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, 2010 
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 

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 Citizen 
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 

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 

 Physician 
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 

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 ...................................142 
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 

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

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

2 MS. GENTILE: Good morning, everyone. 

3 Thank you for attending today’s public hearing on 

4 the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 

5 rules for industrial, commercial, and 

6 institutional boilers and process heaters, 

7 commercial and industrial solid waste 

8 incinerators, and the identification of non9 hazardous secondary materials that are solid 

10 waste. 

11 We appreciate you taking the time to 

12 address these proposals and we look forward to 

13 your comments. 

14 My name is Laura Gentile, and I’m the 

15 acting Branch Chief for Communications at the 

16 EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

17 Response; and I’ll be the Chair for today’s 

18 hearings. 

19 With me on the Panel today from –- 

20 starting on my left are: George Faison of the 

21 Program Implementation and Information Division 

22 of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 
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 

8

1 Recovery; Robert Wayland from the Sector Policies 

2 and Programs Division at the Office of Air 

3 Quality Planning and Standards; Jonathan Averback 

4 from EPA’s Office of General Counsel; and James 

5 Topsale from EPA Region 3 in Philadelphia. 

6 We’re here today to listen to your 

7 comments on four proposed rules that EPA 

announced on April 30t h 8 of this year. The 

9 proposed rules were published in the Federal 

10 Register on June the 4th. 

11 Before we start the hearing, I would like 

12 to give you some background and briefly describe 

13 the four proposed rules we’re here to take 

14 comments on today. Together, these rules will 

15 significantly cut emissions of pollutants such as 

16 mercury and lead, along with a number of other 

17 pollutants from nearly 200,000 units across the 

18 country. 

19 Boilers and solid waste incinerators are 

20 subject to different sections of the Clean Air 

21 Act -– Section 112 for boilers, and Section 129 

22 for incinerators. EPA Has previously issued 
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 

9

1 rules on these units. These rules were 

2 challenged in court. 

3 As a result, EPA had to reissue the rules 

4 for the boilers. The Agency also must determine 

5 which non-hazardous secondary materials are or 

6 are not considered solid wastes when they are 

7 burned. Previously, EPA has left this decision 

8 up to the states which implement non-hazardous 

9 solid waste programs under the Resource 

10 Conservation and Recovery Act. 

11 On April 29th of this year the EPA 

12 Administrator signed four proposed rules. They 

13 include three proposed rules under the Clean Air 

14 Act and one rule under RCRA. 

15 The first proposed rule is the National 

16 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

17 for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

18 Boilers and Process Heaters that are major 

19 sources of hazardous air pollutants. This 

20 proposed rule is known as the Boiler MACT. 

21 For these sources EPA is proposing 

22 emission standards for new and existing large 
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 

10

1 boilers based on the maximum achievable control 

2 technology, or MACT. EPA anticipates that coal-, 

3 oil-, and biomass-fired boilers that currently do 

4 not have emissions controls would need to install 

5 controls in order to meet these proposed 

6 standards. 

7 For gas-fired boilers which have lower 

8 air toxic emissions, EPA is proposing to require 

9 sources to conduct an annual tune-up, and for all 

10 existing sources to require an energy audit to 

11 identify cost-effective means of reducing fuel 

12 use. 

13 The second proposed rule is the National 

14 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

15 from Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

16 Boilers that are smaller of area sources of 

17 hazardous air pollutants. For these boilers 

18 EPA’s proposed standards would require sources to 

19 reduce emissions by implementing measures that 

20 will optimize and reduce fuel use. 

21 EPA also is proposing to require certain 

22 coal-fired boilers to install emission controls 
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 

11

1 that capture mercury and other hazardous metals. 

2 EPA is not proposing emission standards 

3 for gas-fired boilers as part of the area source 

4 rule. This means that the proposed rules would 

5 not apply to gas-fired boilers located at small 

6 businesses, local governments, schools, and at 

7 religious institutions. 

8 The third proposed rule is the amendments 

9 to EPA’s New Source Performance Standards and 

10 Emission Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial 

11 Solid Waste Incinerators, which we call the CISWI 

12 Rule. 

13 EPA is proposing new source performance 

14 standards and emission guidelines for five CISWI 

15 subcategories. As required by the Clean Air Act, 

16 this rule includes proposed numerical emissions 

17 standards for particulate matter, opacity, sulfur 

18 dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, 

19 carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and 

20 dioxin and furan emissions. 

21 The CISWI and boiler regulations are 

22 closely related because similar units may be 
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 

12

1 considered boilers or incinerators based on 

2 whether they burn solid waste materials. 

3 The fourth proposed rule of today’s 

4 hearing clarifies which non-hazardous secondary 

5 materials are solid wastes when burned in a 

6 combustion unit. 

7 In general, non-hazardous secondary 

8 materials burned in combustion units would be 

9 considered solid wastes except for those 

10 non=hazardous secondary materials that fall into 

11 any of the following four categories: 1) 

12 materials used as legitimate fuels that remain 

13 within the control of the generator; 2) materials 

14 that are legitimately used as ingredients; 3) 

15 discarded non-hazardous secondary materials that 

16 have been sufficiently processed into a 

17 legitimate fuel or ingredient product; and, 4) 

18 non-hazardous secondary materials used as a fuel 

19 that do not remain within the control of the 

20 generator for which EPA grants a facility’s 

21 petition for a non-solid waste determination. 

22 This proposed rule recognizes that 
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 

13

1 traditional fuels are not solid wastes when 

2 burned in a combustion unit. Traditional fuels 

3 are those fuels that have been historically 

4 managed as valuable fuel products rather than 

5 being managed as waste materials. 

6 The rule also takes comment on 

7 alternative approach that would broaden the 

8 universe of non-hazardous secondary materials 

9 considered to be solid waste. 

10 EPA is required by a court order issued 

11 by the U.S. District Court for the District of 

12 Columbia to take final action on the proposed 

13 emission standards by December 16th of this year. 

14 EPA intends to take final action by that same 

15 date on the proposed rule that identifies 

16 materials that are non-hazardous solid waste 

17 under RCRA. 

18 More details about the proposed 

19 amendments and instructions for submitting public 

20 comments are available at the registration table. 

21 We also have prepared a list for you of topics on 

22 which we are specifically seeking comment. 
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 

14

1 That’s also available in the registration area 

2 and may be helpful to you as you’re commenting 

3 today or submitting comments later on. EPA will 

4 accept written comments on these rules today 

5 until August 3rd, 2010. 

6 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

7 the hearing. 

8 Today’s hearing will work as follows: I 

9 will call the scheduled speakers to the 

10 microphone two at a time. When it’s time for you 

11 to speak, please state your name, your 

12 affiliation, and the rule or rules your verbal 

13 comments are addressing. We may ask you to spell 

14 your name for the court reporter, who is 

15 transcribing your comments for the official 

16 record. 

17 To be fair to everyone, we ask that you 

18 limit your testimony to six minutes each. We 

19 have a timekeeping system consisting of green, 

20 yellow, and red lights. 

