reduces 6 accordingly. 7 This engineered fuel provides a landfill 8 avoidance to the generator and lowers our 9 liability, replaces fossil fuel. It can -– our 10 fuel contains about 56 percent biomass, have a 11 lower operating cost to the cement and lime 12 industry, and lower emissions. 13 Thank you. 14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Waters. 15 Any clarifying questions from the panel 16

for Mr. Waters? 17 (No response.) 18 Thank you, Ms. Oman and Mr. Waters. We 19 appreciate your comments. 20 Before I call the next two speakers, I 21 want to mention that we have only two speakers 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 87

signed up to speak so far; so if anybody in the 1 room would like to speak, please see Jan in the 2 back of the room. She’s wearing a black suit 3 against the black wall, waving right now. So 4 feel free to register if you’d like to speak; 5 otherwise, I will go forward and call the next 6 two speakers. 7 Henry Staudinger and Jeff Brediger. 8 Please come to the table when you get a chance. 9 Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Staudinger, 10 feel free to start whenever you’re ready. 11 MR. STAUDINGER: Good morning. My name 12 is Henry Staudinger, and I’m here to address the 13 non-hazardous materials portion of this program. 14 I’m here as a citizen, and I have 15 attempted to address citizens health and 16 environmental concerns when sewage sludge is land 17 applied for almost 15 years. 18 I have participated in EPA USD aerosol 19 studies. I have served on the Virginia Expert 20 Biosolids Panel. I have served on the Virginia 21 Department of Health’s Advisory Committee on 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 88

Biosolids as well as the same advisory committee 1 for the Virginia Department of Environmental 2 Quality. 3 I reviewed earlier comments on the 4 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking as well as 5 EPA’s responses. I was intrigued by the 6 industry’s efforts to convince EPA that sewage 7 sludge was not a solid waste in spite of clear 8 language to the contrary in Section 1004(27) of 9 RCRA and 40 CFR Sections 257.2 and 258.2 where 10 solid waste clearly is identified as sludge from 11 a wastewater treatment plant -– as well as 40 CFR 12 257.1(11) where EPA actually excluded sewage 13 sludge for land applied this waste under Part 503 14 from RCRA’s minimum criteria. 15 In its June 4th response to comments 16 received, EPA properly pointed out that sewage 17 sludge has long been considered a solid waste by 18 EPA. Sewage when land applied under Part 503 19 also fails to meet the legitimacy criteria listed 20 in EPA’s response. 21 For example, just as sewage sludge fails 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 89

to meet the legitimacy criteria for contaminants 1 and fuel when incinerated, sewage sludge fails to 2 meet those same criteria for contaminants in 3 fertilizer when land applied. 4 Unfortunately, EPA added in its response 5 that it was not addressing other secondary 6 material end uses. However, EPA’s responsibility 7 does not end when it identifies a particular 8 material as a solid waste. It must also ensure 9 that the disposal methods used actually comply 10 with RCRA requirements. 11 Since Part 503 does not ensure that RCRA 12 requirements are met, it is important for EPA to 13 now remove that unlawful exclusion of land14 applied sewage sludge under Section 257.1(11). 15 According to a 2005 article published by 16 Dr. Caroline Snyder in the International Journal 17 of Occupational Land and Environmental Health, 18 the sewage sludge exclusion was put in place at 19 the demand of Thomas Jorling, then Assistant 20 Administrator for the Office of Water, to be 21 consistent with EPA’s policy at that time of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 90

promoting sludge -– land application of sludge as 1 the management of -– method of disposing of this 2 particular sludge. However, that was never a 3 lawful basis for failing to impose RCRA 4 requirements. 5 As pointed out by Dr. Snyder, this 6 exclusion was put in place over the warnings of 7 EPA’s own William Sanjour who wrote that this 8 action was –- quote – illegal and inconsistent 9 with the Agency’s Congressional mandate to 10 protect human health and the environment –- 11 unquote. 12 In any event, the stated basis of this 13 exclusion is now moot as EPA long ago stopped 14 promoting land application over other disposal 15 options. In spite of repeated complaints from 16 citizens residing close in proximity to sewage 17 sludge application sites, citizens whose health 18 and well being have been and are currently being 19 negatively impacted, no effort has been made 20 under Part 503 to establish buffers to protect 21 health sensitive individuals, to identify 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 91

pollution-sensitive sites, and preclude 1 applications on those site, or even to limit at 2 the time of application constituents known to 3 harm water quality -- for example, excessive 4 phosphorous. And, of course, there is no 5 enforcement to ensure compliance with RCRA 6 requirements because they’re not there. 7 Since the Office of Water was not 8 directed by EPA to ensure that RCRA requirements 9 were put in place, it is not surprising that the 10 Office of Water failed to do so. Moreover, I can 11 assure EPA, after years of experience, that 12 sewage sludge land application regulations in 13 states like the Commonwealth of Virginia fall far 14 short of providing the protections to health and 15 in the environment as provided by RCRA. 16 It is important for EPA to look at the 17 big picture. Think of the Agency as being 18 responsible for plugging many leaks in a dam and 19 to reduce the adverse impacts from those leaks. 20 In the process EPA simply cannot ignore some of 21 those leaks, especially when such action would 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 92

encourage other leaks. 1 In this case, as long as EPA refuses to 2 remove the unlawful exclusion of sewage sludge 3 from compliance with RCRA’s requirements when 4 it’s land applied, simple economics will dictate 5 that the sewage sludge generators will stay with 6 or gravitate to the less stringent land 7 application disposal method and away from the 8 more protective incineration, which is what -– 9 you know, if you put it in place, it doesn’t help 10 if you allow it to leak out on the other side. 11 And I think it’s imperative as part of 12 this rulemaking or some other process that this 13 be addressed because identification is just step 14 one. Step two is making sure that the next part 15 is complied with and people are protected. 16 So I thank you very much for your time 17 and appreciate it. 18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Staudinger. 19 Do we have any comments from the hearing 20 panel for Mr. Staudinger? 21 (No response.) 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 93

Okay. Mr. Brediger, feel free to start 1 whenever you’re ready. 2 MR. BREDIGER: Thank you. Good morning. 3 My name is Jeff Brediger, and I am the Director 4 of Utilities for the City of Orrville, Ohio, a 5 small city of about 900 residents and a small 6 coal-fired electric plant that would be subject 7 to the Boiler MACT rule. I also testify today as 8 the Chair of the Generators Group at American 9 Municipal Power, which is composed of other small 10 municipalities who also generate electricity 11 primarily by burning local coal resources with 12 increasing investments in hydroelectric and other 13 renewable and energy efficiency projects. The 14 Generators Group includes the Ohio cities of 15 Painesville, Shelby, Dover, and Hamilton; and we 16 help coordinate the concerns of other small 17 municipal generators in other states. Together 18 with my home city of Orrville, we represent a 19 unique subset of the Boiler MACT source category 20 because we generate electricity as part of our 21 primary output. We operate as electric 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 94

utilities, but we are too small to be included in 1 the Utility MACT source category. 2 Municipal electric plants provide 3 reliable electricity for public services, like 4 police and fire protection, and for hospitals and 5 schools. We also serve residents and businesses 6 with electricity priced at the cost of 7 generation. Low-cost electricity helps entice 8 businesses to locate in our areas and long-term 9 price commitments encourage businesses to stay 10 and grow in our communities. In these difficult 11 economic times offering reliable low-cost 12 electricity is an important incentive for 13 attracting and retaining jobs in our communities. 14 We have many concerns regarding the 15 proposed Boiler MACT rule and how it will affect 16 our operations. 17 First, we understand the Boiler MACT rule 18 is due to come out before the Utility MACT rule, 19 which means that our small municipal public power 20 plants will be facing the cost of emission 21 controls for hazardous air pollutants many 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 95

months, if not years, before the investor-owned 1 utilities. The timing of these two regulations 2 places our generators at a significant 3 disadvantage to the much larger investor-owned 4 utilities. EPA can mitigate this burden by 5 establishing a separate subcategory for small 6 municipal utilities and setting a compliance 7 schedule for us that is consistent with the 8 schedule for large investor-owned utilities to 9 comply with the Utility MACT. 10 Municipal electric plants are also 11 concerned with the significant projected cost of 12 the Boiler MACT rule. To install all the control 13 equipment anticipated by the Boiler MACT rule 14 would cost over $20 million for our facility 15 alone. We certainly understand how important it 16 is to protect the environment, and as city 17 officials, we are committed to providing a safe 18 environment for our residents. However, we have 19 to ask ourself this level of expenditure is 20 necessary to protect our citizens and our 21 environment. We think that this rule fails to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 96

strike the right balance between job 1 preservation, and growth, and environmental 2 protection. 3 The Clean Air Act offers U.S. EPA 4 discretion in certain areas that can and should 5 be used to help balance economic and 6 environmental interests. Exercising this 7 discretion is particularly important in difficult 8 economic times as regulatory burdens can become 9 the straw that breaks the economic backs of U.S. 10 manufacturers and jeopardizes the jobs that are 11 crucial to sustained economic recovery. 12 We ask that EPA exercise this Clean Air 13 Act discretion with strength and vision to focus 14 resources on serious health threats from air 15 emissions and offer relief from economic burdens 16 when such health threats are not indicated. 17 To relieve some of the burden for these 18 boilers and process heaters, EPA should exercise 19 the health threshold discretion that Congress 20 allows under Section 112(d)(4) of the Act. 21 Congress recognized that some pollutants are safe 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 97

at low concentrations, and they allowed EPA to 1 consider this health threshold when setting 2 emission limits. Hydrogen chloride is a common 3 acid and one of those compounds that is safe at 4 low concentrations. EPA may use health risk 5 information to test emission standards that 6

reflect health thresholds so that we are not 7 spending money on control equipment that is 8 unnecessary required to protect human health. 9 In these strained economic times, EPA 10 should certainly exercise its discretion to stop 11 the regulatory burden when health is adequately 12 protected. This can reduce environmental 13 expenditures by two t three million dollars per 14 unit at each of our municipal electric plants. 15

The Act also allows less burdensome work 16 practice standards when it is not feasible in the 17 judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or 18 enforce an emission standard. This is taken from 19 Section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. 20 We encourage the EPA to utilize this 21 discretion as liberally as court decisions allow 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 98

to relieve the burdens of emission standards, 1 particularly where work practices provide 2 effective emission control assurances at lower 3 cost and burdens to the operators. 4 The Clean Air Act also provides EPA with 5 broad discretion to subcategorize within the 6 Boiler source category based on size, type, and 7 class of source to help ensure that the emission 8 limits are determined by the best performing 9 similar sources and that the emission standard 10 can be ultimately achieved in practice. 11 Then within the proper subcategory, EPA 12 has the discretion to use a method for setting 13 emission standards based on what real world best 14 performing units actually achieve so that the 15 units setting the bar for the rest of the 16 subcategory will not have additional emission 17 control obligations. 18 If the EPA were to use the discretion 19 provided in the Clean Air Act, it could 20 significantly alleviate the burden of this rule 21 without compromising the environmental benefits 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 99

that Congress intended. Flexible approaches in 1 the Boiler MACT rule that appropriately address 2 the diversity of units, operations, sectors, and 3 fuels could prevent severe job losses and 4 billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory 5

costs. 6 Two of our largest customers, the JM 7 Smucker Company and The Quality Casting Company 8 have sent concerns to lawmakers, and I’d like to 9 offer a few of their comments. 10 Tim Smucker, Chairman of the Board and 11 Co-CEO for the JM Smucker Company stated, our 12 company has elected to remain in the Orrville 13 community for many reasons, including low rates, 14 reliable service, and community benefits of 15 working with a city-owned and operated electric 16 utility. The Orville municipal utility plays an 17 essential role in the community to ensure 18 competitive electric rates for residential and 19 business customers as well as emergency services. 20 Certainly, public utilities should be held to 21 high standards as we work to preserve our 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 100

environment, but such standards should reflect 1 regulations that are industry and size specific. 2 It appears as though municipal utility 3 representatives have offered viable options to 4 the EPA for alternative and effective 5 regulations. 6 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Brediger, I hate to 7 break in, but you’ve gone a minute over the 8 limit. Can you wrap up pretty soon? 9 MR. BREDIGER: Yes, I am. I’ll wrap it 10 up right now. 11 Our utility will continue its proactive 12 efforts in the areas of improving plant 13 efficiency while making investments in hydro and 14 energy efficiency projects and participating in 15 this rulemaking project. We all have the 16 responsibility of developing standards that are 17 realistic and economically achievable without 18 sacrificing health risk. 19 Thank you for your time and attention. 20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your 21

comments. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 101

Any clarifying comments from the panel? 1 (No response.) 2 Thank you, Mr. Staudinger and Mr. 3 Brediger. You may step down now. Thank you for 4 your comments. 5 I’d like to call the next two speakers, 6 Paul D’Eustachio and Janice Nolen. Please come 7

to the table. 8 Mr. D’Eustachio, feel free to start your 9 comments whenever you’re ready. 10 MR. D’EUSTACHIO: Thank you very much. 11 I’m feeling somewhat –- I’m impressed to be in 12 the august company here of all the previous 13 speakers. 14 I’m, unfortunately, not going to be able 15 to sit here and cite various paragraphs and 16 subsections, parentheses XXX of a particular 17 regulation. I’m not a highly paid lobbyist or 18 even a lawyer. I guess my qualification 19 primarily is that I do what I think probably 20 everybody else in this room does, and that is, I 21

breathe. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 102

And I’d like to draw your attention, 1 really, to maybe the need for just a common sense 2 approach sometimes. Let me start here. 3 Good morning. For the record my name is 4 Paul E’Eustachio. I’m a resident of Takoma Park, 5 Maryland, and a long-time volunteer for the 6 American Lung Association. I am testifying today 7 as a member of the general public to voice my 8 strong support for the EPA’s proposed regulations 9 governing emissions from commercial, 10 institutional, and solid waste incinerators. 11 These comments are intended to provide general 12 support for all four of the proposed regs under 13 discussion today rather than addressing any 14 particular proposed rule. 15 I’d just like to also note for the record 16 I noticed that my name on the speaker’s list was 17 associated with NC4. That is my employer. I am 18 not speaking on behalf of my employer today but 19 as a general -– as an individual. 20 The proposed regulations will 21 substantially reduce emissions from industrial, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 103

commercial, and institutional boilers and solid 1 waste incinerators. These boilers and 2 incinerators are spread across the country, in 3 our communities, in our big cities, in industrial 4 parks, and are minimally regulated and 5 historically have generated the toxic brew of 6 particulates, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and 7 other materials -- again, common sense that the 8 human lung is just not intended to ingest. 9 For those of us that like to exercise 10 outside, the reduction of these pollutants is not 11 just an academic or legalistic discussion. I 12 bicycle to work on a daily basis, from Maryland, 13 across the District of Columbia, and into 14 Virginia. On one hand, that exercise is 15 substantially improve my physical fitness; but on 16 the other hand, lungful of lead, cadmium, 17 dioxide, and God knows what else, certainly 18 doesn’t do much for my well being. 19 As I said at the outset, I’m not an 20 expert -– medical expert, a chemical engineer, 21 but I am an accountant by training and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 104

profession. The EPA, to their credit, has done 1 an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of these 2 proposed regulations. Without going into great 3 detail, it’s pretty clear that the benefits to be 4 achieved on an overall or on a large scale –- on 5 a macro basis far outweigh the cost of 6 implementation. 7 Obviously there’s going to be local 8 dislocations as we’ve heard one of the previous 9 speakers point out; but I think if we look at the 10 large picture, this is not something that,, in 11 fact, is a cost but a long-term benefit. 12 We just finished watching the political 13 drama of enacting major health care reform 14 legislation. If nothing else, we’ve come away 15 from that conversation with a clear, clear 16 understanding that the long-term cost of health 17 care in this country is measured in the hundreds 18 of billions of dollars. And anything that we can 19 do to reduce that cost will have a resounding and 20 positive economic impact. These rules are going 21

to do that. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 105

We’ve waited way too long for these rules 1 to be proposed by EPA. This is not something 2 radical. This is not dangerous. This is not 3 economically destructive. These rules are just 4 plain common sense. It’s common sense that we 5 don’t want our kids -– my kids – breathing 6 mercury. It’s common sense that formaldehyde is 7 not good for anyone’s lungs, and it’s just common 8 sense that the economic cost of an asthma attack 9 triggered by minimally regulated particulates is 10 simply unacceptable these days. 11 My mother used to say, when all else 12 fails, apply common sense. Ladies and gentlemen, 13 I urge you to apply that common sense. Let’s 14 move these rules from the proposed stage to the 15 done-deal stage now. 16 I appreciate the opportunity to be here 17 today. I thank you very much for your time and 18 attention. 19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, sir. 20 Any clarifying comments from the panel 21 for Mr. D’Eustachio? 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 106