21 ] When you begin speaking, the green light 

22 will come on. The yellow light will come on when 
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 

15

1 you have one minute left. We will ask you to 

2 please stop speaking when the red light comes on. 

3 Please remain at the table until both 

4 speakers have completed their testimony. 

5 We are here today to hear your comments 

6 on these proposed rules; however, from time to 

7 time any of us on the hearing panel may ask you 

8 to clarify your testimony as we move forward. 

9 If you have brought a written copy of 

10 your comments, please give a copy to Brian 

11 Kneiser, our court reporter sitting at my right. 

12 All written comments –- all written copies of 

13 comments, pardon me, will be submitted to the 

14 docket. 

15 We will work hard to ensure that everyone 

16 has an opportunity to comment today. Today’s 

17 hearing is scheduled to go until 8:00 p.m., but 

18 we will stay later if necessary. We will take 

19 breaks for meals during the day. 

20 If you want to testify today but have not 

21 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 

22 registration table outside this room. For those 
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 

16

1 who have already registered to speak, we have 

2 tried to accommodate your requests for specific 

3 time slots. We ask for your patience as we 

4 proceed through the list. We might need to make 

5 some minor adjustments as the day progresses. 

6 Thanks again for coming, and let’s get 

7 started. 

8 The first two speakers I want to call to 

9 the table are first speaker Tim Hunt, second 

10 speaker Jim Griffin. Yes, please come to the 

11 table at the left of us –- the far left. 

12 You can start speaking whenever you’re 

13 ready, Mr. Hunt. 

14 MR. HUNT: Okay. Thank you. Good 

15 morning. 

16 My name is Timothy Hunt. I am the Senior 

17 Director for Air Quality Programs at the American 

18 Forest and Paper Association. 

19 Thank you for the opportunity to briefly 

20 highlight our initial reaction to EPA’s proposed 

21 four boiler-related rules published on June 4th. 

22 I am making this statement on behalf of AF and 
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 

17

1 PA, which represents the pulp paper and packaging 

2 industry and forest land owners as well as the 

3 American Wood Council, which represents over 60 

4 percent of the wood products industry. 

5 We in the forest products industry are 

6 proud of our environmental stewardship using 

7 renewable resources -– our forests -– to make 

8 products that businesses and families use every 

9 day while we sustain green jobs and continue to 

10 shrink our environmental footprint. 

11 My written statement provides more 

12 details, but our primary concern is that EPA’s 

13 rules as drafted would be unsustainable for the 

14 forest products industry. Indeed, EPA’s 

15 proposals would create serious disincentives for 

16 the use of biomass and thereby increase use of 

17 fossil fuels, which we believe is 

18 counterproductive and contrary to the President’s 

19 own energy policy. 

20 Let me focus on Boiler MACT and then end 

21 with a few comments on the other rules. 

22 We believe EPA has significant discretion 
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 

18

1 in the MACT program to protect public health 

2 while avoiding the unnecessary burdens these 

3 proposed regulations could impose. Boiler MACT 

4 could cost the forest products industry alone 

5 over $6 billion in capital expenditures and 

6 hundreds of millions more in annual costs unless 

7 significant changes are made. 

8 We are coming out of the worst economic 

9 recession since the Great Depression, and the 

10 forest products industry has lost over 350,000 

11 jobs in the last three years. To be a 

12 sustainable industry supporting high-paying jobs 

13 and providing sustainable products, we need 

14 sustainable environmental regulations. 

15 Otherwise, costs of this scale will force 

16 further mill closures and tens and even hundreds 

17 of thousands s of additional job losses, 

18 especially given other expected, significant 

19 environmental regulatory costs. 

20 Exports will drop, and imports will 

21 increase since no other county is contemplating 

22 requirements this extreme. 
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 

19

1 We have identified four broad areas for 

2 improvement in the Boiler MACT. 

3 First, EPA should utilize its authority 

4 in Section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act to set 

5 health-based emission limits to protect the 

6 environment and public health. This would avoid 

7 unnecessary controls where emissions of threshold 

8 pollutants, like acid gases, are low enough to be 

9 safe. 

10 We are encouraged that EPA has invited 

11 comment on this approach and believe it should be 

12 adopted in the final rule for use on a facility13 by-facility basis without complicated and 

14 unnecessary procedures that would restrict its 

15 use. It is the best way to target investments 

16 only to where problems exist as Congress 

17 intended. We can ill afford not to include such 

18 a health-based emission limitations given the 

19 economic implications of the rule. 

20 Second, EPA should set more reasonable 

21 limits that would reflect the variability of real 

22 world, best performing boilers. Boilers go 
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 

20

1 through warm-ups, shutdowns, load swings, fuel 

2 mix, and fuel quality changes, control efficiency 

3 differences, and performance testing adjustments. 

4 For example, EPA should collect long-term 

5 carbon monoxide data from exhibiting CO monitors 

6 which show large variations, rather than conclude 

7 –- based on short-term data –- that CO 

8 performance is steady. 

9 Finally, some boilers are used for 

10 limited periods of time for back-up and should be 

11 treated differently than boilers running day in 

12 and day out. 

13 Third, EPA should base the limits on more 

14 realistic data. The data used in setting 

15 emission limits is heavily biased given the way 

16 it was collected and sorted. EPA required the 

17 best performing units to test and then took the 

18 best of that small data set to the point where 

19 they represent the best of the best performers –- 

20 the top one percent, not the top 12 percent as 

21 the law instructs. 

22 Only a handful of existing units can meet 
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 

21

1 all the limits when you’d expect 12 percent of 

2 boilers to achieve the limits. And for new 

3 units, it’s unclear whether state-of-the-art 

4 boilers could be guaranteed to perform at the 

5 necessary levels. 

6 In addition, we need to apply different 

7 statistical approaches that align the data sets 

8 and their use in the rule making. Ultimately, 

9 EPA needs to look at other available data to 

10 paint a more realistic picture of boiler 

11 performance for each HAP and subcategory and make 

12 sure real world best performing boilers can meet 

13 the SET of HAP limits 

14 Finally, EPA should not penalize clean 

15 fuels like biomass. Several of the existing and 

16 new source limits for biomass are extremely low 

17 because the baseline of emissions is very low 

18 compared to other fuels. Emissions of mercury, 

19 dioxin, and hydrochloric acid are present in very 

20 small amounts in wood and are inconsequential 

21 sources of these HAPs, yet the costs become 

22 exponentially more expensive and can’t be 
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 

22

1 consistently achieved. 

2 The biomass limits are unduly influenced 

3 by test that could not detect the HAP, which 

4 suggests that the emission limits should be 

5 dropped or at least replaced by alternative work 

6 practices as was done for natural gas fired 

7 boilers. 

8 Finally, over 60 boilers burned biomass 

9 with as little as 10 percent coal, but the 

10 proposal classifies them as coal boilers, setting 

11 unachievable CO limits. The CO limits of these 

12 combination boilers should be the same as the 

13 ones for biomass fired boilers. If we want to 

14 continue to encourage and expand the use of 

15 renewable carbon neutral biomass, the rule needs 

16 to change dramatically. 

17 Under Boiler MACT we need to – EPA should 

18 set numeric limits for CO for biomass and oil19 fired limits located at small mills –- should not 

20 set numeric limits for those but instead, set 

21 good combustion practices and tune-up 

22 requirements. 
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 

23

1 In the non-hazardous secondary material 

2 rule, EPA should define secondary material, 

3 biomass materials like resonated trim, urban 

4 wood, pulp paper, and wastewater residuals as 

5 fuels and promote their use, which displace 

6 fossil fuels as consistent with the President’s 

7 call for greater use of renewable fuels. 

8 We recommend EPA complete the definition 

9 of non-hazardous solid rule making first and then 

10 proceed with the promulgation of the other three 

11 rules. 

12 We strongly encourage the Agency to ask 

13 the court for as much time as it needs to 

14 finalize reasonable and well-supported rules. 

15 Thank you for the opportunity to express 

16 AF and PA’s and AWC’s initial views on these 

17 critical rules. 

18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hunt. 

19 Mr. Griffin, whenever you’re ready. 

20 MR. GRIFFIN: Good morning. My name is 

21 Jim Griffin, and I’m speaking on behalf of the 

22 American Chemistry Council, or ACC. 
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 

24

1 We appreciate the opportunity to speak at 

2 this Public Hearing and would like to address 

3 EPA’s Boiler MACT proposal for major sources. 

4 ACC is concerned about a number of 

5 issues, including EPA’s methods and calculations 

6 which result in extremely low standards, limited 

7 use of subcategories, the emission limits for 

8 process off-gases that are routinely used as 

9 fuels in our facilities, failure to propose risk10 based standards for pollutants with health 

11 thresholds, failure to take into account 

12 compliance options, and underestimation of the 

13 burden of the regulations. 

14 EPA has proposed emission standards based 

15 on a pollutant-by-pollutant approach that relies 

16 on a different set of best performing sources for 

17 each pollutant. ACC believes this methodology is 

18 flawed and results in standards that are 

19 unrealistic and are not representative of the 

20 levels actually being achieved by the best 

21 performers. 

22 In other words, looking just at 
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 

25

1 individual HAP data from different best 

2 performers without regard for the overall 

3 performance of these sources results in a set of 

4 standards that reflect the performance of a 

5 theoretical set of best performing sources that 

6 can simultaneously achieve the greatest emission 

7 reductions for each and every HAP. This does not 

8 reflect the actual performance of real sources. 

9 What’s more, our preliminary analysis of 

10 the proposed limits has determined that no one 

11 source exists that can meet all the standards 

12 concurrently. ACC believes that EPA should use 

13 other methods to establish these emissions 

14 standards which more accurately reflect the 

15 emission levels being achieved in practice by the 

16 best performers. 

17 EPA’s method of setting MACT floors 

18 rightly takes into account variability of fuel 

19 sources. However, we are concerned about the 

20 particular method of accounting for variability 

21 because the underlying data are not in fact 

22 representative of the range of expected 
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 

26

1 operations and true variability hat reasonably 

2 should be expected from better performers. 

3 The reason is that emissions data relied 

4 upon in the proposal were produced during 

5 reference method performance testing over a short 

6 period of time. ACC recommends that EPA 

7 reconsider its approach to adjusting the emission 

8 limits that provide a realistic adjustment of 

9 standards. 

10 Further, it is our belief that the 

11 proposed ultra low emission limits have been 

12 established using flawed statistical methods, and 

13 using inaccurate data that do not represent the 

14 universe of boilers and must be corrected. 

15 The resulting MACT floors are so low that 

16 equipment manufacturers have informed some ACC 

17 member companies that no known controls can be 

18 specified to achieve compliance with emission 

19 limits such as carbon monoxide and dioxin/furn. 

20 ACC supports the Agency’s decision to 

21 propose a work practice standard for Gas 1-fired 

22 boilers and process heaters due to technological 
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 

27

1 and economic feasibility. ACC strongly 

2 recommends that EPA also promulgate a similar 

3 work practice standard for petrochemical gas and 

4 chemical plant off-gas sources in the Gas 2 

5 category since these gases have similar 

6 composition and their emission profiles are 

7 similar at the limits of detection. Gaseous 

8 fuels are an efficient energy source, are one of 

9 the cleanest-burning conventional fuels and have 

10 very low emissions. 

11 EPA proposes a beyond-the-floor standard 

12 requiring major source facilities to perform an 

13 energy assessment and that cost effective energy 

14 conservation measures be identified. ACC 

15 believes that these requirements are unnecessary 

16 and burdensome since comprehensive program are 

17 already in place such as Save Energy Now, 

18 Responsible Care, and various corporate energy 

19 programs. ACC also believes the proposed energy 

20 assessment scope is extremely broad and well 

21 beyond its authority. 

22 EPA has chosen not to establish a health-
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 

28

1 based emission standard for threshold pollutants 

2 in lieu of a MACT standard. Based on our 

3 preliminary review and bolstered by the work 

4 performed by EPA in support of the health 

5 threshold option included in the 2004 rule, ACC 

6 strongly recommends that the Agency consider the 

7 fact that the proposed standards for HCl are far 

8 more stringent than needed to assure protection 

9 of public health with an ample margin of safety. 

10 EPA’s RIA estimates that the cost of the 

11 Boiler MACT proposal to the chemical industry of 

12 about 1.8 billion, which is less than half the 

13 ACC estimate of 3.8 billion. EPA also projects 

14 that about a quarter of the cost increase will be 

15 passed through to consumers. 

16 Because many basic chemical companies 

17 face stiff global competition, it will be 

18 difficult to pass through costs except during 

19 times when the market it tight. 

20 Raising the cost of capital will also 

21 impact future investment and job growth in high22 paying manufacturing jobs, further slowing the 
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 

29

1 economic recovery of the chemical industry. 

2 The pollutant-by-pollutant method of 

3 standard setting, along with the other approaches 

4 being used by EPA, have led EPA to conclude in 

5 its RIA that no new coal or biomass boilers will 

6 be built, which is contrary to the need for 

7 energy diversity in our country. 

8 The concerns we have raised on the Boiler 

9 Mack rule also apply to EPA’s proposed 129 

10 standards for CISWI. ACC believes that EPA 

11 should encourage as much as possible the burning 

12 of fuel as non-hazardous secondary materials as 

13 this will preserve virgin materials and result in 

14 greater diversity of fuel sources. 

15 In the past EPA has provided a minimum of 

16 30 days for proposal comment and should have 

17 provided affected parties with 120 days to review 

18 and comment on these four interrelated rules, 

19 rather than the 60 days allowed. EPA should also 

20 then pursue with the court a similar extension to 

21 the promulgation date for these rules. 