(No response.) 1 Thank you. Ms. Nolen, feel free to start 2 whenever you’re ready. 3 MS. NOLEN: I’m having a little trouble 4 talking, so I’ll try to speak into the mike. 5 Good morning. I am Janice Nolen, 6 Assistant Vice-President for Policy and Advocacy 7 for the American Lung Association. Thank you for 8 this opportunity to share our thoughts. These 9 comments will apply to all the proposed rules, 10 and we will provide more complete comments into 11

the docket. 12 The American Lung Association saves lives 13 through the prevention of lung disease and the 14 promotion of lung health. We are committed to 15 the fight for healthy air. 16 Key to that fight has been our work to 17 support the cleanup of emissions from widespread 18 pollution sources. We have long been concerned 19 about industrial, commercial, and institutional 20 boilers as well as solid waste incinerators. We 21 want to thank the EPA for taking this critical 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 107

step to cut down the toxic air pollution, 1 including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, 2 which spew from these boilers and incinerators. 3 The American Lung Association strongly 4 supports EPA requiring the cleanup of major 5 source and area source industrial, commercial, 6 and institutional boilers and solid waste 7 incinerators. These steps are long overdue. 8 These chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, 9 and other industrial, commercial, and 10 institutional sources have been sources of life11 threatening and life-altering gases and particles 12 in communities all across the nation. It is time 13 they were cleaned up. 14 These boilers and incinerators produce 15 particulate matter -– tiny bits of solids and 16 aerosols formed by the sulfur dioxide and 17 nitrogen oxide emissions. Particulate matter is 18 the most dangerous of the widespread air 19 pollutants. Particulate matter triggers asthma 20 attacks, heart attacks, and strokes, among other 21 damage, but most critically, particulate matter 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 108

kills. Breathing find particles increases the 1 risk that children with asthma and older adults 2 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or 3 cardiovascular disease will end up in the 4 emergency room or the hospital. 5 These units also spread mercury and lead, 6 hazardous metals that can harm children’s brains, 7 hurting their IQ and limiting their ability to 8 learn and to remember what they have learned. 9 Many of the other toxic pollutants spewing from 10 these sources cause cancer, including 11 formaldehyde, dioxin, cadmium, furans, and 12 hydrochloric acid. Because these devices are so 13 numerous and so widespread, their toxic pollution 14 infiltrates communities across the nation. Their 15 harm to health settles heaviest on those who live 16 near them, communities that are often poorer, 17 less well educated, and minorities. 18 Study after study finds that pollution 19 harms these folks far more than it does others. 20 Cleaning up these boilers and incinerators will 21 save lives. EPA estimates that between 2,000 and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 109

5,000 lives will be saved every year because of 1 the changes put in place by these requirements 2 beginning in 2013. 3 But that’s only part of the benefits. 4 Having less pollution to breathe should benefit – 5 - should prevent over 3,000 non-fatal heart 6 attacks, avoid over 35,000 cases of worsened 7 asthma, and eliminate nearly 3,400 hospital and 8 emergency room visits each year –- each year. 9 The total benefits far outweigh the costs 10 of cleaning up. EPA estimates that the cleaner 11 air from cutting emissions from major sources 12 will save nearly 18 billion to over 43 billion 13 each year beginning in 2013. Total capital costs 14 for installing equipment on all of these boilers 15 is estimated to range from 10.5 billion to 12 16 billion with total amounts for operations, 17 maintenance, and other requirements of 3.9 18 billion. 19 The American Lung Association urges EPA 20 to strengthen the proposed rule for incinerators 21 and for the definition of solid waste. The 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 110

definition of solid waste proposed here is narrow 1 -– so narrow that any facility could burn 2 practically any substance as solid waste and not 3 have to follow the requirements, opening a huge 4 loophole that threatens public health. They 5 would also never have to tell the public what 6 they are burning or how much. That is wrong. 7 We urge EPA to not allow industry to burn 8 waste in uncontrolled and unmonitored facilities. 9 We see today powerful and vocal industry lobbies 10 here opposing these rules. We’re not that 11 powerful and, certainly today, not that vocal; 12 but we represent children with asthma and the 13 communities next door to these facilities. We 14 speak for the adults on oxygen who cannot be here 15 to say that we must have air that does not make 16 it harder for them to breathe. We speak for 17 those whose lives are threatened by the pollution 18 spewing from these boilers and incinerators. All 19 of us deserve to breathe clean air. We are 20 counting on EPA to deliver cleaner, healthier air 21 in every community. Too many people have 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 111

suffered too long. Now is the time to require 1 all of these plants to clean up. Thank you. 2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Nolen. 3 Any clarifying questions from the panel 4

for Ms. Nolen? 5 (No response.) 6 Okay. Thank you, Mr. D’Eustachio and Ms. 7 Nolen for your comments. We appreciate that. 8 We have one more speaker at this point. 9 I’d like to call Tracey Norberg up to the table. 10 And if any of you have not registered yet 11 and would like to speak, please feel free to talk 12 to Jan, who is now standing in the right side of 13 the room, the black suit with pink shirt. She 14 can register you right away. 15 Thanks, Ms. Norberg. Feel free to start 16 your comments whenever you’re ready. 17 MS. NORBERG: Thank you very much. 18 I’m Tracey Norberg with the Rubber 19 Manufacturers Association, and I’m here today 20 representing our manufacturer members and 21 primarily our tire manufacturer members who 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 112

manufacture most of the new tires sold in this 1 country. 2 Our member companies, both our tire 3 members and our non-tire members will be affected 4 by both the Boiler Major Source Rule and the 5 Minor Source Rule; but I’m not here to speak on 6 those today. I wanted to use this time to 7 address the solid waste rule instead. 8 Since 1990 our members have worked hard 9 to increase the rate of scrap tire management and 10 recovery in this country. In 1990 when we first 11 became involved, only about 11 percent of tires 12 went to end-use markets -- and primarily in tire 13 derived fuel markets. 14 Today, almost 90 percent of tires do go 15 to end-use markets. That means that tires are 16 not landfilled at the rate they once were. And 17 more importantly, they’re not in illegal 18 stockpiles that have fire and other challenges. 19 We are very proud of the success that we 20 have achieved, both with –- in partnership with 21 the EPA and in partnership with the states. And 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 113

here I wanted to speak on a challenge that we see 1 coming forward looking at the solid waste rule 2 because we are concerned that this market really 3 is in jeopardy. 4 Tire derived fuel is a -– is a market 5 that’s very important to the tire –- I’m sorry, 6 to the scrap tire management field. It serves as 7 basically an anchor market which enables other 8 markets for scrap tires for both recycling and 9 recovery to flourish. It’s an economical market 10 that achieves environmental benefits, including 11 greenhouse gas reductions as cited by EPA in the 12 proposed rule. 13 We are concerned that how the rule is 14 drafted, particularly the tires that are consumed 15 as whole tire derived fuel, will not be able to 16 be treated as fuels, but instead deemed waste, 17 absent a successful petition through the petition 18 process laid out by EPA. 19 We’re, by the way, very pleased to see 20 that EPA has included a petition process as a 21 process of last resort for facilities that are 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 114

consuming waste -– or, I’m sorry, consuming fuels 1 that would otherwise be classified as waste; and 2 they can show that these materials have not been 3 previously discarded. 4 However, we believe with tires in the 5 first instance when tires are coming from 6 annually generated sources of tires, they’re not 7 coming from landfills or stockpiles, but instead, 8 coming off of people’s vehicles treated with 9 value, that these materials have not been 10 discarded and should not be considered waste. 11 We urge EPA to go back to the approach 12 that you took in the ANPRM. We felt that 13 approach set the proper balance, looking at 14 annually generated tires separately from those 15 tires coming out of stockpiles. 16 As I mentioned, tires that are annually 17 generated, left at tire dealerships through –- 18 enter in an established infrastructure where 19 those tires are treated as valuable commodities. 20 They are then to a processor who delivers them to 21 the end user. And we feel that at no time have 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 115

those tires been discarded. 1 When we look at the plain language test 2 that the courts have laid out for determining 3 whether a material has been discarded, clearly 4 tires in this context do not meet that 5 definition. And we urge EPA to really go back to 6 the approach that you set out in the ANPRM. 7 We feel that when you look at tires from 8 stockpiles, yes, those tires were discarded in 9 the first instance and understand the processing 10 requirement that has been set forth for materials 11 that have been previously discarded. 12 We would urge, though, an expanded 13 definition of processing to really look at what 14 processing is appropriate for the given end use 15 and not require processing that would go beyond 16 what might be appropriate in that case. 17 For example, in the cement kiln context, 18 tires would -– if they were coming stockpiles, 19 would be required to be processed and have the 20 metals removed. Interestingly, the metal in 21 tires in the cement kiln process do not -– the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 116

metal is not serving as a contaminant. Instead 1 it’s serving as a raw ingredient, requiring 2 additional processing and requiring that material 3 to come out of tires would really just require 4 increased energy use, increased emissions, and 5 really be completely opposite of what this rule 6

sets out to do. 7 So we would urge that the level of 8 processing really be geared towards the end use 9 and not sort of a one-size-fits-all approach to 10 processing. 11 Now just quickly turn to what would 12 happen if facilities decided to stop using tire 13 derived fuel instead of being regulated under 14 Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. 15 We see about 50 million scrap tires going 16 into cement kilns every year. And if these 17 markets evaporate, truly we will see a 18 landfilling crisis in this country with tires and 19 increased stockpiling across the country. That’s 20 a big concern to us as tire manufacturers. We 21 want these materials to be used appropriately and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 117

as fuels so that we don’t have a solid waste 1 problem. 2 Some states could increase use in other 3 markets, but many states could not. And we would 4 see additional ripple effects beyond the loss of 5 those markets because tire-derived fuel does 6 serve as a primary economical market. 7 So we really urge you to go back. Look 8 at the ANPRM again. And we wholeheartedly 9 approach that approach. 10 I’m happy to answer questions now. Thank 11

you. 12 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Ms. Nolen. 13 Any questions from the panel? 14 (No response.) 15 Okay. Thank you very much for your 16

comments. 17 MS. NORBERG: Thank you. 18 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 19 MS. GENTILE: I think we have one more 20 speaker. I just got a signal from Janice. And 21 then we’re going to go into a -– I think a 30- 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 118

minute break. 1 Our next speaker before the break is Guy 2 Martin. 3 Thanks, Mr. Martin. Feel free to start 4 whenever you’re ready. 5 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Thank you very 6 much for giving me the opportunity to speak today 7 and to present what I would call an insider’s 8 view of what the issues could -– that the rules 9 generate that could change the face of the pulp 10 and paper industry as a whole and a company in 11 specific. 12 I represent Domtar as Director of 13 Environment Sustainability, and we will be 14 submitting more elaborate comments in written 15 form towards the end of July. 16 I would like to present first off an 17 overview of Domtar. For those of you who don’t 18 know, we are the largest uncoated free sheet 19 paper manufacturer in North America. We make 20 copy paper, business papers, food and specialty 21 papers, and also pulp for various applications 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 119

such as diapers and other hygiene products. 1 We have 10 paper mills in the U.S., 2 spread out over 9 states. Our use of renewable 3 energy is remarkable. Where we have 75 percent 4 of our energy that is used –- that is -– that we 5 use –- sorry, that comes from renewable sources, 6 69 percent of the electricity we use within the 7 company is self-generated, and about 60 percent 8 of that electricity also comes from renewable 9 sources such as biomass and hydroelectricity. 10 The company itself has a strategy that –- 11 in place that we –- to reduce our dependence on 12 fossil fuels and to reduce our environmental 13 footprint as can be evidenced by two recently 14 announced biomass cogeneration projects in 15 Wisconsin and in South Carolina. 16 To go a little bit over the impact of the 17 rules –- sorry, the four rules on our operations, 18 the rules will cover 32 boilers that we operate 19 in 10 mills, both in liquid, the gas coal, and 20 biomass categories. 21 Let me start by saying the purpose of EPA 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 120

in putting this rule is definitely a noble one. 1 It is -– and it will go a long way towards making 2 America a world leader in environmental conscious 3 actions. 4 However, the rule could in its present 5 form have devastating impacts on both the pulp 6 and paper industry in the entire manufacturing 7 sector in the U.S. as the limits are way too 8 restrictive, and in some cases, unachievable. 9 As was pointed out earlier, the data that 10 was used to set the MACT floors ignores the vast 11 majority of boilers and emissions data that 12 exists out there. EPA needs to consider all of 13 the data available to set the rules and not just 14

a select few. 15 Also, the variability of the emissions 16 need to be better considered, especially events 17 of start-ups, shutdowns, and the variability in 18 fuel mixes, the variability in steam loads, 19 something that is very common in the pulp and 20 paper industry. 21 As the rule stands now, even some of the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 121

boilers identified as top performers such as 1 biomass boiler that we have at our facility in 2 Kingsport, Tennessee, which was identified, as I 3 said, as a top performer for CO, could not meet 4 the rule standard at all times. 5 The rule discourages the use of biomass, 6 and that goes against all of the efforts that 7 Domtar has made to maximize the use of biomass 8 and will likely cause us to reverse some of our – 9 - some of our practices, which will mean an 10 increase in fossil fuel and increase in landfill 11 of materials. 12 Some limits such as mercury, and dioxins, 13 and furans were set using non-detectable test 14 values, which could mean that at a facility that 15

has never measured detectable amounts of these 16 compounds could be in non-compliance. And to me 17 it appears to be a little -– excuse me for the 18 word –- silly to be in non-compliance with a 19 compound that you have never measured in 20 detectable quantities. 21 Under CISWI other alternate materials 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 122

that presently that we use as fuel would have to 1 be disposed of differently -– again causing us to 2 increase our use of fossil fuel, increase our 3 costs, and put us at a much more competitive 4 disadvantage with the rest of the world. 5 On a financial aspect, the anticipated 6 cost of the rule for Domtar will be well in 7 excess of a hundred million dollars. Thirty 8 percent of these costs, however, will be related 9 to non environmental improvements such as 10 redesigning stacks to account for the provisions 11 of emissions averaging which do not allow us to 12 average over subcategories when –- for boilers 13 that burn similar fuels

. 14 An example of this is one of our 15 facilities burns -– has three boilers connected 16 to a common stack. Two of them burn coal with 17 tangentially fired units; the other one is stoker 18 fired. They had different limits. Under the 19 current rule we would not be able to emissions 20 average these boilers; therefore, a significant 21 amount of investment required to just separate 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 123

the stacks in order to meet the rule. Again, 1 these investments under the current rule would 2 not benefit the environment at all. 3 And even after all these monies have been 4 spent, we cannot guaranty EPA, our stockholders, 5 our employees, our customers, and the public that 6 we will be able to meet the rules at all time 7 because of the issues of variability and -– 8 excuse me -– and the fact that in some cases 9 there are no investments or no technology that is 10 existing out there to actually meet the 11 requirements at all time. 12 And this is clearly in violation of our 13 own environmental policy which states that we 14 will meet all requirements at all time, and it 15 will cause us to make harsh decision to the 16 future of some of our facilities. 17 Again, I think you for the time. We will 18 have, like I said, written comments detailing a 19 lot of these points later on, and then I invite 20 any questions if you have them. 21 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Martin. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 124

Any comments from the hearing panel? 1 MR. WAYLAND: You referenced your 2 Kingsport, Tennessee facility. Was that part of 3 the Agency’s information collection request? 4 MR. MARTIN: Yes, it was. 5 MR. WAYLAND: Do you, by any chance, have 6 any longer term CO data that you could submit? 7 MR. MARTIN: And they will be submitted 8 along with our comments. 9 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Great. Thank you. 10 MR. MARTIN: And they are submitted also 11 in the efforts of the American Forest and Paper 12 Association. 13 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Great. Thank you. 14 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 15 Mr. Martin. We appreciate it. 16 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 17 MS. GENTILE: I think at this point we 18 have no speakers signed up for the next half 19 hour; so I think we’re going to go into a 30- 20 minute break. Let’s plan to come back here and 21 resume the hearing at 11:30. Thank you. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 125

(Brief recess.) 1 MS. GENTILE: Good morning, folks. We’re 2 going to get started again. We’re going to 3 reconvene the hearing in a minute. 4 Thank you. The next two speakers we have 5 are Andrew Francis and Scott Parker. Please come 6 up to the table. 7 Mr. Francis, feel free to start your 8 comments whenever you’re ready. 9 MR. FRANCIS: Okay. Basically, I may be 10 unique here in that I am not connected at all to 11 the energy industry, to lobbying, to politics, to 12 anything. I’m from the Allied Health Industry; 13 and basically I saw a call go out to say come on 14 down and make some comments about this and help 15 us. It was an environmental organization say 16 help us to push for increased regulations of what 17 goes into our air. So I’m here as a breathing 18 citizen of the United States, basically. 19 But my industry -– I’ve never done this 20 before either. I’m not like a hired gun. I 21 don’t go out and do this ever. So this is the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 126

first time I’ve done it. 1 My industry is Allied Health. I work for 2 a small association in D.C., and we have found 3 that what most people think about what my 4 industry is about, which is orthotics and 5 prosthetics, is that returning war veterans come 6 home, and they need prosthetics. What is really 7 true about my industry is that it’s obesity which 8 is the problem in my industry. So, most of the 9 problems in my industry are a health issue. 10 So I’m here to say that we have to be 11 thinking about the air that we breathe as a 12 health issue for the future. We didn’t think 13 about that 30 years ago when we started pushing 14 sugar into the diet, et cetera, in the industry 15 that I’m in. And that’s caused the -– it’s 80 16 percent of my industry is because of obesity. 17 And that surprises a lot of people because they 18 think that prosthetics are something to do with 19 accidents and war wounds, and things like that. 20 And I’m basically here using this -– this 21 is what I know, and that’s why I’m talking about 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 127

it. I’m using this to say that we have to be 1 incredibly mindful of what we’re putting into our 2 air because it’s going to affect us in 30, 40, 50 3 years, which I know we all know because we’ve 4 polluted far worse than we’re doing now. 5 But when we hear -– and I represent a lot 6 of people -– the people I talk to, the people in 7 my community, my relationships, my girlfriend’s 8 daughter, for example, who has asthma –- people 9 are beside themselves when they hear that there’s 10 a potential that regulations will be cut back or 11 that anybody would ever want to cut back 12 regulations on what goes into our air, especially 13 when it’s the heavy metal pollutants and things 14 like that. 15 And I’m here as a kind of representative. 16 I may be unique in this room that I’m just a 17 representative of those people that are simply 18 saying we do not want more stuff going into our 19 air. We don’t want less regulation. We want 20 more regulation. And we’re willing to pay, also. 21 There’s a lot of -– will the taxpayer pay for 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 128

that. We actually don’t mind. We know –- and 1 again, this is a group of maybe 40 people that I 2 converse with on a daily basis over a month’s 3 time. 4 But we know that in countries where their 5 taxes are through the roof that they have clean 6 air, that they have better services, and we’re 7 fine with that. 8 So, that’s why I’m here. I’m here to say 9 that I and everybody I talk to -- I don’t meet 10 many people that would ever say that we want to 11 cut back –- pull back any kind of regulation. 12 So I can’t speak -- I don’t know the 13 industry; I can’t speak to specifics about what’s 14 in all the paperwork that’s on the table out 15 there. I understand the industry has a bottom 16 line that they’re worried about; but in my 17 opinion and all these people’s opinions the 18 bottom line is the health in the future. It 19 isn’t the finances of a corporation. The 20 corporations, if they provide jobs, if they’re 21 progressive, they move forward. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 129

They do what Denmark has done, for 1 example. I know that Denmark has trash-burning 2 plants, for example, that are putting nearly zero 3 emissions into the air of any heavy metals. And 4 they’re all over the country, and they provide 5 power and heat for that country. And that’s 6 astounding that we don’t have a huge system doing 7

that ourselves. 8 And we don’t know why. They people I’m 9 talking for don’t know why that is. We are the 10 United States of America; we’re supposed to be 11 innovators. We’re supposed to have all the 12 scientists at all the universities that have done 13 all these wonderful things over the past century 14 to develop technologies; and yet other countries 15 are doing these kinds of highly, highly 16 progressive technologies and solving their 17 problems -– solving our problems, but we’re not 18 getting on board. 19 So that’s what a lot of the people I’m 20 talking to are thinking. That’s what they’re 21 saying. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 130

MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Francis. 1 Does the hearing committee have any 2 comments for Mr. Francis? 3 (No response.) 4 Thank you. 5

Mr. Parker? 6 MR. PARKER: So I -– good morning. My 7 name is Scott Parker, and I’m also a breathing 8 citizen of the United States. I am the Executive 9 Director of NORA, An Association of Responsible 10 Recyclers. We are formally known as the National 11 Oil Recyclers Association. 12 Today NORA offers a general statement 13 concerning the rule recently proposed by the U.S. 14 EPA to promulgate regulations governing solid 15 waste-derived fuels. NORA will submit much more 16 detailed comments on or before the August 3rd, 17 2010 deadline. TO provide you with some 18 background on the oil recycling industry, NORA’s 19 more than 240 members provide collection and 20 recycling services in each of the 50 states and 21 the District of Columbia. Our members collect 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 131

and recycle used oil, antifreeze, waste water, 1 oil filters, absorbents, and parts cleaning 2 chemicals, and comply with stringent regulatory 3 safeguards for used oil recycling pursuant to 40 4 CFR Part 279 and many other sets of environmental 5 regulations, including the Clean Air Act. The 6 basic components of Part 279 were adopted by EPA 7 in 1985 and strengthened in 1992 pursuant to a 8 clear Congressional mandate to encourage 9 legitimate methods of used oil recycling. 10 The legislative history of used oil 11 regulation should not be ignored in the present 12 rulemaking effort. In 1980, 1984, and 1986 13 Congress directed EPA to develop regulations that 14 protect human health and environment while 15 encouraging legitimate used oil recycling. In 16 other words, Congress recognized that if over17 regulation kills a recycling market, the adverse 18 environmental consequences may be severe. 19 A set of balanced regulatory controls 20 emerged that, for all practical purposes, 21 accomplished Congress’ goal. NORA members 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 132

collect and manage vast quantities of used oil as 1 a valuable product in compliance with EPA’s 2 regulations. If, instead of a balanced 3 regulatory approach -– if used oil had been 4 declared a hazardous waste, as had been seriously 5 considered, far less used oil would be recycled 6 and the system for handling used oil would be 7 extremely expensive without any environmental 8 protection benefits. The history of used oil 9 regulation in the United States provides a 10 valuable lesson and blueprint for policy makers 11 who genuinely care about environmental 12 protection. 13 NORA’s basic perspective on the proposed 14 rule is very straightforward. NORA agrees with 15 EPA’s conclusion that on-specification used oil 16 fuel does not constitute a solid waste because it 17 is not abandoned and otherwise discarded. It 18 constitutes a legitimate and traditional fuel. 19 NORA contends that for precisely the same reasons 20 off-specification used oil does not constitute a 21 solid waste. The facts demonstrate that off-spec 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 133

used oil is a legitimate and traditional fuel. 1 It should be emphasized that the distinction 2 between on-spec and off-spec used oil fuel had 3 nothing to do with its heating quality. Both 4 categories of used oil fuel will generally have 5 the same BTU content. It’s roughly 140,000 BTUs 6 per gallon, the equivalent of virgin petroleum 7 oil – if the water content is the same. 8 The distinction between the two 9 categories of used oil fuel is a somewhat 10 arbitrary one, created by EPA in 1985. If any 11 parameter of four metals exceeds a specified 12 concentration, the used oil is classified as off13 specification. If total halogens are greater 14 than 4,000 parts per million, the used oil is 15 off-specification. 16 Also, if the flashpoint of the used oil 17 is lower than a hundred degrees Fahrenheit, the 18 used oil is classified as off-specification. 19 NORA’s collective experience in the nearly 25 20 years since this rule was adopted by EPA is that 21 the metals rarely exceed the specified 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 134

concentrations. We have some detailed 1 information which are in our written comments on 2

that. 3 Rather, used oil is –- used oil fuel is 4 off-spec because of total halogens or flashpoint. 5 However, neither of those factors adversely 6 affects the quality of this type of used oil as a 7 fuel. The market for off-spec used oil under the 8 current regulations is strong and reliable. 9 There are, according to the EPA’s 10 Material Characterization paper on used oil for 11 this rule making, approximately 750 industrial 12 fur4naces and boilers that burn off-spec used oil 13 fuel. These are primarily cement kilns, boilers 14 for utilities, furnaces at steel mills, and other 15 major industrial burners. All these burners are 16 stringently regulated by the Clean Air Act, and 17 each utilizes and maintains expensive pollution 18 control equipment. 19 There is absolutely nothing in the 20 preamble to any of the proposed rules that 21 suggests that when burning used oil fuel, these 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 135

industrial burners or boilers emits halogens in 1 quantities greater than would be the case if the 2 off-spec used oil fuel were burned in facilities 3 with Section 129 permits. This point needs to be 4 carefully considered by EPA because there would 5 be no justification of this proposed rule as it 6 would apply to off-specification used oil fuel if 7 no environmental benefits are to be achieved. 8 It is also worth pointing out that 9 Exhibit 6 of the Material Characterization paper 10 shows that the principal benefit of combustion of 11 used oil are associated with upstream production 12 offsets, include substantial reduction of NOx, 13 CO, and CO2 emissions. 14 In terms of combustion-specific 15 emissions, use of used oil results in notably 16 lower NOx emissions, in particular, when compared 17 to residual fuel oil. The term upstream –- this 18 is in quotes -– upstream production offsets is a 19 shorthand way of recognizing some of the benefits 20 of used oil recycling. It means that when a 21 quantity of fuel is produced from used oil that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 136

is collected and recycled, the adverse 1 environmental impacts would have been created by 2 producing the same quantity of virgin fuel have 3 been eliminated. Unfortunately, these benefits 4 are threatened by the proposed rule that, perhaps 5 unintentionally, could effectively destroy the 6 market for off-spec used oil fuel. 7 Currently, there is a steady and reliable 8 market for off-spec used oil fuel. Off-spec used 9 oil is collected and marketed in much the same 10 way as on-spec used oil. The difference is in 11 the number of end users -– approximately 750 12 industrial furnaces and boilers –- versus a more 13 limited number of Section 129 solid waste 14 incinerators. Fewer outlets will result in 15 dramatically increased transportation costs from 16 the geographically diverse generator locations to 17 these limited facilities. 18 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Parker, I’m sorry to 19 interrupt, but you’re one minute past the limit. 20 Can you please wrap up? 21 MR. PARKER: Absolutely. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 137

MS. GENTILE: Thank you. 1 MR. PARKER: The traditional fuels 2 definition -– I’ll skip ahead to the alternative 3 approach. 4 The traditional fuels definition for the 5 alternative approach is apparently changed from 6 the traditional fuels we have identified earlier 7 to specifically exclude on-spec used oil. And 8 this could change or should have been addressed 9 in the above statement. 10 Again, it’s in my written comments here; 11 but as we had some going back and forth regarding 12 the alternative approach –- and it appears that 13 they are going to be including on-spec oil as a 14 solid waste. 15 I want to thank you, and NORA appreciates 16 the opportunity to present this statement, and 17 we’ll have much more statements before the August 18

3rd comment. 19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Parker. 20 Does the hearing panel have any questions 21

for Mr. Parker? 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 138

(No response.) 1 Thank you both gentlemen, Mr. Francis and 2 Mr. Parker, for giving your comments today. We 3 appreciate that. 4 We have one final speaker, I believe, 5 right now; and that’s Jerry Brindle. Please come 6 on up to the table. 7 Thanks, Mr. Brindle. Feel free to start 8 your comments whenever you’re ready. 9 MR. BRINDLE: Thank you. 10 My name is Jerry Brindle, and I’m a 11 member of the United Steel Workers Local 925. I’m 12 a PPRC Regional Special Projects Director, and I 13 work at AbitibiBowater’s pulp and paper mill in 14 Catawba, South Carolina. 15 AbitibiBowater produces a wide range of 16 newsprint, commercial printing papers, market 17 pulp, and wood products. It is the eighth 18 largest publicly traded pulp and paper 19 manufacturer in the world. AbitibiBowater owns 20 or operates 21 pulp and paper facilities and 24 21 wood products facilities located in the United 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 139

States, Canada, and South Korea. 1 The Catawba mill is one of the most 2 efficient and environmentally friendly mills in 3 the world. We produce coated paper and market 4 pulp. In addition, the mill provides a livable 5 wage for 850 employees. 6 The continued cumulative impact of EPA 7 regulations is enormous and is putting our 8 industry and many others at a cost disadvantage 9 compared to our worldwide competitors. 10 The Boiler MACT as issued for my mill 11 alone will require capital expenditures of at 12 least $20 to $40 million and an annual operating 13 cost will range from 4 million to in excess of $7 14 million. 15 The Boiler MACT rules needs to be fixed. 16 The rule, as proposed, will actually discourage 17 industry from using biomass over more traditional 18 fossil fuels or natural gas. 19 The database used to develop the rule 20 contained some errors. If EPA used its 21 discretion to set reasonable limits from good 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 140

data, EPA would continue to protect public health 1 without driving industry out of business with 2 unrealistic control requirements. 3 It is critical that the EPA create more 4 flexibility in the rule. We need this 5 flexibility in order to choose more efficient 6 alternatives. 7 Biomass boilers should be given special 8 consideration. Biomass boilers are carbon 9 neutral and beneficial to the environment. My 10 mill has two biomass boilers. EPA should 11 encourage the continued operation of biomass 12 boilers. By setting unreasonable limits on these 13 biomass boilers, EPA will drive industry toward 14 fossil fuel when EPA should be favoring biomass 15

use. 16 The top performer boilers were selected 17 by individual parameters rather than considering 18 the total performance of the boiler. 19 During the worst economic crisis since 20 the Great Depression, this rule will impose an 21 unsustainable regulatory burden. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 141

This rule is more expensive than it needs 1 to be and will ultimately result in more mill 2 closures and job losses. 3 I appreciate the opportunity to comment, 4 and thank you. 5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Brindle. I 6 appreciate your comments. 7 MR. BRINDLE: Thank you. 8 MS. GENTILE: At this point I believe –- 9 oh, I’m sorry. Are there any comments from the 10 panel? 11 (No response.) 12 Thank you. You may step down. Thanks 13 for your comments. 14 At this point we have no additional 15 speakers, so we’re going to go on a temporary 16

recess. 17 What that means is that the panel will be 18 in the area, and if anybody signs up to speak, we 19 can reconvene the panel; but at this time we’re 20 going to go into recess. 21 And the official lunch break begins at 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 142

12:30. It goes until 2:00 o’clock. Thank you. 1 (Brief recess.) 2 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon, folks. 3 It’s a little bit after 12:00. 4 We have one final speaker before our 5 recess for lunch, and I’d like to call Paul Fiore 6

to the table. 7 MR. FIORE: Thank you. My name’s Paul 8 Fiore. I’m the Director of Government and 9 Business Relations for the Tire Industry 10 Association, known at TIA. We’re an 11 international association representing all 12 segments of the tire industry, including those 13 that manufacture retreaded tires, repair, 14 recycle, sell, service, or use new or retreaded 15 tires, and also those suppliers or individuals 16 who furnish equipment, material, or services to 17 the industry. Our recycler members collect over 18 a hundred and thirty million tires annually. 19 We’re testifying today to register our 20 concerns with the rulemaking governing the use of 21 tires as fuel in cement kilns and other 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 143

combustion units. I will more than likely echo 1 many comments heard today, so I’m going to be 2 brief –- specifically from RMA. 3 We worry about the consequences of any 4 changes in the classification of tires as fuel. 5 We are simply unable to fathom the dawning 6 prospect of millions of tires suddenly appearing 7 on the landscape, both literally and 8 figuratively. 9 Our industry has forcefully dealt with 10 one of the most significant environmental issues 11 that our country ignored for many years as scrap 12 tire piles are finally coming to an end in this 13 industry. The existence of these piles created 14 numerous health hazards as vast breeding grounds 15 for disease-carrying insects and the aftermath of 16 a tire fire is now labeled as a toxic superfund 17 by this Agency. We will be disappointed if this 18 were -– if this environmental success story were 19 reversed by this ruling. 20 Closer to home –- and this may be one of 21 the more important points I’d like to make –- our 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 144

retail members have by and large come to 1 understand the importance of recycling tires in 2 the correct manner, and any change in the pattern 3 of this cycle could set back retail behavior for 4

years. 5 Our processor members have certainly come 6 to depend on the economies of scale that maintain 7 the value of this commodity and regulate this 8 market. As new industries form around the 9 constant innovation that we see for recycled 10 rubber, the market must remain stable to support 11 this research and development. 12 And lastly the point I want to make is 13 that the states will be left with the burden of 14 dealing with these growing tire piles with little 15 resources to utilize. As we have heard from our 16 state affiliates, that many state tire recycling 17 funds have been raised by -– have been raided by 18 state treasuries desperate for general funds. 19 I just want to thank you for the 20 opportunity to testify, and we’re looking forward 21 to working with the stakeholders and the process, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 145

and we will be submitting more detailed written 1

comments. 2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Fiore. 3 Any comments from the hearing panel? 4 (No response.) 5 Thank you very much. I appreciate your 6

comments. 7 MR. FIORE: Thank you. 8 MS. GENTILE: With that we have no 9 additional speakers right now; so I think it’s a 10 good time to break for lunch. 11 Our lunch break will be 12:30 until 2:00 12

p.m. 13 If we don’t see any of you after lunch, 14 thanks so much for coming. We appreciate your 15

comments. 16 And the transcript for today’s hearing 17 will be in the docket on the EPA website within 18 about 10 days. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. WAYLAND: Business days. 21 MS. GENTILE: Business days. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 146