22 Thank you very much for your time and 
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 

30

1 consideration of our comments. 

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hunt and Mr. 

3 Griffin. I appreciate your comments. You can 

4 step down. 

5 I would like to now call the next two 

6 speakers up. The first one is Bill Perdue. 

7 MR. WAYLAND: Can we ask them –- 

8 MS. GENTILE: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. I’m 

9 sorry, we have some clarifying questions before 

10 you guys leave. 

11 MR. WAYLAND: I just had one question for 

12 both of you. You know, we went through an 

13 information collection request to gather the data 

14 that the rules are based on. 

15 Both of you have called into question 

16 that data and the completeness of that data and 

17 its ability to represent this category. Will you 

18 be submitting any additional data in your written 

19 comments or perhaps as an amendment to today’s 

20 comments? Or, can we expect to get additional 

21 data? 

22 MR. HUNT: We are working hard to –- now 
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 

31

1 that you’ve released the best performing units to 

2 try to get additional information from them; but 

3 we also ask that the Agency go out and collect 

4 information from other sources, not just stack 

5 tests but maybe emission factor information to 

6 try to better represent the information that’s 

7 out there. 

8 So part of that we will take some 

9 responsibility, but I think the Agency also needs 

10 to do more work in gathering information that’s 

11 out there and has not been gathered, particularly 

12 the CO data. 

13 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MR. GRIFFIN: I would concur with Tim’s 

15 remarks and emphasize that ACC is also working 

16 very hard to provide the Agency with appropriate 

17 data that will further inform the statistics that 

18 are needed to set realistic standards. 

19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you very much. 

20 MR. HUNT: I’ll just add that one 

21 frustration is that a number of our mills spent a 

22 fair amount of money testing under Phase 2 as 
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 

32

1 boilers, and because of this issue around what is 

2 a waste and a fuel, that data is not being used. 

3 So there is some very good data out there from 

4 facilities that were identified as top performers 

5 at the time of the ICRN testing whose data is not 

6 being used. 

7 So we think the Agency can look outside 

8 the best performers to others that look very much 

9 like the best performers and have all the 

10 characteristics of the best performers and use 

11 that data given the relative paucity of the data 

12 set. 

13 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much. 

15 The next two speakers I want to call up 

16 are Bill Perdue and Jim Mullowney. 

17 Bill, feel free to start your comments 

18 whenever you’re ready. 

19 MR. PERDUE: Good morning. I’m Bill 

20 Perdue, Vice-President Government and Regulatory 

21 Affairs for the American Home Furnishings 

22 Alliance. 
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 

33

1 The AHFA is the world’s largest and most 

2 influential trade organization serving the home 

3 furnishings industry. 

4 Member companies operate several domestic 

5 wood furniture manufacturing facilities and 

6 comprise an extensive global supply chain that 

7 provides a wide variety of home furnishings to 

8 the U.S. consumer. Member companies provide 

9 approximately 360,000 manufacturing jobs 

10 throughout the U.S. and represent a $35 billion 

11 segment of the nation’s economy. 

12 The AHFA is deeply troubled by the 

13 potential effects of the domestic furniture 

14 manufacturing industry and the proposed emission 

15 standards for major source industrial, 

16 commercial, and institutional boilers and process 

17 heaters –- the Boiler Rule -– and the 

18 identification of non-hazardous materials that 

19 are solid waste – the Waste Rule. 

20 As proposed, these two rules threaten to 

21 eliminate the longstanding environmentally 

22 beneficial practice whereby furniture companies 
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 

34

1 generate heat and process steam at their plants 

2 by combusting wood fuel generated from the 

3 furniture manufacturing process. 

4 The proposed rules are of great concern 

5 to those of us who represent furniture 

6 manufacturers and the employees of those 

7 companies. Unless altered, the rules could 

8 actually have the perverse environmental affect 

9 of forcing the transition of furniture 

10 manufacturing facilities from the use of wood as 

11 a fuel to the combustion of fossil fuels while 

12 simultaneously forcing the disposal in the 

13 landfills of a clean, high BTU renewable fuel in 

14 the form of wood generated from the furniture 

15 manufacturing process. 

16 At one facility located in North Carolina 

17 we currently estimate that in order to do fuel 

18 switching away from the combustion of wood fuel, 

19 we estimate an annual cost of $200,000 to dispose 

20 of this wood biomass. We also estimate that for 

21 that one facility an additional 12,000 tons of 

22 wood biomass fuel would be diverted to the 
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 

35

1 landfill. 

2 We also estimate that in order to do fuel 

3 switching and move away from wood biomass and 

4 switch to natural gas at that one facility with a 

5 small Fire 2 boiler would cost $1.1 million to 

6 fuel switch and continue its operation today. 

7 One of our major concerns with the 

8 proposal is the affect of the rules on wood-fired 

9 boilers commonly used in the furniture industry. 

10 Under current practices boilers in the furniture 

11 industry are typically small and combust a kiln12 dried wood fuel which is generated during the 

13 furniture manufacturing process. 

14 The wood fuel is very dry, burns cleanly, 

15 has a neutral CO2 emissions scoring and has a 

16 high BTU value. However, as we understand it, 

17 the Boiler Rule EPA has proposed would combine 

18 these smaller dry-wood fuel boilers used in the 

19 furniture industry into a broader biomass 

20 subcategory that includes boilers fired by wet 

21 fuel used in other industry sectors thereby 

22 creating a single subcategory of emission sources 
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 

36

1 for evaluation. 

2 By establishing a single large group of 

3 boilers that use both dry wood fuel and wet wood 

4 fuel, EPA effectively ignores the benefits and 

5 unique characteristics of dry wood boilers by 

6 imposing a single set of emissions standards on 

7 the entire category. 

8 Large boilers burning wet biomass fuels 

9 have historically required costly controls as a 

10 result of their inherently higher emissions. The 

11 cost for small dry fuel boilers to meet standards 

12 that have historically applied to wet biomass 

13 boilers is prohibitive. 

14 Currently, for that same boiler in North 

15 Carolina we estimate a cost of about $1.5 million 

16 to retrofit that boiler with a scrubber add-on 

17 control end of pipe to continue operation of that 

18 boiler in North Carolina. And the incremental 

19 air quality benefit that would come from lumping 

20 dry fuel boilers into such a category is 

21 neglible. In fact, rather than make costly 

22 investments in new controls -- control 
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 

37

1 facilities, a more likely outcome is that 

2 furniture manufacturers will retire their wood3 fire boilers, replace them with natural gas or 

4 fuel oil combustion boilers and simply dispose of 

5 the dry wood fuel generated by the furniture 

6 manufacturing processes in landfills. 

7 As greenhouse gas neutral fuels would be 

8 replaced by a fuel that emits substantial amounts 

9 of greenhouse gases, we estimate that at this 

10 same typical facility in North Carolina an 

11 increase in CO2 to switch to natural gas of 

12 10,500 tons annually. 