SPEAKER: All four dockets? 1 MS. GENTILE: The question was will it be 2 in all four dockets. 3 MR. WAYLAND: I think there are only two 4 dockets, right? There’s one for your rule and 5 the three air rules; but yes, it will be in both 6 places. 7

MS. GENTILE: Yes. 8 MR. WAYLAND: And it will also be on the 9 EPA website where the actual rule –- 10 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) website? 11

MR. WAYLAND: Yes. 12 MS. GENTILE: And to clarify, that was 10 13 business days it will be available. 14 Thank you. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 MS. GENTILE: I have one question for 17 anybody who is still here. We’re looking for a 18 Chris Hornback of NACWA. 19 Chris Hornback not here? 20 (No response.) 21 Okay. Thank you. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 147

(Brief recess.) 1 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon, everybody. 2 And thank you for attending today’s public 3 hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 4 Proposed Rules for Industrial, Commercial, and 5 Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 6 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 7 Incinerators, and Identification of Non-Hazardous 8 Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste. 9 We appreciate you taking the time to 10 address these proposals and would look forward to 11 your comments. 12 My name is Laura Gentile, and I’m the 13 acting Branch Chief of the Communications Branch 14 in the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 15 Response. I’ll be the chair for today’s hearing. 16 With me on the panel are the following 17 people: To my immediate left, Mark Thomas of the 18 Program Implementation and Information Division 19 of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 20 Recovery -– pardon me. 21 Robert Wayland from the Sector Policies 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 148

and Programs Division at the Office of Air 1 Quality Planning and Standards; Susmita Dubey 2 from EPA’s Office of General Counsel; and James 3 Topsale from EPA Region 3. 4 We are here today to listen to your 5 comments on four proposed rules that EPA 6 announced on April 30th of this year. These 7 rules were published in the Federal Register on 8

June the 4th. 9 More details about the proposed 10 amendments and rules and instructions for how to 11 submit public comments are available in the 12 registration area outside of this room. 13 We also have prepared a list of topics on 14 which we are specifically seeking comment. 15 That’s also available in the registration area 16 and may be helpful to you as you’re making 17 comments today for later on submitting written 18

comments. 19 EPA will accept written comments on these 20 proposed rules until August 3rd of 2010. 21 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 1 49

the hearing is going to work as follows: I will 1 call the scheduled speaker to the microphone two 2 at a time. You will come up to the table to our 3 far left –- the table right -- way over there 4 when it’s time for you to speak. 5 When you get to the table, please state 6 your name, your affiliation, and the rule or 7 rules your verbal comments are addressing. We 8 may ask you to spell your name for the court 9 reporter who is transcribing the comments for the 10 official record. 11 To be fair to everyone, please, we ask 12 that you limit your testimony to six minutes or 13 less. We have a timekeeping system consisting of 14 green, yellow, and red lights directly in front 15 of Robert Wayland. 16 When you begin speaking, the green light 17 will come on. The yellow light will signal that 18 you have one minute left. We’re going to ask you 19 to please stop speaking when the red light comes 20 on indicating that you’ve come to six minutes. 21 Please stay at the table until both 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 150

speakers have completed their testimony. 1 We’re here today to take your comments on 2 these proposed rules. However, from time to 3 time, any of us on the hearing panel may ask 4 questions to clarify your testimony. 5 If you have brought a written copy of 6 your comments, please give a copy to Brian 7 Kneiser, our court reporter sitting at my right. 8 All written copies of comments will be submitted 9 to the docket. We will work hard to ensure that 10 everybody has a chance to comment today. Today’s 11 hearing is scheduled to close at 8:00 p.m., but 12 we’ll stay later if we need to. 13 We will take breaks for meals during the 14 day. If you would like to testify but have not 15 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 16 registration table outside of this room. 17 For those who have already registered to 18 speak, we have tried to accommodate your specific 19 request for time slots. We ask for your patience 20 as we proceed through the list. We might need to 21 make some adjustments as the day goes on. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 151

Thank you again for coming, and we’d like 1 to get started now. 2 I’d like to call our first two speakers 3 up to the table: Derek Swick and Chuck Bartley. 4 Mr. Swick, as soon as you’re ready, feel 5 free to start commenting. 6 MR. SWICK: These comments will be on the 7 solid waste rulemaking. 8 Good afternoon. My name is Derek Swick 9 with the American Petroleum Institute, API. API 10 is a not-for-profit trade association 11 representing all segments of the oil and gas 12 industry. 13 In terms of API’s waste advocacy, we have 14 participated in all rulemakings and litigation 15 involving the definition of solid waste since 16 RCRA was first promulgated in 1980. 17 We will be submitting detailed written 18 comments on the solid waste proposal -– non19 hazardous solid waste proposal before the comment 20 due date. We’re still reviewing the proposal, 21 but today we’ll offer a few key comments. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 152

A summary of API’s key points follows. 1 Based on our review of the proposal, the 2 principles underlying the proposed rule are 3 generally consistent with the statutory 4 definition of solid waste, and from our 5 perspective, encourage a greater role of energy 6 recovery from secondary materials in meeting 7 energy needs, both today and in the future. 8 Second, the proposed definition of 9 secondary material differs from the understanding 10 of that same term under Subtitle C. If codified, 11 the definition in the proposal from our 12 perspective would result in challenges in 13 implementing RCRA. The proposed definition of 14 secondary material needs to be reworked. 15 And our third main point is that the 16 proposal recognizes that traditional fuels are 17 not solid wastes when burned in a combustion 18 unit. Certainly, fuels are not discarded when 19 combusted and are not solid wastes. This premise 20 is promising. It’s in the proposal in the 21 preamble, and we think that EPA can do a little 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 153

more in the final rule to bring that out further. 1 API’s interest in this rulemaking 2 follows: We’re interested in this proposal 3 primarily for two reasons: Because -– and this 4 is no surprise. There’s one definition of solid 5 waste, concepts that EPA advances in the proposal 6 logically should, in the long run, influence 7 further development of the Subtitle C definition 8 of solid waste. 9 And all of API’s members either produce, 10 collect, or process various hydrocarbon-bearing 11 second materials that are non-hazardous and that 12 are highly suitable for legitimate use as fuels 13 or as ingredients in combustion units. 14 Accordingly, our members will be affected by this 15 proposal. 16 Now, for the most part, Point one, the 17 principles underlying the proposed rule are 18 consistent with the statutory definition of solid 19 waste. For RCRA to be a solid waste, the 20 material must be discarded. And this is where 21 the lawyer comments come in. API does not 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 154

believe that it is possible to apply a plain1 English meaning of discard to a situation where 2 materials are neither disposed nor abandoned but 3 retained and legitimately burned as fuel for 4 energy recovery or used as an ingredient in a 5 manufacturing process. With a few exceptions 6 that we’ll highlight in our written comments, 7 EPA’s proposed rule appears to conform with this 8 principle, which is good. 9 We believe that the proposed rule 10 represents an improvement over the current 11 Subtitle C definition of solid waste. The 12 Subtitle C definition has historically reflected 13 a bias against burning for energy recovery. That 14 bias is far less evident in today’s proposal. 15 In the proposal EPA acknowledges and 16 moves beyond the historic association of 17 combustion of secondary materials with disposal. 18 This position seems like a common sense 19 interpretation of the term solid waste, per RCRA. 20 Moreover, the proposal is quite forward21 thinking by acknowledging both advances in 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 155

technology and the potentially much greater role 1 of energy recovery from secondary materials in 2 supplying future energy needs. 3 Our second comment, the proposed 4 definition of secondary material needs to be 5

reworked. 6 The proposed rule initially presumes that 7 non-hazardous secondary materials that are 8 combusted are solid wastes. The proposal then 9 provides exclusions for materials or fuels used 10 in a combustion unit and that also meet the 11 legitimacy criteria. The term secondary material 12 is thus very important to the scope of the 13 rulemaking. The proposed rule would define 14 secondary material as any material that is not 15 the primary product of a manufacturing or 16 commercial process and can include post-consumer 17 material, off-spec commercial chemical products 18 or manufacturing chemical intermediates, post19 industrial material, and scrap. 20 We question why EPA is proposing a 21 definition of secondary material that is 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 156

different than the common understanding from the 1 usage of that term in the RCRA Subtitle C 2 regulations. Now although the Subtitle C 3 regulations do not spell out and define secondary 4 materials or even employ the term, we note that 5 EPA did explain in the preamble to the 1985 6 revisions to the Subtitle C definition of solid 7 waste that -– quote -– the rule itself refers to 8 the following types of secondary materials: 9 spent materials, sludges, by-products, scrap 10 metal, and commercial chemical products, recycled 11 in ways that differ from their normal use. 12 In short, there are two different 13 interpretations and definitions looking at this 14 proposal and what’s in RCRA Subtitle C. We think 15 that this can lead to unnecessary confusion in 16 implementing RCRA; and we question why there are 17 different definitions. 18 At a minimum, the proposed definition 19 could be amended to avoid inadvertently capturing 20 materials EPA does not intend to capture. For 21 example, the definition refers to a material that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 157

is not the primary product of a process. This 1 makes no allowance for the concept of co-products 2 that is familiar to most RCRA practitioners. 3 As another example, the definition refers 4 without qualification to off-spec commercial 5 chemical products or manufacturing chemical 6 intermediates. Under Subtitle C only such 7 products or intermediates burned in lieu of their 8 normal manner of use are considered secondary 9 materials. Under the proposal here, off-spec 10 traditional fuels could be considered secondary 11 materials, but that is not clearly consistent 12 with EPA’s intent. 13 And our final point is with regard to the 14 fact that traditional fuels are not solid wastes 15 when combusted, and we think that’s self-evident. 16 Again, this principle is stated in the 17 preamble of the proposal. Particularly because 18 of the potentially confusing definition of 19 secondary material that I just discussed, we 20 would encourage EPA to include regulatory 21 language in the final rule that clearly excludes 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 158

traditional fuels from the scope of the rule. 1 We appreciate the opportunity to comment 2 and will follow up with written comments before 3

the due date. 4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Swick. 5 I want to ask the hearing panel if 6 anybody has any clarifying questions for you. 7 (No response.) 8 Thank you. 9 Mr. Bartley, feel free to start whenever 10 you’re ready. 11 MR. BARTLEY: Okay. I’m Charles Bartley. 12 I work -– I’m an hourly worker. I work for 13 MeadWestvaco in Covington, Virginia, at the 14 Covington plant, and I’m here to speak on Boiler 15

MACT. 16 My name is Charles Barley, and I’m a 17 fourth generation paper worker at the Covington 18 Paper Mill. My great grandfather started there 19 in 1899. The four generations of my family -– 20 immediate family have worked there for over a 21 hundred and twenty-five years. Many uncles, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 159

cousins, nephews, brothers, and brothers-in-law 1 have worked there and are working there at 2 present. 3 I have bought cars, trucks, a home, and I 4 paid for two kids to go to college. I have lived 5 the American Dream. Sadly, for many Americans, 6 in recent years, this dream is vanishing. 7 I joined the Pulp and Paperworkers 8 Resource Council over 10 years ago when I saw 9 American jobs leaving at an alarming rate. We’re 10 hourly workers from competing companies, working 11 together as brothers to save our jobs. The 12 economy, higher fiber and energy costs added to 13 the need for a profit, combined with increasing 14 regulatory costs, can be the nail in the coffin. 15 Creating new jobs is a must, but don’t get rid of 16 the remaining jobs we have left. 17 Our company is a leader in sustainability 18 and has been for generations. We support efforts 19 to protect the environment and have voluntarily 20 worked to reduce emissions in our manufacturing 21 operations. Together with other leaders in our 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 160

industry, paper and forest products manufacturers 1 have reduced air pollution from our operations by 2 more than 50 percent in the past 20 years. 3 As you know, the industry is one of the 4 most heavily regulated in the United States. It 5 harms our ability to compete with manufacturers 6 in countries that do not share our commitment to 7 environmental performance. Despite this burden, 8 new regulations, such as the Boiler MACT, 9 continue to be proposed that would require 10 additional investment with no substantial 11 environmental benefit. 12 Requiring this investment means 13 additional job losses in our industry and in the 14 important manufacturing sector of our economy. 15 At a time when we should be promoting job and 16 economic growth at home, we are handicapping U.S. 17 industry with a new layer of regulations that are 18 unproven to provide any health or environmental 19 benefit. 20 Two particular components of the Boiler 21 MACT regulation are of particular concern. The 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 161

first is the lack of any health-based assessment. 1 When the Clean Air Act was first developed, 2 Congress established that lowering emissions 3 further would only be necessary when there are 4 clearly-defined health benefits. Without a 5 health-based assessment, the regulation could 6 require significant investments in actions that 7 would not provide any corresponding benefit. 8 The second is the need for a real-world 9 assessment of individual emission reductions on 10 the overall boiler systems. Greatly reducing one 11 component of a total emission can be done, but it 12 may cause other emission values to vary. Best 13 performing boilers –- excuse me. 14 Best performing boilers should be 15 identified on their overall capacity and 16 capability, not on an emission-by-emission basis. 17 Otherwise, it would in result in the 18 establishment of standards that cannot be 19 achieved. 20 Just in Virginia these regulations could 21 impose an additional one billion in capital cost 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 162

for manufacturers, increasing operating costs, 1 and actually decreasing energy efficiencies. 2 These monies spent to comply with this regulation 3 would not substantially improve our air quality 4 but will cost us jobs and future growth 5 investments. We cannot afford to limit our 6 ability to compete in the global marketplace by 7 layering additional costly regulations on our 8 manufacturing. The EPA should develop reasonable 9 approaches to emission reduction. They should 10 strive to achieve measureable health and 11 environmental benefits. They should consider the 12 investment of time and resources that will be 13 necessary for compliance. They should include a 14 health-based compliance alternative and a 15 realistic review of the best performing units 16 that can meet all the regulated pollutants. They 17 must consider the impact on jobs, economic 18 growth, and the global competitiveness of 19 American manufacturers. 20

MeadWestvaco and our workers are 21 committed to doing our part to protect and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 163

enhance the environment. We support reasonable, 1 balanced efforts to responsibly reduce emissions. 2 We hope the EPA will join us in developing 3 solutions that do not harm America’s 4 manufacturers and manufacturing employees. 5 Just in review, our industry has lost 6 350,000 jobs since 2006. They lost a hundred 7 thousand jobs in 2009 alone. 8 You know, us, as Americans, we’ve got to 9 keep manufacturing here in the United States and 10 produce good products so we can pay taxes and 11 raise our families. And I ask that the EPA use 12 discretion in their regulations and help keep our 13 jobs in America. 14

That’s all. 15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bartley. 16 Any clarifying questions or comments from 17 the panel? 18 MR. WAYLAND: Let me ask Mr. Bartley –- 19 you mentioned the health-based compliance 20 alternatives. Will your company be submitting 21 any additional data in your written comments to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 164

support the inclusion of such a provision? 1

MR. BARTLEY: I’m not even sure what –- I 2 was asked by the Pulp and Paper Resource Council. 3 I’m sure they will. 4 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. 5 MR. BARTLEY: I’m sure they will, but I 6 haven’t talked to anybody that’s verified that. 7 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you both, Mr. Swick 9 and Mr. Bartley. We appreciate your comments 10 very much. 11 Our next two speakers, David Wise and 12

Steve Peace. 13 Mr. Wise, feel free to start your 14 comments whenever you’re ready. 15 MR. WISE: My name is David Wise. I’m –- 16 work for Smurfit-Stone Container, and I’m also a 17 member of the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource 18 Council. 19 My name is David Wise. I’m a General 20 Mechanic for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, 21 a Kraft liner mill in Florence, South Carolina. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 165

I am a member of the United Steel Workers’ Local 1 1877. I am also the Southeast Region Director 2 for the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council. 3 The PPRC is a grassroots labor coalition 4 concerned with fiber supply, the Endangered 5 Species Act, and the environment in an effort to 6 protect and preserve American Forest Products 7 jobs. 8 My mill is located in rural Florence 9 County on approximately 2,000 acres and employs 10 525 people and meets a yearly payroll of $46 11 million. This facility also pays $1.6 million 12 annually in property taxes and annually moves 3.9 13 million tons of freight. 14 Back in the late fifties and early 15 eighties, the textile industry was a strong, 16 thriving industry. Both my grandparents and most 17 of my aunts and uncles worked in this industry. 18 I also had family members that worked in the 19 furniture industry in North Carolina. These were 20 good-paying, tax-generating, stable American 21 jobs. Both of these industries have become –- 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 166

have almost become extinct in the United States. 1 The small towns, communities, local businesses, 2 schools, and churches that they supported have 3 withered away, as did the cities of the old west. 4 It is our concern that if Boiler MACT 5 continues in its present form, the American 6 forest products industry and the communities it 7 supports will ultimately meet the same fate. 8 Our nation’s recent economic down turn 9 has not been very kind to the forest products 10 industry. In the past two years, our industry’s 11 profits were approximately $1 billion. Over 40 12 mills closed, and another 150 had to take idled 13 down time. Tens of thousands of high-paying jobs 14 have been lost, and the way of life as we knew it 15 has drastically changed. The capacity of these 16 mills has been shifted to emerging overseas’ 17 markets such as China and Brazil, where companies 18 can operate with little or no environmental or 19 labor regulations. 20