13 This predictable outcome would not be 

14 consistent with the intent of the rule. To 

15 prevent this likely outcome from occurring, we 

16 request that EPA revisit the proposal and 

17 establish a distinct low moisture biomass 

18 subcategory for dry wood fuel. 

19 Having this subcategory which considers 

20 the unique characteristics of these boilers and 

21 the heat content of dry wood fuel would enable a 

22 far more desirable economic environmental 
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 

38

1 outcome. 

2 We’re also concerned with the exclusion 

3 of the health-based compliance alternative of the 

4 HCPA from the proposed rule. Section 112(d)(4) 

5 of the Clean Air Act establishes a mechanism for 

6 EPA to exclude facilities from certain pollution 

7 control regulations and circumstances when these 

8 facilities can demonstrate that emissions do not 

9 pose a health risk. 

10 Using the discretionary authority under 

11 Section 112(d)(4), EPA may allow a facility to 

12 demonstrate the potential proposed risk of 

13 emissions for certain pollutants such as 

14 manganese and hydrogen chloride from the 

15 facility. If a facility can show that its 

16 emissions are below the established thresholds 

17 for levels posing a risk of human health, EPA can 

18 use these data to exclude from requirement 

19 sources from which emissions do not pose a risk. 

20 Using HBCA at the outset would allow 

21 facilities to comply based on health-based data 

22 rather than taking the interim step of installing 
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 

39

1 emission control technology. 

2 We believe the use of the HBCA as a 

3 logical tool and that when a facility can meet a 

4 more stringent health-based standard without the 

5 necessity of expensive emission control 

6 equipment, the HBC should be allowed. 

7 Thank you for allowing our comments 

8 today. 

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Perdue. 

10 Mr. Mullowney, please feel free to start 

11 whenever you’re ready. 

12 MR. MULLOWNEY: Good morning. My name is 

13 Jim Mullowney. I’m a chemist. I have almost 25 

14 years’ experience in the hazardous waste 

15 business, and at one point I did own a RCRA 

16 hazardous transfer facility. 

17 Currently I’m the President of 

18 Pharmacycle, and I’m commenting on the CISWI 

19 regulations. 

20 Just quickly, what Pharmacycle does is we 

21 collect human excrement from patients that are on 

22 OSHA regulated chemotherapy drugs. Sounds kind 
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 

40

1 of gross, but it is kind of gross. 

2 So, why would we do that? We’ll get into 

3 that a little bit. 

4 And the title of my presentation, which 

5 usually takes over an hour -– I’m going to 

6 condense it -– is called Drugs Are Chemicals, 

7 Too. 

8 So, the EPA, and industry and people, in 

9 general, for the past 30 years have divided 

10 pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals into two 

11 different categories. Pharmaceuticals being 

12 medicines and good for the environment and good 

13 for people, and industrial chemicals being bad 

14 and nasty, which is kind of –- if you look at 

15 what the chemical structures are, most industrial 

16 chemicals are designed to not react with the 

17 environment -– paints, coatings –- they’re 

18 designed to be resistant to the environment -- 

19 where a pharmaceutical is designed to have a 

20 specific effect on the human body. 

21 So, we really should care what happens 

22 with these pharmaceuticals. And with these 
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 

41

1 regulations on solid waste, I know from personal 

2 experience that if it was not a RCRA hazardous 

3 waste, we sent it to a non-RCRA landfill or to a 

4 non-RCRA incinerator across the board. 

5 Anything came in, easiest way make sure 

6 it’s not a RCRA which was from 1976. So 

7 regulations haven’t quite kept up with the amount 

8 of chemicals that have been invented in the last 

9 20 or 25, or 35 years. 

10 So this regulation we have 165,000 

11 pharmaceuticals coming into an incinerator, and 

12 we’re testing for nine that come out, which it’s 

13 impossible to test for all the chemicals that 

14 come out, but there are some common sense things 

15 that we need to look at. 

16 The types of chemicals that we at 

17 Pharmacycle handle are OSHA regulated hazardous 

18 drugs. I don’t know if anybody’s familiar with 

19 the OSHA Hazardous Drug Policy. Most of these 

20 drugs are cytotoxic drugs. Most of the 

21 treatments are for chemotherapy. These chemicals 

22 were invented during World War II as chemical 
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 

42

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

2 cancer. 

3 And the way these drugs work is that 

4 being cytotoxic, they’ll break into the cancer 

5 cell; they’ll attack the DNA; and they’ll break 

6 off the chromosomes. So when the cancer cell 

7 splits, it’s been mutated. We no longer have a 

8 cancer cell. What we have, we really don’t know, 

9 but we’ve cured cancer. 

10 If it’s a hair cell, it’s no longer a 

11 hair cell. We’ve cured hair. Your hair falls 

12 out. And it works on skin cells and fast-growing 

13 cells. 

14 So, there’s an issue with how nasty these 

15 chemicals are. We have -– some of the pictures I 

16 like to use is –- this is a picture from Chemical 

17 and Engineering News; and it’s a guy in a 

18 spacesuit making a chemotherapy drug called 

19 doxorubicin. So we’ve got guys in spacesuits 

20 that make these pharmaceuticals. 

21 We have pharmacists that are in Level 3 

22 biological safety cabinets that are not allowed 
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 

43

1 to be exposed to these materials preparing the 

2 drugs at a dose at some points that are at the 

3 nanogram per liter. I’ll get back to that in a 

4 minute. 

5 So once this is prepared, the nurse is 

6 given a splash shield and gloves and a hazmat 

7 suit and injects it into the patient where the 

8 patient is sent home to excrete the -– most of 

9 the medicine. 

10 The analogy I like to use is if you take 

11 a vitamin and you haven’t taken a vitamin in 

12 awhile and you go to the bathroom a couple hours 

13 later, it looks like you ate your highlighter. 

14 Well, that’s the vitamin passing through your 

15 body unaltered. That happens with any sort of a 

16 pharmaceutical –- anything you take. 

17 So if you’ve got a drug that has a very 

18 low absorption rate like a cytotoxic drug that’s 

19 being made by a guy in a spacesuit, handled by a 

20 pharmacist in a Level 3 biological safety 

21 cabinet, handled by a nurse in a hazmat suit, 

22 injected into the patient, we should care what 
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 

44

1 happens to this drug all the way through the 

2 process. 

3 The guy in the spacesuit has a suit 

4 contaminated with materials. It’s not a RCRA 

5 regulated drug. Where does it go? Solid waste 

6 incinerator. The pharmacist -– I don’t know how 

7 you make a nanogram per liter -– there is no real 

8 scale. What you’d do is you’d start with a known 

9 amount of the material; then you dilute it. It’s 

10 called serial dilutions. 

11 So that pharmacist in the Homer Simpson12 like glovebox is diluting this material to a 

13 nanogram per liter or a part per trillion. What 

14 happens to those dilutions? Well, it goes to 

15 solid waste incinerators. It’s not regulated. 