If these current standards are 21 implemented, the cost to an already struggling 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 167

industry will be devastating. As I have 1 previously stated, our industry’s profits were 2 approximately $1 billion. And that is for our 3 whole industry, not just Smurfit-Stone Container 4 -– the whole industry was $1 billion. For the 5 past two years that’s about what we made. 6

To meet these new standards and be EPA 7 compliant, our industry will have to spend 8 approximately 6 to $7 billion, and this could be 9 the final blow to the American forest products 10 industry, forcing our companies to close their 11 doors, move their operations overseas. When this 12 happens, we will not only have lost a high13 paying, tax-generating jobs that help support our 14 country, we will also be multiplying the very 15 same emissions that we are trying to control in 16 the first place, causing the American people to 17 lose all the way around. 18 The forest products industry would be 19 glad to work with EPA to protect both public 20 health and jobs by targeting environmental 21 investments where they are needed. We hope that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 168

the EPA will provide a more flexible approach in 1 Boiler MACT rule and appropriately address the 2 diversity of boilers, operations, sectors, and 3 fuels it could meet -– it could meet its goals 4 while preventing severe job losses and billions 5 of dollars in unnecessary regulatory cost. 6 The motto of the PPRC is to seek a 7 balance. And what we’re after is we understand 8 we have to have the environment for our industry 9 to thrive. If we don’t have good trees and we 10 don’t replant trees, then we won’t have a place 11

to work. 12 So, we need to seek a balance between 13 these two things so that we can work and we can 14 have our environment. 15

And that’s all I have. 16 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Wise. 17 Any comments or clarifying questions from 18 the panel? 19 (No response.) 20 Mr. Peace, whenever you’re ready feel 21 free to start your comments. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 169

MR. PEACE: Good afternoon. My name is 1 Steve Peace, and I’m from Blakely, Georgia. I’m 2 a member of the IBEW and a Special Projects 3 Director with the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource 4 Council. I’ve worked at GP, Cedar Springs 5 operations for 37 and a half years -– hourly 6 worker -– Cedar Springs, Georgia. Cedar Springs 7 produces containerboard, which is linerboard and 8 medium. After it’s made, the containerboard is 9 shipped elsewhere and the end product is 10 corrugated containers and drums. 11 The mill sits on 1,400 acres in Early 12 County and employs approximately 550 people with 13 green jobs. In 2009, ad valorem and sales taxes 14 paid in Early County from this facility were 15 almost $3 million. We sit in the corner of 16 Georgia, bordering Florida and Alabama. Sixty17 nine percent of the workers are from Georgia; 28 18 percent of the workers are from Alabama; and 9 19 percent -– 3 percent are from Florida. The mill 20 has a significant impact on all three states. 21 The annual payroll is more than $50 million a 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 170

year. As you can see, these are good paying jobs 1 and important to the small counties to survive in 2 this area. 3 In 2009 our Number 3 paper machine was 4 shut down due to economic downturn. As a result 5 of this shutdown, some 110 people were out of 6 work for about a year. But it’s not just the 7 mills that are affected; there is a ripple effect 8 on the jobs in the community as well. There are 9 4 to 10 jobs related to every one job at the 10 mill. As a result, many other families were 11 affected during the machine’s downtime as well. 12 Thankfully, this machine is back up and running 13 in 2010, and most of the workers are back on the 14 job. These jobs are so important to rural areas 15 where median wages so very low even with mill 16 workers’ salaries figured in. 17 Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs operation 18 has spent more than a hundred million dollars in 19 capital projects in the last five years. We have 20 already spent over $40 million on Boiler MACT. 21 This was before the thing was vacated earlier, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 171

before the testing was done and updating and the 1 boiler numbers were figured. To comply with the 2 new figures that we’re seeing, we will spend 3 upward of another $7 million. 4 I’ve painted you the picture of where I 5 work and what we face, but there is a much larger 6 picture. The paper and forest industry employs 7 nearly 900,000 workers. The forest products 8 industry has lost more than 350,000 jobs since 9 the beginning of the downturn in 2006 –- a 10 hundred thousand of these jobs last year alone. 11 Approximately 75 mills have been closed in the 12 last five years. These mill closures were not due 13 to Boiler MACT but the economy and foreign 14 competition. China and Latin America are the 15 major players and are not held to the same 16 rigorous environmental standards as American 17 companies face. We need a level playing field. 18 The entire paper industry made only one billion 19 dollars in the last two years, as you previously 20 heard. The cost of Boiler MACT in the State of 21 Georgia alone is going to be somewhere around 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 172

$520 million, and across the industry in the next 1 two to four years could be 6 to $7 billion. 2 The proposed Boiler MACT rule could 3 damage the manufacturing sector’s ability to 4 recover during these hard economic times and is 5 far more restrictive than needed to protect the 6 environment. 7 Trees are the most powerful concentrators 8 of carbon on earth. The paper industry does more 9 to restore –- to store carbon than any other 10 industry. Carbon is stored within the product -– 11 paper, boards, wood, furniture. More trees are 12 planted to help manage the forest, and the new 13 trees help absorb more carbon. Forests and 14 forest products absorb and store enough carbon 15 dioxide to equal 10 percent of the annual carbon 16 emissions in the United States in a year. On 17 average, paper and wood product mills generate 65 18 percent of their own industry needs with 19 renewable biomass. Our increase -– the increased 20 use of renewable energy has allowed the industry 21 to reduce its use of carbon-intensive fossil 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 173

fuels and purchased energy per ton of product by 1 19 percent since 2000. The industry has 2 continually increased efforts to recover 3 recyclable paper which saves space in landfills, 4 reduces methane emissions, and minimizes waste. 5 The forest product industry is the leading 6 producer of carbon-neutral renewable biomass 7 energy and produces more energy from biomass than 8 all the energy produced from solar, wind, and 9 geothermal sources combined. 10 This is who we are, but most importantly, 11 we’re American workers trying to survive. 12 We hunt, fish, hike, and love the 13 environment just y’all do. We all want clean 14 air. We also believe in balance between 15 protecting the environment and preserving 16 American jobs. We believe this balance can be 17 reached. We question how American industry and 18 green jobs can continue with the high cost of 19 environmental regulations. We ask that EPA 20 examine the new limit and the long-term effect 21 they will have on America’s green jobs. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 174

I thank you for your time, your 1 assistance in helping save my job, community, and 2 keeping green jobs in America by examining and 3 raising limits on Boiler MACT. Thank you very 4

much. 5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Peace. 6 Any questions from the panel for Mr. 7

Peace? 8 (No response.) 9 Mr. Wise and Mr. Peace, thank you for 10 your time and for your comments. Thank you very 11

much. 12 Our next two speakers are Jim Pew and 13 Louis Hengen. Please come to the table. 14 Mr. Pew, whenever you’re ready, feel free 15 to start providing your comments. 16 MR. PEW: Thank you. I’m going to 17 comment briefly on the major source boiler rule 18 and then on the proposed definition of solid 19

waste. 20 Let me start with the major source boiler 21

rule. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 175

MS. GENTILE: Could you move the 1 microphone a little bit closer to you. It’s hard 2 to hear. Thank you. 3 MR. PEW: Can you hear me now? 4

MS. GENTILE: Yes. 5 MR. PEW: Okay. Let me start with the 6 major source boiler rule. 7 We want to thank and congratulate EPA for 8 doing a good job on this proposal. This rule is 9 going to take an important step to cleaning up 10 the toxic emissions from refineries and chemical 11 plants that is making our air unsafe and 12 unpleasant to breathe. And this is a long time 13 in coming. These rules are 10 years overdue. No 14 previous administration, no previous 15 administrator would take this step. This one 16 did, and we appreciate it very much. 17 Especially important to us is EPA’s 18 decision to eliminate the outrageous malfunction 19 exemption that has caused so much distress in so 20 many communities around the community. 21 Let me go into some detail on this. At 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 176

refineries and chemical plants it is well 1 established from state emissions data that there 2 have been decades of routine violations of 3 emission standards during so-called malfunction 4

events. 5 When these events happen, the neighboring 6 communities are blanketed in toxic emissions. 7 People are made sick immediately. They lose work 8 days. They have to visit doctors and seek 9 medical care that many can’t afford. Their 10 children miss school. And because the emissions 11 are so toxic it also increases their chances of 12 catastrophic health effects like cancer and birth 13

defects. 14 Now, this exemption has been ruled 15 unlawful by a Federal Court of Appeals. We hope 16 that EPA will be taking it out of other rules but 17 taking it out of this rule which governs 18 thousands of major sources of hazardous air 19 pollutants, including many of the worst abusers 20 of the exemption, will go a long way by making 21 them run their sources cleanly or be held 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 177

accountable; and we think this is very important. 1 Now, we know that industry lobbies are 2 lining up against this rule. They want 3 exemptions. They want delay, and they want the 4 rules weakened. So let me just focus on 5 something that EPA itself concluded. The major 6 source boiler rule will save 4,800 lives every 7 year -– 4,800 lives that would be lost 8 prematurely if this rule were weakened or as 9 industry seeks, there were a health-based 10 exemption thrown in. And that’s just the tip of 11 the iceberg because when EPA counted the number 12 of lives that would be saved, it only looked at 13 the emission reductions of fine particulate 14

matter. 15 It didn’t look at the 7 tons of mercury 16 that would be reduced or the literally thousands 17 of tons of lead and arsenic and chromium that we 18 reduced, or the dioxins, or the formaldehyde, or 19 the benzene. Yet all of these things have very 20 serious health effects. These metals can cause 21 cancer. So can benzene and formaldehyde and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 178

dioxins. Mercury can cause birth defects and 1 developmental damage in children. So, if the 2 real health effects were taken into account, we’d 3 be looking at a lot more than 5,000 lives saved. 4 We don’t know how many it is because EPA doesn’t 5 quantify or monetize it. 6 But let me get back to the monetization 7 also because those 4,800 lives are worth billions 8 more than the cost to industry will be. In fact, 9 by EPA’s calculations even with just 4,800 lives 10 the ratio is about 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 in terms of 11 benefits to costs. It would be far more 12 overwhelming if the full benefits were 13

calculated. 14 So, if we have one thing to say on this 15 issue, it is to Administrator Jackson. Thank you 16 for the good work, but this is nothing more than 17 the law requires. We’re glad you’re doing it. 18 Hold the line. Do not cave in to industry 19 pressure and get this rule out at least as strong 20 as it is, stronger in some cases, and without 21 delay. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 179

Now let me switch to the definition of 1 solid waste issue. This is a completely 2 different set of comments, unfortunately, because 3 this rule is dangerous and irresponsible. 4 Let me just say that the rule defines as 5 fuel things like spent plastics, used solvents, 6 waste chemicals, used oil, industrial sludges. 7 And it allows these wastes -– and EPA refers to 8 them as secondary materials. These are wastes by 9 anybody’s -– any real person’s standards – allows 10 these wastes to be burned in boilers and process 11 heaters that are not subject to any meaningful 12 pollution controls, or monitoring requirements, 13 or reporting requirements. 14 Now how could this possibly be? These 15

are the area sources -– area sources that are not 16 subject to any of these requirements. How many 17 sources are we talking about and where are they? 18 Well, we don’t know because EPA never asked. We 19 know that there are 1,700 chemical plants that 20 are area sources, though. Any one of these 21 things could be burning their waste chemicals 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 180

right next to a community. They would not have 1 to control the pollution. They wouldn’t have to 2 monitor it, and they wouldn’t have to tell the 3 neighbors what they were emitting. 4 How many of them are there? This is 5 where it really gets remarkable. EPA states in 6 the area source boilers rule that it believes 7 that not one of the more than 165,000 area source 8 boilers is burning any secondary material, 9 whether it’s a waste or not. What’s the basis 10 for that belief? There is none. There is 11 absolutely nothing in the record which even 12 suggests that EPA asked what the area source 13 boilers were burning or how much of it or how 14

many. 15 The one thing that EPA does know is that 16 lots of the major source boilers are burning 17 materials that are unquestionably secondary 18 materials. So that it knows that there is a 19 large proportion in the major source boilers 20 rule, and it has no basis to assume that the 21 proportion in the minor source –- in the area 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 181

source boilers rule isn’t just as large or 1 larger. 2 Well, let’s just assume that only 10 3 percent of the 165,000 area source boilers are 4 burning secondary materials. That means that 5 with this proposal EPA just exempted 16,000 6 facilities from any significant control, 7 monitoring, or reporting requirements. That’s 8 16,000 communities who will be subject to a waste 9 incinerator right next to them emitting toxics 10 without controls that they can’t find out about 11 or do anything about. Is that really the result 12

that EPA wants? 13 Now, the rationale in this proposed rule 14 for this exemption is a legal argument. EPA 15 claims not that it is a good thing to have all of 16 these unregulated incinerators operating in 17 people’s back yards. It claims that it’s forced 18 to this result by the law. 19 That argument is wrong. In fact, this 20 exemption is not just not required, it violates 21 the law. At a minimum –- and this is what I 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 182

think what’s really important for Administrator 1 Jackson to take home with this. This is well 2 with Administrator Jackson’s authority. She can 3 define used oil, waste plastics, spent chemicals 4 as waste. Hiding behind a legal argument to do 5 otherwise is a very dangerous precedent. 6 We urge her to recognize that this is a 7 stark choice; it is in her court, and she can 8 either choose to let these facilities continue to 9 poison the communities next to them or control 10

them. 11 Thank you very much. 12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Pew. 13 I’m going to ask the hearing panel if 14 they have any comments or clarifying questions 15 for you. 16 MR. WAYLAND: Just one question. I’m 17 presuming your written comments that will come in 18 later –- you’ll specifically identify these 19 secondary materials. I tried to write as many of 20 them as you listed, but you’re going to give us 21 the list of those which –- like the off-spec oil 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 183

and the spent –- that kind of stuff that’s -— 1 MR. PEW: I could give it to you, but 2 it’s in the proposal and in the advanced notice 3 of proposed rulemaking. I simply mentioned a few 4 of the ones that EPA, itself, has listed. 5 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. You’re talking about 6 the list that’s already -– okay. That’s all I 7 needed. Thank you. 8 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Pew. 9 Mr. Hengen, whenever you’re ready. 10 MR. HENGEN: Hi, good afternoon. My name 11 is Louis Hengen, and I’m here today representing 12 SFK Pulp. I’ll take a little bit of a different 13 approach than my colleague to my left. 14 SFK Pulp is the largest recycled market 15 pulp company in the world. We want to thank you 16 for the opportunity to briefly highlight our 17 initial reactions to EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT 18 rules published on June 4th. 19 SFK Pulp is a Canadian based market pulp 20 manufacturing company headquartered in Montreal, 21 Canada. With three mills in North America we 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 184

employ approximately 500 people. Our Quebec mill 1 produces northern bleached softwood kraft market 2 pulp while our –- both our U.S. mills produce 3 recycled bleached kraft market pulp. They’re 4 located in Fairmont, West Virginia, and 5 Menominee, Michigan. These mills represent two 6 of only three air-dried RBK market pulp mills in 7 operation today. 8 With relatively new installations and 9 modern technology, the Fairmont and Menominee 10 mills commenced operations in the mid nineties 11 and have built a reputation as a market-leading 12 source for high-quality RBK. 13 As the national economy continues to 14 recover from the recession and the unemployment 15 rate hovers at near 10 percent, the Clean Air Act 16 rules recently announced by the EPA will be 17 economically unsustainable for the pulp and 18 manufacturing community and the high-paying jobs 19 it provides unless greater flexibility is allowed 20 in meeting targets. 21 Due to the methodology EPA is using under 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 185

the reissuance of Boiler MACT rule, the emission 1 limits are expected to be exceedingly stringent, 2 approaching levels that can barely be detected. 3 Even boilers using clean fuels like 4 biomass, such as ours in Michigan and West 5 Virginia, which I’ll discuss in further detail 6 later, will be subject to ultra low emission 7 levels that will be unreasonably burdensome to 8 meet if they can be met at all. 9 Achievement of the limits established in 10 this rule would require installation of up to 11 four different air pollution control devices that 12 will conflict with other existing control 13 requirements and will impose tens of millions of 14 dollars in unnecessary capital costs at thousands 15 of facilities around the country. 16 The standards for new boilers are so 17 stringent that boiler manufacturers cannot 18 guaranty compliance, which will assuredly stifle 19 investment in new systems that feed economic 20 growth. 21 The total capital costs for the forest 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 186

products industry alone are estimated around 7 1 billion for the next two to four years, which I 2 heard mentioned earlier. And the cost for all 3 manufacturing could be 20 to 50 billion. Those 4 are huge numbers. 5 In Michigan and West Virginia, the states 6 where SFK has operations, the boiler MACT costs 7 for the forest products industry are expected to 8 be approximately 270 million and 20 million, 9 respectively. Those numbers are staggering by 10 themselves, but take into account that the entire 11 forest products industry only made one billion 12 dollars in each of the last two years. 13 This will result in severe hardship and 14 tens of thousands of job losses in the forest 15 products sector alone. Given the cost of other 16 likely environmental programs, the compounded 17 effects will result in hundreds of thousands of 18 job losses in a sector that lost 350,000 jobs 19 since 2006. 20 If this rule remains in its current form, 21 SKF’s plans to invest $300 million in two 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 187

industrial scale projects converting both its 1 U.S. mill operations to renewable biomass cogen 2 facilities will be lost. The new facilities 3 would include bubbling fluidized bed boiler 4 system and condensing extraction turbine 5 generators designed to produce approximately 31 6 megawatts of renewable electricity for the region 7 and also supplying the facilities’ thermal 8 requirements, replacing natural gas. 9 The cogeneration facilities would be 10 fueled 100 percent by woody biomass or a 11 combination of wood and recycled pulp mill 12 residue. Significant investments have been made 13 in both states to secure proper engineering and 14 design, environmental permitting, electrical 15 interconnection, and fuel availability studies. 16 The two projects would take approximately 17 two and a half years to complete and include the 18 hiring of 400 contract employees to help in 19 construction, with an additional 60 employees 20 hired for operation of the facility. 21 The local logging and trucking industry 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 188

can expect to see an additional 200 jobs to carry 1 the increased load. We want to continue with 2 this project. 3 The solid waste definitions EPA has set 4 has the potential to restrict which types of 5 biomass may be burned for their carbon-neutral 6 energy value which may be pushed into the waste 7 stream and consequently within the confines of 8 CISWI standards. This concept defies logic and 9 simply cannot happen due to the standardized 10 components of processing. 11 In the non-hazardous secondary materials 12 rule EPA should define these secondary biomass 13 materials like resonated trim, pulp paper, waste 14 water residuals, and promote their use which 15 displaces fossil fuels and is consistent with the 16 President’s call for greater renewable fuels. 17 For example, recycled process residuals 18 must be considered a fuel because they are 19 critical to the feed stocks for pulp and paper 20 mills. They have inherent heat value. They are 21 intentionally recovered from the manufacturing 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 189

process and are processed before being burned. 1 As defined, RPRs are materials that are 2 removed during the repulping of recovered fiber 3 to generate fibers which can be used to make new 4 pulp, paper, and paperboard products. The 5 recovered fibers are obtained through various 6 commercial and residential recycling programs and 7 are never discarded, given their value. 8 EPA has long determined that recycled 9 paper is not a solid waste. They are secondary 10 materials generated on site as part of the 11 manufacturing process. The preparation process 12 for recovered fibers, removing non-paper 13 components such as inks, which is what we do in 14 our processes, is equivalent to the way trees are 15 processed to remove non-papermaking components 16 such as bark and ligament. Both processes are 17 used to provide consistent fibers to make 18 products from common feedstock. 19

It must be understood that RPRs are 20 secondary materials from recovered fiber 21 repulping process. They are processed to enhance 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 190

heating value. They do not materially contribute 1 to excess air pollutants. They serve a 2 fundamental part of the fuel mix used by pulp and 3 paper mills. Therefore, RPR should never be 4 considered a solid waste and burned for energy 5

recovery. 6 EPA’s assumption that non-hazardous 7 secondary materials that are used as fuels and 8 are managed outside the control of the generator 9 are solid wastes unless they are processed –- 10 unless they are processed into non-waste fuel 11 products is patently inaccurate. 12 This narrow view of recycling is not 13 based on any record showing that non-hazardous 14 materials that are transferred to other entities 15 are discarded. Case law does not support the 16 sweeping assumption that any material that leaves 17 the control of the generator is per se solid 18

waste. 19 The record compiled by EPA for this 20 rulemaking demonstrates that biomass residuals 21 are legitimately recycled by being burned for 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 191

energy recovery. The record does not demonstrate 1 any discard occurring from this practice or any 2 adverse impacts to human health or the 3 environment. 4 These materials never enter the waste 5 stream and never become part of the waste 6 disposal problem. Accordingly, it would exceed 7 EPA’s authority to promulgate regulations that 8 would bring these materials under regulation 9 under the solid waste and RCRA. 10 I see my time is up, and I’ll finish this 11 with two sentences if I might. 12 During the worst economic crisis since 13 the Great Depression this rulemaking is heading 14 toward imposing unsanable (phonetic) regulatory 15 burden. I hope you can appreciate our concerns 16 and act accordingly when crafting the final 17

rules. 18 I want to thank you for the opportunity. 19 I know you’ve been here all day, and I hope that 20 you will express SKF’s concerns in the final 21 rule. Thank you. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 192

MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 1 Mr. Hengen. 2 I’m going to ask the panel members if 3 they have any clarifying questions or comments 4 for you. 5 (No response.) 6 Okay. Thank you so much for your 7 comments. We appreciate that. 8 At this time –- it’s about 2:51, at 10 to 9 3:00. Our next speaker is not scheduled until 10 3:05, so we’re going to go into a temporary 11 recess for this hearing until that time. 12 We’re going to reconvene at 3:05 right 13

back here. 14 Thank you. 15 (Brief recess.) 16

MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon. We’re 17 going to reconvene the hearing at this time. 18 Before I bring up our next two speakers, 19 I want to remind everybody of a couple things. 20 If you have written comments that you 21 have brought with you, please give them to the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 193

court reporter at my right so we can put them in 1 the docket. And please limit your comments to 2 six minutes. 3 And to make it easier for you to keep 4 track of your time, we have a timekeeper over 5 here. It’s a little box. When you’re speaking 6 at the desk over there at the table on my far 7 left, you can see the light go from green to 8 yellow to red. Red obviously means you’ve 9 reached your limit. 10 So, with that I want to pull up our next 11 two speakers, Vernice Miller-Travis and Robert 12

Bessette. Come on down. 13 Ms. Miller-Travis, feel free to begin 14 your comments whenever you’re ready. 15 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Thank you so much. 16 As you said, my name is Vernice Miller17 Travis. I am the Vice Chair of the Maryland 18 State Commission on Environmental Justice and 19 Sustainable Communities, and as of today a newly 20 re-appointed member of the EPA’s National 21 Environmental Justice Advisory Council. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 194

And my comments will focus on sort of 1 across the rules but in particular on the 2 industrial solid waste incineration units and the 3 definition of non-hazardous solid waste and the 4 environmental justice implications of those. 5 So, how is EPA evaluating the 6 environmental justice impacts of these rules? In 7 the documents that were provided for the webinar 8 that the Agency conducted last Wednesday -- the 9 rather excellent webinar I might add -– in those 10 documents it described the demographic evaluation 11 of population distribution around the sources 12 impacted by the Boiler MACT CISWI rule and the 13 definition of non-solid hazardous waste. 14 EPA’s demographic analysis of the 15 industrial boilers rule clearly shows that 33 16 percent of the population around these existing 17 facilities are people of color, and 29 percent of 18 the population around the CISWI incinerators are 19 people of color. Both analyses demonstrate that 20 areas in closest proximity to these two 21 categories of facilities exceed the percentage of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 195

people of color in the nation’s population at 1 large, which is 25 percent. 2 I want to note that while the demographic 3 analysis represents a significant step forward by 4 EPA in determining the potential impacts of its 5 rulemaking, it is nonetheless an insufficient 6 analysis of adverse impact of the operations of 7 these facilities on the nearby communities. 8 The demographic analysis also shows that 9 surrounding communities also have higher levels 10 of people living at or below the national poverty 11 levels. EPA’s determination of benefits of these 12 rules to environmental justice communities 13 outweighing impacts is spotty and needs to be 14 expanded to include public health impacts that 15 extend beyond the simple and mere demographic 16 analysis. 17 Looking at the definition of non-solid 18 hazardous waste from major source boilers is 19 still troubling to environmental justice 20 communities. By defining industrial waste as a 21 fuel, that will allow all but a few facilities to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 196

burn spent chemicals, spent solvents, scrap 1 plastics, industrial sludges, coal mining waste, 2 and used motor oil, and other waste in boiler 3 process heaters with no obligations to control or 4 monitor their toxic pollution and no obligation 5 to quantify or identify their toxic emissions to 6 EPA or to the public at large. 7 So whatever the adverse public health 8 impacts of those exposures of burning those fuels 9 in those sources in those facilities will be we 10

won’t be able to measure that because we are not 11 requiring that they identify how much of those 12 sources they’re burning and that they’re not 13 required to inform the public at large or EPA for 14 that matter, what they’re burning. And, 15 therefore, how do you quantify what those 16 emissions are and how those emissions are 17 adversely affecting those who live closest to the 18 plants. 19 This is a longstanding set of issues and 20 concerns for environmental justice communities 21 across the nation in all four categories of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 197

facilities that these rules are speaking to and 1 the definition of solid waste which we have been 2 tracking for quite awhile now. 3 And we are very concerned that the Agency 4 is trying to move forward, and we sincerely 5 applaud the efforts of the Agency to bring these 6

rules to closure to enact these rules and to then 7

have them be the law of the land; but we don’t 8 want half measures. We want measures that really 9 incorporate and address all of these adverse 10 impacts that are now known to the Agency. The 11 Agency is developing all kinds of tools to 12 measure, but the measure has to be more than a 13 demographic analysis. A demographic analysis is 14 just one aspect of an environmental justice 15 analysis. It is not the sum total. And most of 16 the rulemakings -— at least the slides that were 17 provided for the webinar last week -– talk about 18 a demographic analysis. 19 Data is given; a demographic table was 20 provided on who would be impacted, who lives in 21 closest proximity to these facilities; but that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 198

was the sum total of the environmental justice 1 analysis. There was no analysis about the 2 potential emissions levels or the emissions that 3 would be cut by the enactment of these rules. 4 There was no quantifying of what the 5 potential public health impact was of the rules. 6 And so we say that you’re –- you’re 50 percent of 7 the way there, but you still have 50 percent of 8 the way to go to get a really complete picture of 9 how the rules will or will not improve public 10 health and improve the health conditions and the 11 air quality conditions for those who live in 12 closest proximity to these facilities. 13 I want to offer again, as I have offered 14 numerous times, particularly around the 15 conversation around the definition of solid 16 waste, that there are folks around the country –- 17 and particularly through the National 18 Environmental Justice Advisory Council -– experts 19 of every level -– scientists, attorneys, 20 physicians, public health specialists, people who 21 live in these communities and run community-based 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 199

non-profit organizations, academic. There’s a 1 wide range of people who through the National 2 Environmental Justice Advisory Council and all 3 the entities that participate in the NEJAC or 4 have worked with the NEJAC to help the Agency 5 come to a better and more comprehensive 6 understanding of what these environmental justice 7 issues are, how to measure them, how to gauge 8 them, and how to factor them into the rulemaking 9

process. 10 Again, the Agency is 50 percent of the 11 way there, but let me say this on the record: 12 Fifty percent of the way there is a damn sight 13 better than where we were some years before in 14 doing these rulemakings and enacting these rules. 15 And we excluded a lot of populations and a lot of 16 populations have borne a fairly heavy public 17 health burden from not being included in the 18 rulemaking. 19 So I want to lift the Agency up for 20 opening the door and saying that we have to look 21 at what the impacts are on all populations; but 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 200

you’re not there yet. And we don’t just want to 1 castigate you for having an incomplete analysis; 2 we want to offer that there are so many people 3 who are willing to work with you to help pull 4 this analysis together, including folks in the 5 private sector who have been looking at this 6 issue for a very, very long time. 7 So I want to conclude my comments there 8 and say thank you for the opportunity. There 9 will be more comments provided on the written 10 record, and we would like to have a direct 11 conversation between the National Environmental 12 Justice Advisory Council and those of you at the 13 Agency who are working on these four rulemakings. 14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Miller15 Travis. 16 I’d like to ask the panel members if they 17 have any questions or comments clarifying your 18 testimony. 19 MR. WAYLAND: I have one question. 20 In your written comments, the more 21 detailed comments, will you be providing any 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 201

input to us on how we should factor in the 1 economic impacts to environmental justice, the 2 job losses, plant closures that would take away 3 health insurance and things on how we should –- 4

MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Well –- 5

MR. WAYLAND: -- account for that? 6 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: I wasn’t planning to, 7 but I can now that you’ve asked that question; 8 but let me say this: It is a fairly strong 9 misnomer to believe that or to assume that 10 because a facility is –- 11

MR. WAYLAND: True. 12 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: -- operating in a 13 particular demographic or geographic location 14 that the people who live in closest proximity to 15 that facility necessarily work in that facility 16 or nave any economic benefits. That’s a widely 17 held misunderstanding. And just because a 18 facility is in a location doesn’t mean that the 19 people who live closest to it work in that 20 location and have some economic benefits. 21 So –- but your question is nevertheless a 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 202

valid one, and I will try and address it in my 1 written comments. 2 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. That’s something 3 we’ve struggled with, so any help you could give 4 us would be much appreciated. 5

MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Sure. 6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much. 7 Mr. Bessette, feel free to start whenever 8 you’re ready. 9 MR. BESSETTE: My name is Bob Bessette. 10 I’m President of the Council of Industrial Boiler 11 Owners. We’re going to comment on the full suite 12 of the four rules, the major source MACT, area 13 source MACT, fuel waste -– fuel definition, and 14

CISWI rules. 15 CIBO is a national trade association of 16 industrial boiler owners, architect-engineers, 17 related equipment suppliers, and universities 18 representing 20 major industrial sectors since 19 19 -– we’ve been doing this since 1978. 20 CIBO works to promote sustainable energy 21 supply and improved environment. CIBO membership 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 203

represents industries as diverse as chemicals, 1 paper, cogeneration, automotive, refining, 2 brewing, combustion engineering, and food 3 products. CIBO members also include more than a 4 dozen universities and colleges -- the facility 5 owners at universities and colleges. 6 We have worked on these rules with EPA to 7 develop scientifically sound environmentally 8 beneficial and technologically and economically 9 achievable rules since the formation of the 10 Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking in 11

1995. 12 As you are aware, the U.S. is trying to 13 recover from the great recession, and many, many 14 people have lost their jobs in the sectors of the 15 economy that will be directly impacted by these 16 rules. There is no doubt that sustained 17 employment increases must be based on private 18 sector job creation. As proposed, EPA’s 19 combination of four rulemakings is diametrically 20 opposed to supporting U.S. industrial 21 competitiveness and domestic job growth. Without 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 204

considerable change, it appears these rules will 1 seriously undermine U.S. employment growth and 2 economic recovery. 3 The breadth and impact of these rules can 4 be seen by the number of facilities listed in 5 EPA’s Boiler/Process Heater MACT Survey database. 6 Over 2,400 facilities across more than 50 NAICS 7 Codes, including not only manufacturing 8 facilities but also educational services –- 9 colleges and universities -– hospitals, nursing 10 and residential care facilities, and national 11 security, military bases will be impacted. 12 EPA indicates that the Boiler/Process 13 Heater MACT Rule will cover 13,555 units at 1,608 14 facilities nationwide. And the Area Source Rule 15 will cover 183,000 units at 91,000 facilities 16 nationwide. The CISWI Rule and the Solid Waste 17 Definition Rule will directly impact many of 18 these sources and many other facilities and 19 combustion units. 20 As proposed, the rules impose emission 21 limits with no known means or assurance of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 205

achieving them. This will result in incredible 1 uncertainty in the regulated community and a 2 reluctance to invest in the United States. 3 We would like to remind EPA that MACT 4 includes the word achievable. New source limits 5 so low as to preclude installation of new sources 6 are not in line with Congress’ intentions in 7 drafting NESHAP provisions for the Clean Air Act. 8 Facility owners must be able to obtain 9 combustion equipment and emission controls to 10 utilize the available and most economical fuels 11 with vendor guaranties that emissions can 12 actually meet the –- meet the limits during 13 normal and expected operating conditions. The 14 proposed existing, and especially new source 15 emission, limits preclude that ability. CIBO 16 challenges EPA to identify existing units that 17 have demonstrated the ability to achieve all the 18 proposed existing or new source emission limits 19 simultaneously with the ability to be replicated 20 any place in the United States. 21 Imposing severe and unattainable emission 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 206

limitations on sources that use or may use 1 locally available alternative fuels such as bio2 based fuels, landfill gas, and process off-gases, 3 will decrease the use of alternative fuels and 4 put greater demand on conventional fossil fuel 5 use to the extent that continued operations are 6 justified. These impacts are counter to the 7 stated administration goals of improving national 8 energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gases, 9 increasing national security, and increasing 10 employment. 11 The work practice approach proposed by 12 EPA for Gas 1 sources is appropriate and CIBO 13 strongly supports its use; however, it should be 14 expanded to encompass most, if not all, of the 15 Gas 2 sources and distillate fuel oils. 16 EPA has the Clean Air Act authority 17 through the 112(d)(4) to formulate MACT rules 18 using a health threshold approach that would 19 provide flexibility for sources while also 20 ensuring the protection of public health. There 21 is precedent for using that approach, and CIBO 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 207

urges EPA to include that approach as a means to 1 provide acid gas control in a cost-effective 2

manner. 3 The health and potential impacts of these 4 proposed rules demand fair and thorough 5 consideration of all underlying data and 6 information. In addition to the proposed rules 7 themselves, the sheer volume of support documents 8 and the gigabytes of supporting data require time 9 to review so that constructive comments can be 10 filed in a timely manner. 11 While we greatly appreciate the 12 opportunity for a hearing and the comment 13 extension for -– to 60 days, that overall time is 14 grossly inadequate for filing comments in this 15 particular case. We will be submitting a request 16 for additional time tied to the final extension 17 or to the extension of the final promulgation 18 date so that EPA has adequate time to consider 19 all comments and additional supporting data. 20 Thank you for the opportunity. We look 21 forward to working with EPA, as in the past, to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 208

produce a final rule that is scientifically 1 sound, environmentally beneficial, and achievable 2 without adversely impacting the economic recovery 3 of the country. 4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bessette. 5 I’d like to ask the members of the panel 6 if they have any questions for you. 7 (No response.) 8 Thank you very much, both of you –- Ms. 9 Miller-Travis and Mr. Bessette –- for your 10 comments. We appreciate your time. 11 Our next speaker –- I’d like to call up 12 Todd Ragula. 13 Thanks, Todd. Feel free to start your 14 comments whenever you’re ready. 15 MR. RAGULA: Thank you. 16 I appreciate the opportunity to speak 17 today. I’m not going to be as technical as some 18 of the speakers you had, but you’ve got to get 19 your opportunity to get your comments out. 20 My name is Todd Ragula. I’m the 21 Environmental Health and Safety Manager from 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 209