16 The tubings, the pipes -– they go to 

17 incineration. So we have a chemical that is so 

18 toxic that the absorption rate is less than one 

19 percent, and it’s administered at a nanogram per 

20 liter. 

21 An analogy I like to use is if you had a 

22 trillion one dollar bills and you stacked it like 
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 

45

1 a deck of cards and you turned it sideways, the 

2 trillion would go from Boston to the middle of 

3 Ohio. And you take that one part per trillion 

4 and you inject it into a patient, and only one 

5 cent gets into the body. And that one cent that 

6 gets into his body makes his hair fall out and 

7 nearly kills him. Ninety-nine percent of it 

8 passes through the body. We should care what 

9 happens to this chemical all along the process. 

10 That’s why we at Pharmacycle, we collect the 

11 sheets that get sweat and your shirts and 

12 materials that –- and your urine and your feces, 

13 and we do not send them to a solid waste 

14 incinerator because we don’t know what’s coming 

15 out the other end. 

16 I know my time is up right now. Are 

17 there any questions? 

18 MS. GENTILE: What I would suggest, Mr. 

19 Mullowney, if you want to submit your 

20 presentation for the docket, we can include it 

21 there, but I’ll ask the hearing panel if they 

22 have any questions for either you or Mr. Perdue. 
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 

46

1 MR. WAYLAND: I had one question for 

2 Bill. 

3 You asked us to consider a -– I think 

4 I’ve got this small dry fuel boiler subcategory 

5 to distinguish it from the larger biomass 

6 category. 

7 In your opinion do we have the data 

8 currently to make such a distinction, or would 

9 that be something you might be submitting 

10 additional data on? 

11 MR. PERDUE: No, we will submit 

12 additional data, but we do believe, Mr. Wayland, 

13 that you do have within your AP-42 factor a very 

14 distinct emission factor for dry fuel that the 

15 AHFA at the time the AFMA participated with EPA 

16 in developing. So, that data set should be 

17 there. 

18 And like I said, there is a very distinct 

19 already subcategory for dry wood fuel. 

20 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

21 MR. TOPSALE: I have a question. Bill? 

22 MR. PERDUE: Yes. 
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 

47

1 MR. TOPSALE: You mentioned wood. Is 

2 that clean wood, or is some of the wood coated 

3 with some substrate, a lacquer, or some other 

4 chemical? 

5 MR. PERDUE: The wood that we typically 

6 combust in our boilers is clean, dry kiln wood 

7 fuel with a moisture content of less than 8 

8 percent with an 8,500 BTU fuel rating. 

9 Now, in the course of the manufacturing 

10 process there may be a very small amount of wood 

11 in finished parts that may find themselves into a 

12 silo; but it is less than one percent of what we 

13 combust in our boilers. 

14 MS. GENTILE: Any more comments from the 

15 panel? 

16 (No response.) 

17 Thank you for your comments. Mr. Perdue 

18 and Mr. Mullowney, you may step down now. 

19 Our next two speakers are Tyrone Wilson, 

20 followed by Matthew Todd. Please come to the 

21 table. 

22 Thanks, gentlemen. Mr. Wilson, you may 
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 

48

1 start your comments whenever you’re ready. 

2 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 

3 My name is Tyrone P. Wilson. I’m here 

4 today representing the Portland Cement 

5 Association, where I am Director of Regulatory 

6 Affairs. Founded in 1916, PCA’s 28 cement 

7 companies operate 102 manufacturing plants in 34 

8 states, with distribution centers in all 50 

9 states. PCA members account for 97.5 percent of 

10 domestic cement making capacity. Portland cement 

11 is an essential ingredient in concrete. 

12 Thank you for this opportunity to address 

13 this panel. The focus of my talk will be on the 

14 identification of secondary non-hazardous solid 

15 waste. 

16 MR. WAYLAND: Could you get a little 

17 closer to the microphone? I’m not sure everybody 

18 in the back may be able to hear. 

19 MR. WILSON: Okay. 

20 The rule, as proposed, could greatly 

21 narrow the scope of secondary materials currently 

22 in use as alternative fuels and ingredients 
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 

49

1 during cement processing, or, at the very least, 

2 subject those facilities using secondary 

3 materials to Clean Air Act Section 129 

4 incinerator emission standards. Cement plants, 

5 like many industrial facilities, are not 

6 incinerators. 

7 Moreover, cement plants are already 

8 regulated under stringent emission standards 

9 pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 112 

10 authorities, which when developed were crafted to 

11 reflect the industry’s long-term practice of 

12 using secondary materials. 

13 Among common alternative ingredient 

14 materials used by many cement manufacturing 

15 facilities are foundry sand, mill scale, and 

16 steel furnace slag. Among alternative fuels, 

17 scrap tires provide the best example due to the 

18 industry’s long-standing use of this secondary 

19 material. In the United States where more than 

20 300 million scrap tires are generated annually, 

21 Portland cement plants use more than 50 million 

22 as fuel and ingredient, thereby diverting those 
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 

50

1 materials from landfills. Furthermore, almost 

2 700,000 tons of scrap tires were consumed in 

3 cement kilns in the United States in 2007. Of 

4 those, whole tires comprised approximately 75 

5 percent versus 25 percent for shredded tires. 

6 The environmental benefits of utilizing 

7 scrap tires as a supplemental fuel in the 

8 Portland cement process are multifold. When 

9 whole tires are combusted in cement kilns, the 

10 steel belting becomes a component of the clinker, 

11 an intermediate product. This steel belting may 

12 replace some or all of the iron required by the 

13 manufacturing process. Pound for pound, tires 

14 have more fuel value than coal, and the use of 

15 tires as fuel can actually reduce certain 

16 emissions. 

17 EPA states that tire-derived fuel 

18 contains about the same amount of energy as oil 

19 and 25 percent more energy than coal. This means 

20 that each ton of tire-derived fuel used by a 

21 Portland cement plant has the potential to 

22 replace 1.25 tons of coal. The United States 
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 

51

1 Department of Energy has estimated that the 

2 combustion of tire-derived fuel produces less CO2 

3 per unit of energy than coal. Furthermore, when 

4 compared to many U.S. coals, the tire-derived 

5 fuel results in lower NOx emissions. This 

6 advantage is also acknowledged by EPA. 

7 EPA has also indicated that the proposed 

8 rule could lead to more tires being dumped, 

9 rather than incinerated or burned as fuel. 

10 Indeed, the use of byproducts such as tire11 derived fuel conserves natural resources used for 

12 fuel and raw materials and is a practice 

13 widespread in the cement industry and other 

14 manufacturing sectors here and around the world. 

15 The EPA solid waste proposal, if 

16 implemented, would stigmatize the practice of 

17 reusing byproducts, jeopardizing their future use 

18 and contravene the very intent of RCRA. 

19 Moreover, the rule would have the effect of 

20 classifying cement plants as solid waste 

21 incinerators, as I mentioned previously. 

22 We do not believe that Congress intended 
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 

52

1 for Clean Air Act Section 129 to be used for 

2 regulating industrial manufacturing facilities. 