American Woodmark. We’re a kitchen cabinet –- 1 kitchen and bathroom cabinet manufacturer with 11 2 manufacturing facilities across the country. 3 I wasn’t going to speak today, but as I 4 sat here listening to the comments -— the broad 5 range of comments that we’ve had today –- I felt 6 it necessary to get across what some of my 7 thoughts were. 8 I’ve heard the reference to a breathing 9 member of the community several times today; and 10 I’m a member of that community as well as my 11 family. And I want clean air as much as anybody 12 else. However, we need to strike a balance. 13 In my position I often hear the comment, 14 are they trying to regulate business out of this 15 country. And our business has been cut in half 16 over the last couple years as we are tied 17 directly to the housing market. And we’re also 18 under increased pressure from the regulatory side 19

from both OSHA and the EPA. And these new 20 regulations do come at a price, despite what many 21 of the speakers, I believe, felt here today. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 210

Industry does not have unlimited resources and 1 funding. 2 Regulations such as this put a heavy 3 burden on industry and will drive many 4 manufacturers out of business and to other 5 counties. 6 I urge you to, you know, to strike a 7 balance with these regulations and work towards a 8 cleaner environment but help -– you know, help 9 us, you know, stay in business and stay in the 10 country. 11 And I thank you for the opportunity. 12 That’s all I have to say. 13 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Ragula. 14 MR. RAGULA: Thank you. 15 MS. GENTILE: I’d like to ask our panel 16 members if they have any comments or questions 17 they’d like to ask you. 18 (No response.) 19 Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. 20 MS. RAGULA: Thank you. 21 MS. GENTILE: At this time -– it’s 3:25, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 211

and se have no scheduled speakers right now for 1

the rest of the afternoon. We are scheduled to 2 go until 5:00 o’clock. 3 So we’re going to go into temporary 4 recess, and we’re going to stay in the area, and 5 if we have more people who sign up to speak, 6 we’re going to go back in to reconvening the 7 panel. 8 If you have not spoken and you would like 9 to speak, please work with the people at the 10 registration table to sign up. Otherwise, we’re 11 going to be on recess until 5:00. And for the 12 rest of the afternoon the plan is we have 5:00 13 until 6:30 is our scheduled dinner break. And 14 6:30 to 8:00 is the late evening portion of the 15 hearing. 16 Anything more from you guys? 17 (No response.) 18 Okay. With that, we’re going to go into 19 recess. Thank you. 20 (Brief recess.) 21

MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon. We’re 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 212

going to reconvene the hearing at this time and 1 bring up our next speaker, Kate Pollard. 2 And, Kate, just to let you know, we’re 3 asking everyone to keep their testimony to six 4 minutes or less. 5 And please come to the front table at my 6 far left to deliver your comments. And if you 7 have any written comments, please give them to 8 the court reporter so we’ll put them in the 9 official docket. 10 MS. POLLARD: Thank you for the 11 opportunity to speak on the proposed Boiler MACT 12 Rule today. 13 My name is Kate Pollard, and I am the 14 Field Organizer with the Virginia Beyond Coal 15 Campaign of the Sierra Club. 16 The sierra Club is the largest and oldest 17 grassroots environmental organization in the 18 country. And in Virginia we work with thousands 19 of members and volunteers in our communities to 20 pursue policies that protect the environment and 21 public health which is intrinsically linked to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 2 13

the health of our ecosystems. 1 In Virginia, we are glad that the EPA has 2 proposed to take steps to reduce toxic air 3 pollution from commercial boilers. We hope the 4 Agency will go further and be stricter in its 5 regulation of such facilities in the future, 6 ensuring that there are no loopholes leaving our 7 communities vulnerable to their dangerous 8 pollutants. 9 The new rules will substantially reduce 10 emissions of hazardous air pollutants and the 11 risk of serious health effects, including cancer, 12 reproductive disorders, and birth defects in the 13 communities across our state and the country. 14 Boilers that burn coal and waste material 15 are an antiquated, highly destructive way to 16 produce energy. EPA action to crack down on 17 toxic pollutants, including mercury, that come 18 from small coal boilers –- especially those that 19 many college campuses continue to use -– is well 20 overdue. The new rules will require significant, 21 welcome upgrades at many of the campus coal 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 214

plants across the nation, including both the 1 University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. 2 The new rules will protect students and 3 residents who live near and downwind from those 4 coal –- excuse me -– coal-burning boilers. 5 Emissions of toxic air pollution such as mercury, 6 arsenic, cadmium, and acid gases, would be 7 significantly reduced. These pollutants are 8 extremely dangerous, and EPA’s actions will help 9 remove thousands of pounds of toxics from the 10 air, including 15,000 pounds of mercury and tens 11 of thousands of tons of acidic gases that cause 12 breathing problems, particularly in vulnerable 13 individuals like children and the elderly. About 14 36,000 asthma attacks could be prevented each 15 year and result in approximately $18 to $44 16 billion in health savings annually, according to 17 the EPA’s analysis. 18 Mercury is an extremely dangerous 19 neurotoxin that can impact a child’s ability to 20 walk, talk, read, write, and learn. The mercury 21 problem in the United States is so pervasive that 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 215

one in six women today have mercury levels in 1 their blood high enough to put her baby at risk, 2 according to the EPA. High mercury levels have 3 also been linked to an increased risk of heart 4 disease in men. 5 We need drastic reductions in toxic 6 pollution and greenhouse gas pollution, and these 7 boilers are a major source of this pollution, 8 even if not individually, then cumulatively. 9 There are nearly 14,000 major source boilers 10 alone around the country. Even the smaller types 11 of boilers burning coal and waste present a grave 12 threat to human health and the environment. 13 Toxins like mercury and selenium are harmful even 14 in small doses, and many of these facilities are 15 located in very highly populated areas. 16 Students at Virginia Tech have been 17 working to transition from the current coal-fired 18 steam plant on their campus to clean renewable 19 energy by 2020. The student organization, 20 Virginia Tech Beyond Coal, has grown in numbers 21 and influence on campus through consistent public 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 216

education of the health and economic issues of 1 burning coal for energy. The campaign is 2 contacting the university administration to begin 3 finding a solution for ending coal use on its 4 campus. We expect that a similar campaign may be 5 taken up at UVA to move their campus off coal and 6 avoid jeopardizing the health of their students, 7 faculty, and the larger community. 8 Burning waste of any kind is a very bad 9 practice, and the current proposal allows an 10 enormous amount of waste burning to go 11 unregulated because it exempts a huge amount of 12 industrial waste. We believe that the EPA can do 13 better, but we applaud this effort to help us 14 move to a clean energy future. The EPA has the 15 authority and the obligation to impose the 16 strictest available standards on anyone burning 17 industrial or other waste. 18 Thank you so much. 19 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 20

Ms. Pollard. 21 I want to ask the members of the hearing 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 217

panel if they have any questions or thoughts for 1

you. 2 (No response.) 3 Okay. Thank you very much for your 4 comments. Appreciate it. 5 If you have written comments you’d like 6 to give to the court reporter, he’s sitting right 7

over here. 8 MS. POLLARD: Thank you. 9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. 10 At this time -– it’s 4:04. We have no 11 speakers signed up to speak right now until after 12 dinner, which is -– the break is 5:00 o’clock. 13 So right now we’re going to take a recess 14 until 5:00 o’clock. We’ll be in this area in 15 case any speakers do arrive that want to speak. 16 The rest of the evening goes as follows: 17 We break at 5:00 o’clock for an official dinner 18 break until 6:30, reconvene at 6:30 and end at 19 8:00 p.m. 20 Thank you. We’re officially on recess. 21 (Brief recess.) 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 218

MS. GENTILE: It’s 5:00 p.m., and this 1 hearing is officially going on dinner break. 2 We’ll resume at 6:30 p.m. 3 (Dinner recess.) 4 MS. GENTILE: We are reconvening today’s 5 public hearing at 6:30 p.m. We’re going to go 6 into recess right now because our last speaker 7 has not arrived yet. 8 We’re going to come back once the speaker 9 has arrived. 10 Thank you. 11 (Brief recess.) 12 MS. GENTILE: Good evening. I want to 13 thank you all -– sorry. Haven’t got the court 14 reporter ready. 15 Good evening, and thank you for attending 16 this evening’s public hearing on the EPA’s 17 proposed rules for industrial, commercial, and 18 institutional boilers and process heaters, 19 commercial and industrial solid waste 20 incinerators, and the identification of non21 hazardous secondary materials that are solid 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 219

wastes. These rules were published in the 1 Federal Register on June 4th, and EPA will accept 2 comments on these proposed rules in writing until 3 August 3rd of 2010. 4

Before we ask our two commenters to come 5 up to provide their comments, I want to remind 6 you of a couple of things. We’d like to ask all 7 commenters to limit their comments to six 8 minutes. And we have a timekeeper at the front 9 table that will let you know by the green, the 10 yellow, and red light when your time is up. When 11 the light turns yellow, you have one minute left. 12 When the light turns red, you’re going to be 13 asked to please stop speaking. 14 Also, if you brought a copy of written 15 materials or written comments you’d like to 16 provide as part of the docket, please provide 17 those written comments to the court reporter 18 sitting at my right. 19 With that, we’re going to start with our 20 first two commenters of the evening. I’d like to 21 call up Mark Mitchell and Emily Enderle to the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 220

table at my far left. 1 MR. MITCHELL: We’re speaking separately. 2 MS. GENTILE: Yes, but we like to come -– 3 yes, sorry I didn’t explain that part very well. 4 And we’ll ask you to please speak one at 5 a time and then both stay at the table until both 6 people are done speaking. 7 We’ll start with Mark Mitchell. Whenever 8 you’re ready, please start your comments. 9

MR. MITCHELL: Okay. I’m Dr. Mark 10 Mitchell. I am President of the Connecticut 11 Coalition for Environmental Justice, and I’m an 12 environmental -– and a public health physician. 13 I wanted to talk a little bit about 14 Connecticut. In Connecticut we have the highest 15 percentage of our trash burned of any state in 16 the country. Over 81 percent of our trash is 17 incinerated in trash energy incinerators. 18 These incinerators are disproportionately 19 located in low-income communities and in 20 communities of color. The largest trash 21 incinerator in Connecticut, which is the fifth 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 221

largest in the country is located in Hartford, 1 Connecticut, which has a population that’s 78 2 percent black and Latino. 3 The second largest in Connecticut, which 4 is the 11th largest in the country, is in 5 Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is, again, a 6 majority of black and Latino. 7 We are very concerned about asthma in our 8 communities, with cancer, diabetes, and 9 endometriosis. In Hartford our asthma rate is 20 10 percent, and then there’s another 10 percent of 11 people who have symptoms which may or may not be 12

asthma. 13

I want to comment on all of the -– on all 14 of the rules. And we’re very concerned about the 15 trash –- we’re very happy that EPA is tightening 16 the rules on trash incinerators and on sewage 17 sludge incinerators. 18 I forgot to mention that we also have the 19 largest sewage sludge incinerator in the state in 20 Hartford. And, in fact, we have 8 regional waste 21 facilities –- our trash facility takes waste from 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 222

70 different surrounding suburban towns –- 1 wealthy suburban towns -– to bring it to Hartford 2 which is one of the poorest cities in the United 3

States. 4 And so we’re very concerned about the 5 toxins from that, and we believe that it 6 contributes to our high rates of asthma, cancer, 7 diabetes, endometriosis, and other health 8

effects. 9 We –- so we think that’s it’s really 10 important to have tighter rules. What we’re 11 concerned about, though we think that the rules 12 should be tighter, and particularly since some in 13 trash and sewage sludge what’s burned is –- 14 changes from minute to minute. So we believe 15 that there should be much stricter, continuous 16 emissions monitoring. 17 Our trash incinerators are monitored once 18 a year for dioxins and for metals and so on; but 19 we believe that the newer technology allows much 20 more -– allows for continuous emissions 21 monitoring for not just particulates but also the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 223

metals themselves. We believe that mercury, and 1 lead, and arsenic, and chromium should be at 2 least some of the metals that are monitored 3 continuously because they vary so much from time 4 to time. 5 We’re also concerned about the explosions 6 and fires. We have at least 10 major explosions 7 and fires per year –- an average of 10 major 8 explosions and fires a year at our trash 9 incinerator in Hartford. It used to be that we 10 had over a hundred fire calls a year. Most of 11 them were false alarms, but there used to be 12 dozens of fires at our trash incinerator. And 13 none of those –- and the emissions that are 14 emitted during those fires do not count toward 15 the limits for air toxins and air pollution; and 16 we believe that they should. We believe that 17 these facilities should be responsible for their 18 mishaps, for their upsets, for their fires and 19 explosions. 20 We –- I want to just switch to the 21 institutional boilers and commercial and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 224

institutional boilers. And we’re very concerned 1 about that. We have looked at the boilers in 2 cities throughout Connecticut, and the 3 institutional boilers are the –- generally the 4 largest polluters are the electrical power 5 plants; then the second is the trash-to-energy 6 facilities; and then the third are the 7 institutional boilers. 8 And I’m particularly concerned about some 9 of the boilers like at schools. The boilers at 10 schools tend to be high up on the rank of -– you 11 know, they tend to be Number 4, or Number 5, or 12 Number 6 in the highest polluting sources in the 13 cities in Connecticut. 14 We’re also concerned about the hospitals. 15 The hospital boiler emissions have increased over 16 the 2000s. From 1998 through the year 2008 the 17 emissions from the hospital boilers has increased 18 dramatically, and -- even though they’re required 19 to meet back standards. And I believe that 20 that’s because they’re switching from using 21 natural gas to Number 6 fuel oil. There’s no -– 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 225

there is no penalty. The BACT standards for 1 Number 6 fuel oil are obviously much higher and 2 allow many times more emissions than the BACT 3 standards for natural gas. 4 We believe that there should be -– you 5 know, and obviously if -– as a physician, your 6 body doesn’t care what kind of fuel you’re using. 7 Well, the issue is how much pollution there is 8 and what the emissions are and how many toxins 9 are in those pollution –- is in that pollution. 10 So we’re very concerned about that, and 11 we believe that there should be some kind of 12 incentive to use the cleanest fuel possible for 13 these facilities and to get them to use at least 14 Number 2 fuel as their back-up fuel. 15 And speaking of back-up fuel, there’s no 16 definition of what back-up fuel is, so they can 17 use back-up fuel for 90 percent of their 18 operations and their primary fuel for 10 percent 19 of their operations. And that’s a real problem 20 that we believe needs to be corrected. 21 We’re also concerned about biomass and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 226

the definition of biomass. It only –- that if 1 you’re going to use biomass, it would only be 2 clean wood, not treated wood, not lead -– wood 3 with lead in it and other types of contamination. 4 We believe that there needs to be stronger 5 regulation of these -– of what’s defined as 6 biomass also. 7 Thank you for your time. 8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 9 I’d like to ask the hearing panel if they 10 have any questions they’d like to ask you before 11 you step down. 12 MR. WAYLAND: I had one clarifying 13 question, Dr. Mitchell. 14 When you were talking about the 15 continuous emission monitors, you mentioned 16 mercury, lead, arsenic, and I think there was 17 either one or two others that I didn’t catch. I 18 wasn’t writing fast enough. 19 MR. MITCHELL: I’m saying chromium -– 20 yes, I had to speak quickly, obviously. 21 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you, sir. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 227