3 Congress developed Section 112 for this purpose. 

4 Incinerators are not for production 

5 vessels. They’re designed primarily to destroy 

6 waste. Therefore, it would be misguided and 

7 damaging to the cement sector if EPA were to 

8 group cement kilns and similar fuel-burning 

9 systems under the regulatory requirements 

10 designed for incineration of waste material. Our 

11 industry recovers useful energy and utilizes 

12 ingredients that would otherwise be mined. 

13 We believe the proposed rule is a 

14 significant step back from what the Agency 

15 proposed in January ANPRM with regard to the 

16 following: the concept of discard; the narrow 

17 application of the term processing; uncertainties 

18 surrounding the non-waste determination petition 

19 process; establishment of certain legitimacy 

20 criteria for both fuels and ingredients; and the 

21 alternative approach. 

22 All of these areas, among others, 
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 

53

1 represent issues that jeopardize the future use 

2 of non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels and 

3 ingredients. Our written comments will provide 

4 more detail in support of the industry’s views 

5 and concerns on these matters. 

6 In conclusion, we request that EPA 

7 construct a final rule that reflects the 

8 realities of the industry while encouraging 

9 existing beneficial use practices that reduce 

10 emissions and improve energy efficiency. These 

11 environmentally beneficial practices have been 

12 employed in the cement industry for many years 

13 and in many countries around the world and should 

14 be enhanced rather than discouraged. 

15 Diverting potential secondary materials 

16 from fuels –- excuse me, from landfills is a 

17 major benefit of the alternative use practices 

18 employed by the cement industry today and should 

19 not be stigmatized by enforcement under Clean Air 

20 Act Section 129. The cement industry is 

21 appropriately regulated in -– under Clean Air Act 

22 Section 112, and we believe the rule, as 
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 

54

1 proposed, provides no environmental or economic 

2 gain to the industry or general public. Failure 

3 to remedy the flaws in the proposed rule will do 

4 material harm to our industry and its employees 

5 and will worsen the world’s most intractable 

6 environmental challenges. 

7 Thank you. 

8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

9 Any clarifying questions right now before 

10 we go to the next speaker? 

11 MR. FAISON: A quick one. You mentioned 

12 about discard and a couple other -– but you 

13 mentioned the non-waste petition process, and I 

14 think you mentioned the context it was kind of 

15 step back, but I wanted you to maybe elaborate on 

16 kind of your views on the non-waste petition 

17 process and –- 

18 MR. WILSON: Okay. Well, our reading and 

19 understanding of the non-waste -– non-waste 

20 determination petition process as described in 

21 the proposed rule, we feel there are a lot of 

22 uncertainties associated with it. And like I 
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 

55

1 said, we’ll go into a lot of those in detail, but 

2 it –- you know, there are questions about the 

3 frequency of how this petition process may be 

4 applied. I mean, how often would a company have 

5 to undergo such a -– you know, such a rigorous 

6 requirement? You know, how many -– how do 

7 vendors play into this thing? 

8 We just feel that there are a lot of 

9 questions associated with it that have not been 

10 addressed in the proposed rule; and for that 

11 reason –- other than the fact that we feel it’s 

12 really unnecessary because we’re dealing with 

13 non-hazardous materials; so we really feel just 

14 right off the bat that that whole process is 

15 really a system that doesn’t have to be applied 

16 to these materials. 

17 MR. FAISON: Thank you. 

18 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Wilson. 

19 Okay. Mr. Todd, whenever you’re ready. 

20 MR. TODD: Good morning. My name is 

21 Matthew Todd. I’m a Policy Advisor at the 

22 American Petroleum Institute. My comments today 
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 

56

1 are on behalf of API and NPRA, the National 

2 Petrochemical and Refiners Association. API is 

3 the primary trade association of America’s oil 

4 and natural gas industry which represents more 

5 than 400 members involved in all aspects of the 

6 industry. NPRA is a national trade association 

7 representing more than 450 members, including 

8 virtually all U.S. refiners and petrochemical 

9 manufacturers. 

10 First and foremost, we support the work 

11 practices for natural and refinery gas units as 

12 proposed and believe that this approach should 

13 also extent to fuel gas from petrochemical 

14 operations. In the proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

15 taking comment on setting numerical emission 

16 limits for all gas-fired boilers and process 

17 heaters. In response, I’d like to summarize four 

18 specific points. 

19 First, a sound national energy policy –-

20 national energy and regulator policy must 

21 recognize the important role gaseous fuels play, 

22 both in our economy and in reducing both 
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 

57

1 conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

2 Second, it cannot have been Congress’ 

3 intent for EPA to set emission limits or MACT 

4 floors for multiple hazardous air pollutants for 

5 source categories without addressing or 

6 demonstrating whether or not they are achievable 

7 in combination. For this rulemaking, there is no 

8 indication that any of the so-called best 

9 performers are achieving these standards today; 

10 and in fact, from the data collected, there isn’t 

11 a single unit currently achieving all five 

12 emission limits. 

13 Third, there are unintended consequences 

14 of proposing emission standards that would 

15 require the installation of control devices that 

16 have not been demonstrated to achieve the 

17 proposed numeric emission limits and that would, 

18 in actuality, increase energy consumption and 

19 increase emissions. 

20 Finally, gas-fired boilers and heaters 

21 have extremely low emissions, pose little or not 

22 health risk to the public; and, therefore, EPA 
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 

58

1 should use its authority to encourage their use 

2 by allowing work practices that give operators 

3 the flexibility they need to maximize combustion 

4 efficiency and thereby minimize emissions. 

5 I’d like to provide some additional 

6 detail on these points. First, a vast majority 

7 of our industry’s boilers and process heaters 

8 rely on clean-burning fuel, whether it’s natural 

9 gas, refinery gas, or gas from our petrochemical 

10 operations for the efficient operation of our 

11 facilities. However, we are not alone as many 

12 other industries, institutions, and government 

13 facilities also rely on these gaseous fuels to 

14 keep this nation going efficiently. EPA should 

15 continue to recognize the benefit of these clean 

16 fuels. 

17 Second, there appears to be a shift in 

18 the method that EPA is using to set emission 

19 limits, and we all know its name – Franken MACT. 

20 Franken MACT comes to life when EPA sets 

21 emission limits based on the best performing 

22 units on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis without 
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 

59

1 considering whether or not those limits are 

2 achievable in combination. In fact, in this 

3 rulemaking, EPA has used emissions in calculating 

4 numerical limits that are at the very bounds of 

5 our ability to even measure the pollutant. As a 

6 result, there’s not a single gas-fired boiler or 

7 process heater that’s been demonstrated to meet 

8 all five of the proposed numerical emission 

9 limits for such units. It cannot have been 

10 Congress’ intent for EPA to set emission limits 

11 without regard to feasibility. This is a drastic 

12 shift from EPA’s historical technology-based 

13 approach which has been practiced and proven 

14 effective over the past 30 years. EPA needs to 

15 get back to setting achievable standards that are 

16 based on sound science. 