MR. GENTILE: Thank you. 1 Ms. Enderle, whenever you’re ready, you 2 can start your comments. 3 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you guys for having 4 this opportunity for people to speak out. 5 I live here in D.C. I work for the 6 organization Earth Justice as our Environmental 7 Health Advocate, and I live in D.C., as I 8 mentioned. And as a resident of D.C., it’s 9 always fairly disappointing to see on every rank 10 card that D.C. scores an F in every air toxic 11 category there is out there, which is why I’m 12 really specifically concerned about rules that 13 impact the air community. 14 So, first off, I wanted to thank the EPA 15 for coming up with a MACT rule for boilers and 16 incinerators that’s really strong, and, I think, 17 protective of communities throughout the country. 18 I think when we’re thinking about air 19 toxic rules it really is about protecting public 20 health, especially in communities that have been 21 over burdened across this country. And we’re 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 228

talking about a number of different issues here 1 in terms of refineries, chemical manufacturers, 2 and other industries across the country. 3 I just spent the last week in Texas -– in 4 Houston, Texas; Port Arthur; Texas, Bay City, 5 Lake Jackson, and other areas. And these 6 communities are disproportionately impacted, 7 certainly, by a number of air pollution issues, 8 including the malfunction piece. 9 And in this particular rule it’s been 10 really nice to see that that loophole has been 11 closed. And, hopefully, this is going to be 12 finalized; this will protect communities across 13 the country from basically being poisoned by 14 polluters. 15 This isn’t about over-regulation or jobs. 16 This really is about saving taxpayers and the 17 U.S. Government millions –- actually billions of 18 dollars a year in terms of missed school days, 19 missed work days, emergency room visits, 20 respiratory arrest. There are several –- I think 21 it’s 4,800 unnecessary deaths are going to be 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 229

avoided by instituting or finalizing the MACT 1 rule. And that’s certainly been something that 2 we’re encouraged to see in the environmental and 3 also the public health community. 4 So, first off, I want to thank you for 5 that and hope that you guy promulgate a rule that 6 continues to suggest that it will be protective 7 of communities throughout the country. 8 The one piece that is of special concern 9 in the Public Health Community and also the 10 environmental community is the definition of 11 solid waste. Essentially, for us, we find this a 12 fairly irresponsible rule and actually illegal. 13 And I know Jim Pew testified earlier 14 today and talked a little bit more about why 15 exactly that’s illegal, looking at RCRA and also 16 the Clean Air Act. And so, for me, I really 17 wanted to talk a little bit more about the 18 stories of communities that I’ve been in in terms 19 of there are all kinds of things that are thrown 20 in boilers that are small, medium-sized, large, 21 and essentially exempting facilities across this 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 230

country from having to install protective 1 controls on those facilities, has continued to 2 put those communities at risk. 3 The technology is available off the shelf 4 for all of those size boilers; and yes, it will 5 cost a little bit of money to do it, but it 6 essentially is going to -– hopefully, even in 7 doing a cost-benefit analysis you look at our 8 toxic rules and the CBAs actually show that there 9 are tremendous values to having protective rules. 10 And so I think it’s really about creating 11 a rule that’s genuinely protective and at the 12 very least having an inventory of all the 13 facilities across this country of what they’re 14 burning, in what quantities they’re burning. 15 Right now we have no idea what the 16 universe of incinerators, boilers are across this 17 county. Even thinking about some of the small 18 ones are –- I think it’s estimated that 180,000 19 of these may be out there; and we don’t know 20 exactly what they’re burning. We don’t know what 21 the control technologies are there. We don’t 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 231

know what the impacts are in communities across 1 the country. 2 So, really, for me, it’s a public health 3 issue. It’s something that can hopefully save us 4 billions of dollars, lots of health visits, 5 strange cancers that have been linked to toxic 6 air emissions across the country, looking at 7 petrochemical companies, looking at refineries, 8 especially –- and it’s really encouraging, 9 certainly, to see the MACT rule come out in a 10 protective way; but it is concerning to a number 11 of people in communities across the country -– 12 the solid waste rule. And I think especially at 13 the hearings in LA and in Houston you will get a 14 much, I think, more robust representation of 15 stories that are going to come out and kind of 16 talk about this particular issue. 17 I guess there were a couple more points I 18 wanted to be sure I hit while I was here. 19 Mainly, I wanted to come –- I mean, I work for an 20 environmental organization; but really, I wanted 21 to come as a private citizen because, I mean, I 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 232

live in D.C. When you look around, we are 1 impacted by petrochemical industries and chemical 2 industries not because they’re right here in our 3 back yard but because they’re basically upwind 4 and because we’re downwind, we’re failing at our 5 air toxics tests. 6 There are reasons why basically our lungs 7 are being poisoned and they’re not because of 8 emissions that are happening right here in our 9 back yards. And a lot of it are coming from 10 boilers and incinerators that aren’t being 11 regulated with off-the-shelf technology. And for 12 us, it’s just really important to see communities 13 protected. 14 I’m a person who’s of childbearing age. 15 I am probably going to be having kids in the next 16 five years. I have no idea what pollutants are 17 going into my lungs, what those pollutants are 18 going to have on my reproductive system, what 19 they are going to have on my potential children 20 down the line. And as I get older, it just gets 21 more distressing that the EPA basically has the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 233

authority to move forward with promulgating 1 protective rules, yet we’re seeing things like 2 the definition of solid waste that genuinely are 3 protective of people. 4 So, my remarks are short, but I wanted to 5 be able to share that with you today. 6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Enderle. 7 I want to ask the panel members if they 8 would like to ask you any additional questions to 9 clarify your testimony. 10

MR. THOMAS: Some of these off-the-shelf 11 technologies either today or during your written 12 comments can you share with us kind of what you 13 have in mind? 14 MS. ENDERLE: Oh, yes, in terms of being 15 able to install -– I wish I had the fancy names 16 of all of them. I just kind of have been touring 17 a number of facilities here recently, but I’m 18 understanding that a lot of them can essentially 19 install –- it’s like for -– since some of them 20 aren’t mercury, but the mercury control – 21 MR. THOMAS: Activated carbon? 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 234

MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, there’s like the 1 injection technology. 2 MR. WAYLAND: Activated carbon injection? 3 MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, thank you. I’m sorry 4 I’m not really well versed in kind of all of the 5 different technologies that are available, but –- 6 MR. WAYLAND: You probably –- 7 MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, I was going to say 8 you probably are. So maybe you have something to 9 share with me. 10

MR. WAYLAND: Yes. 11 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you. 12 But I have toured a number of facilities 13

and heard that there are -– I mean there are some 14 good actors that are out there and have been able 15 to do this, and they are essentially protecting 16 communities around them. 17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your 18 comments, Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Enderle. We 19 appreciate your comments very much. 20 At this time we have no scheduled 21 speakers for the rest of the evening. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 235

So we’re going to at this time take a 1 temporary recess for the hearing. We’re going to 2 reconvene as soon as somebody signs up to speak 3 tonight. So, thank you. 4 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you, guys. 5 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. 6 (Brief recess.) 7 MS. GENTILE: We’re officially 8 reconvening the hearing. That’s now on the 9

record. 10 Ms. Fields, I take it you’re going to be 11 commenting tonight? 12

MS. FIELDS: Yes. 13 MS. GENTILE: Okay. Let me just remind 14 you of some of the rules we have here since you 15 weren’t hear earlier. 16 We’d like everyone to keep their comments 17 to six minutes or less. We have a timekeeper up 18 front, and we have a system where we’re going to 19 show a green light when you’re ready to speak. 20 Yellow light shows you have one minute left, and 21 the red light shows that your time is up. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 236

I would like to ask you to walk up to the 1 table on the very far left and begin your 2 comments whenever you’re ready. 3 And please state your affiliation and the 4 rule or rules that you’re going to be commenting 5 on today, please. 6 MS. FIELDS: Good evening. My name is 7 Leslie Fields. I am the National Environmental 8 Justice and Community Partnership Director for 9 the Sierra Club here in Washington, D.C. And I 10 appreciate this opportunity to comment on EPA-HQ11 OAR-2002-0058 and EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, the 12 major source boiler rule and the definition of 13 solid waste. 14 The Sierra Club’s Environmental Justice 15 and Community Partnership Program, EJCP, has 16 provided support to more than dozens of low 17 income and communities of color in their 18 environmental justice struggles. We work to –- 19 we work with low-income and communities of color 20 to overcome environmental assaults on their lives 21 and communities. The Sierra Club’s work is 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 237

national in scope. We were founded in 1892, and 1 we have about a million members, yet it has a 2 grassroots presence everywhere in the county. It 3 is volunteer based and operated and includes 4 professionals willing to devote their volunteer 5 time to build local communities as well. We have 6 successfully built such bridges in our EJCP 7 partnerships program in El Paso, Detroit, 8 Flagstaff, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans, 9 Washington, D.C., and the Appalachia region and 10 in Puerto Rico, bringing together Sierra Club 11 volunteers, staff, affected community members to 12 strengthen the fight against environmental 13 injustices. 14 We want to thank EPA Administrator 15 regarding the Major Source Boilers Rule. We want 16 to thank EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for 17 taking this step to control the toxic air 18 pollution from chemical plants, refineries, paper 19 mills and other industrial sources that are 20 making our air unsafe to breathe. EPA’s new rule 21 will finally make the largest of these facilities 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 238

control the emissions from their boilers and 1 process heaters. It is really about time. These 2 standards are 10 years overdue. Across the 3 country families and communities need protection 4 these rules will provide. 5 In addition, once again we appreciate 6 Administrator Jackson’s emphasizing environmental 7 justice as one of the main priorities during her 8 tenure. Many environmental justice communities, 9 such as the 48217 Detroit community in which the 10 Sierra Club EJCP program works will greatly 11 benefit from this new rule. 12 Especially important to us is EPA’s 13 decision to eliminate the outrageous malfunction 14 exemption. State’s emissions data have made it 15 clear that chemical plants, refineries, and other 16 polluters violate their emissions standards 17 routinely during so-called malfunction events. 18 During these events they blanket neighboring 19 communities in toxic pollution, making people 20 sick and forcing them to miss work, miss school, 21 and seek medical help. These events also 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 239

increase the likelihood that the people in these 1 communities will suffer from cancer, birth 2 defects, and other catastrophic adverse health 3 effects. The malfunction loophole has already 4 been held unlawful by a Federal Appeals Court. 5 Closing it will bring an end to the abuse by 6 ensuring that polluters can be held accountable 7 when they violate emission standards. 8 One great example of that is in Corpus 9 Christi, Texas, where it has been documented that 10 some of the major releases –- you can actually 11 document by the major releases the next day the 12 number of children in emergency rooms. And you 13 can also document the time lost by their parents 14 from work by the number of children who are in 15 emergency rooms and the fugitive releases and 16 other releases in the communities in the 17 evenings. 18 We know that powerful industry lobbies 19 are lining up to oppose these rules. They want 20 the loopholes and exemptions. We want the rules 21 -– they want the rules weakened and delayed. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 240

These rules will prevent about 4,800 1 unnecessary deaths each -– every year and will 2 save billions of dollars in costs -– medical 3 costs, time costs, costs to communities in terms 4 of lost time and lost -– and lost ability to 5 externalities to be able to work, live, and play 6 in a safe environment. 7 The benefits overwhelm the costs by a 8 ratio of between 5 and 10 to 1. And that’s only 9 the tip of the iceberg. It only reflects the 10 health benefits by reducing major source boilers’ 11 emissions of fine particulate matter. It doesn’t 12 count the benefits of eliminating more than seven 13 tons of mercury emissions every year that cause 14 birth defects in babies and developmental damage 15 in young children, or thousands of tons of lead, 16 cadmium, and other metals that are known as 17 suspected carcinogens, or the dioxins and other 18 organic pollutants that cause cancer. 19 Thus our message to Administrator Lisa 20 Jackson is don’t cave in to industry pressure. 21 Make this rule stronger, not weaker, and issue it 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 241

without delay. 1 And then I want to speak briefly on the 2 definition of solid waste, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 3 I appeared last year to testify on behalf 4 of the Sierra Club on the revisions to the 5 definition of solid waste. Again, we are please 6 to testify to say although EPA’s rule for major 7 source boilers deserves applaud, EPA’s definition 8 of non-hazardous solid waste is dangerous and 9 irresponsible. 10 By defining industrial wastes as fuel, 11 the proposal will allow facilities operating in 12 communities across the country to burn spent 13 chemicals, spent solvents, scrap plastics, 14 industrial sludges, coal mining waste, used motor 15 oil, and other wastes in boilers and process 16 heaters without no obligation to control or 17 monitor their toxic pollution and no obligation 18 to report the identity and quantity of these 19 toxic emissions to EPA, state permitting 20 authorities, or the public. 21 Which the facilities that are exempted 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 242

include boilers and process heaters operated in 1 area source facilities like the one –- like one 2 of our nation’s 1,700 area source chemical 3 plants. 4 About how many facilities are we talking 5 about? There is one of the shocking aspects of 6 this rulemaking. EPA states in its area source 7 boilers rule that it does not believe that any 8 more than 165,000 boilers operating any source 9 burn any source -– secondary material, whether 10 its defined as waste or not, according to 75 11 Federal Register 38 -– 31896 and 31899 from June 12 4th, 2010. EPA has not attempted to determine 13 how many area sources are burning wastes or what 14 those wastes will be. It does know, however, 15 that many boilers and process heaters are major 16 sources –- are burning chemicals, spent solvents, 17 and other secondary materials as the Agency 18 prefers to call them. Even if 10 percent of the 19 165,000 area source boilers are burning these 20 wastes, EPA’s proposal will exempt more than 21 16,000 facilities from any meaningful control, 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 243

monitoring, reporting requirements. 1 What toxic emissions will be released by 2 these facilities in these communities? Neither 3 the community, people in the communities, or EPA 4 will ever know. The emissions won’t have to be 5 monitored or reported. What EPA does know is 6 that burning wastes in poorly controlled boilers 7 and process heaters produce highly toxic 8 emissions. That’s why Congress enacted a special 9 provision to ensure protective emission standards 10 for all waste incinerators. 11 If this proposal is finalized, it will 12 hurt people in communities across the country by 13 allowing them to be exposed to toxic pollution 14 from uncontrolled waste incinerators and by 15 depriving them of any way to identify the toxics 16 they’re exposed or hold the polluters 17 accountable. It will badly damage this Agency’s 18 credibility as a protector of communities. 19 So, Administrator Jackson, we are hoping 20 that you don’t let this issue be obscured by 21 arguments that are misguided, that it’s well 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 244

within your authority to bring toxic emissions 1 under control in these industrial incinerators. 2 We are very, very happy with the way 3 Administrator Jackson is working on many issues, 4 including Montauk removal, which we work on, 5 including, again, the review of definition of 6 solid waste from last year. 7 And we work closely with her -– I was 8 just on a call today with –- she came on with the 9 National Environmental Justice Advisory 10 Commission on the BP oil spill and has dedicated 11 the Agency to resolve –- to work on that issue. 12 So we’re hoping that this won’t be an aberration, 13 not to protect –- so to protect the communities. 14

And on behalf of the members of the 15 Sierra Club, we respectfully request that EPA 16 withdraw this rule, which will significantly 17 weaken the public’s protection from millions of 18 tons of non-hazardous waste. And we hope you’ll 19 consider seriously how this rule endangers the 20 public and our environment that would go counter 21 against her environmental justice priority and so 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 245

we want to make sure that the –- no community is 1 unfairly burdened or endangered. 2 And I’ll conclude my remarks and thank 3

you. 4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. 5 Before you step down, I’d like to ask the 6 members of the panel if they would like to ask 7 you any clarifying questions. 8 MR. WAYLAND: I have one question on your 9 last comment. You’re asking us to withdraw the 10 definition of solid waste? 11 MS. FIELDS: No, I’m sorry, withdraw the 12 -– what did I say –- to the rule. To not 13 finalize the rule. That’s what I meant. 14 MR. WAYLAND: Which of the four rules 15 were you asking us not to finalize? 16 MS. FIELDS: The last –- the EPA-HQ-RCRA17

2008-0329. 18 MR. WAYAND: Okay. Thank you. 19 MS. FIELDS: Thank you. 20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. 21 Appreciate your comments. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376 246

At this time we have no one signed up to 1 speak, and right now it’s about 7:36. We are 2 going to put this hearing into temporary recess 3 until we get another speaker that signs up. And 4 we’re scheduled to end at 8:00 p.m. at this 5 point. So right now we’re going to be in recess 6 until we get another speaker. 7 Thank you. 8 (Brief recess.) 9 MS. GENTILE: The public hearing is 10 officially closed. 11 (Whereupon, at 8:01 p.m., the Public 12 Hearing was adjourned.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22