17 Third, there are unintended consequences 

18 of requiring the installation of pollution 

19 control devices that have not been demonstrated 

20 collectively to achieve the standards. For 

21 instance, the proposed CO limits for gas-fired 

22 units will require operating at much higher 
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 

60

1 oxygen levels than typical, which will lead to 

2 increased fuel use and, as a result, increased 

3 CO2 emissions. This is also true for oil-fired 

4 units. In fact, emissions of all pollutants 

5 other than CO will also increase because of the 

6 increased fuel use. Remarkably, the proposal 

7 does not indicated how the low CO levels will be 

8 achieved. Are we to take this as an indication 

9 that EPA’s own analysis shows that it’s 

10 unachievable? TO complicate matters, EPA has 

11 also included in this proposed rule precedent12 setting energy assessment and ongoing energy 

13 management requirements that apply well beyond 

14 this source category which, we believe, will 

15 further highlight the inconsistency between the 

16 low CO levels and the optimum operation of 

17 boilers and process heaters. 

18 Fourth, with regard to this rule, the 

19 Agency should avoid promulgating provisions that 

20 despite requiring significant capital and 

21 operating costs, will result in negligible 

22 emission reductions, could have the perverse 
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 

61

1 effect of discouraging gas use, and could 

2 increase the emission of other pollutants. It’s 

3 well known that gas-fired boilers and process 

4 heaters have very low emissions and pose 

5 negligible risk to the public. Therefore, EPA 

6 should establish final work practices as Congress 

7 intended in this situation, which give operators 

8 the flexibility they need to maximize efficient 

9 combustion and thereby minimize emissions. 

10 In closing, we support work practices for 

11 natural and gas-fired –- natural and refinery gas 

12 units as proposed and believe EPA should extend 

13 this to include fuel gas from petrochemical 

14 operations. While my comments today have focused 

15 on gas-fired boilers and heater, I should add 

16 that many of the same issues apply for liquid17 fired sources as well. Our detailed comments 

18 will expand on points raised and will include 

19 additional information on the standards for oil20 fired units. 

21 Thank you for allowing me to provide this 

22 testimony. 
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 

62

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. Any clarifying 

2 questions from the panel? 

3 MR. WAYLAND: Just one. Mr. Todd, you’re 

4 talking about the fuel gas from petrochemical 

5 operations. Will your written comments provide 

6 more data on that sub categorization, or –- 

7 MR. TODD: Yes. 

8 MR. WAYLAND: -- do you think we have 

9 sufficient information in the existing database? 

10 MR. TODD: We’re going to supply detailed 

11 comments on that exact position. 

12 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

13 MS GENTILE: Thank you for your comments, 

14 Mr. Todd and Mr. Wilson. You may step down now. 

15 We appreciate your comments. 

16 The next two speakers are Mary Sullivan 

17 Douglas, followed by Douglas Greenhaus. Please 

18 come on up to the table. 

19 Thank you. Mary Sullivan Douglas, feel 

20 free to start whenever you’re ready. 

21 MS. DOUGLAS: Okay. Thank you. 

22 My name is Mary Sullivan Douglas, and I 
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 

63

1 am a Senior Staff Associate with NACAA, the 

2 National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which 

3 is the association of state and local air 

4 pollution control officials in 53 states and 

5 territories and over 165 metropolitan areas 

6 across the country. 

7 On behalf of NACAA, thank you for this 

8 opportunity to testify on four related 

9 regulations EPA has proposed under Sections 112 

10 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rules 

11 will substantially reduce emissions of HAPs and 

12 criteria pollutants from a broad sector of 

13 industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers 

14 and from commercial solid waste incinerators. 

15 After coal-fired power plants, these combustion 

16 units are among the largest emitters of toxic and 

17 criteria pollutants in the country. Accordingly, 

18 the benefits to public health and welfare that 

19 will result from a well-considered rule are 

20 substantial. 

21 NACAA strongly supports adoption of 

22 timely final regulations for each of these 
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 

64

1 sectors that meet both the letter and the intent 

2 of the law. If EPA fails to adopt a standard in 

3 a timely fashion or fails to adhere to the 

4 statute and the rule is overturned again, the 

5 public health benefits will be delayed. In 

6 addition, state and local agencies could be faced 

7 with the significant burden of developing MACT 

8 for several thousand permits on a case-by-case 

9 basis. 

10 After analyzing the proposals more 

11 thoroughly, NACAA will submit detailed written 

12 comments. However, we appreciate this 

13 opportunity to provide EPA with our initial 

14 impressions. Overall, NACAA is pleased that the 

15 recent proposals are a vast improvement over 

16 earlier efforts and that EPA is generally on the 

17 right track. However, there are several critical 

18 areas that appear to be unworkable or 

19 unsupportable on the rulemaking record. 

20 When the court vacated the earlier ICI 

21 Boiler MACT rule and state and local permit 

22 authorities were faced with developing case-by-
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 

65

1 case MACT permits, NACAA collected existing test 

2 data from state and local permitting agencies. 

3 Over 40 agencies provided hundreds of data points 

4 that NACAA used to calculate MACT floors, which 

5 were substantially lower than those adopted by 

6 EPA in its earlier rule. The NACAA database was 

7 provided to EPA in June of 2009. 

8 Many units combust mixtures of fuels. No 

9 clear correlation has been established to 

10 evaluate the emissions performance of different 

11 units combusting different mixtures of fuels –-

12 and indeed, when switching fuels, emissions of 

13 one HAP may increase while those of another HAP 

14 may decrease. In its model permit guidance NACAA 

15 considered only those results where a source was 

16 burning 100 percent of one category of fuel 

17 during the test. Under NACAA’s recommended 

18 approach, sources would be separately tested for 

19 compliance with each applicable limit. NACAA 

20 also noted that during compliance testing, 

21 sources may be able to establish unit-specific 

22 correlations for operation of different fuels. 
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 

66

1 EPA apparently did not use the testing in 

2 the NACAA database to establish the MACT floors. 

3 The EPA data includes numerous entries where a 

4 source was combusting different fuel mixes, which 

5 NACAA believes will be difficult to translate 

6 into enforceable MACT limitations. While the 

7 NACAA and EPA data sets often produce generally 

8 consistent results, EPA cannot exclude from the 

9 calculation of the top performing 12 percent the 

10 testing conducted for other compliance purposes 

11 as required by state and local permit officials. 

12 EPA’s approach is to categorize source 

13 categories according to fuels that they are 

14 designed to combust and allow sources to comply 

15 with what EPA apparently considers the least 

16 stringent standard for any of the fuels that it 

17 may combust. NACAA believes that this approach 

18 is likely to be unworkable for many sources. 

19 Several options have been proposed for 

20 which EPA offered little or no justification and 

21 analysis. Some are of doubtful legality o—in 

22 particular, the clearly erroneous suggestion that 
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 

67

1 EPA could establish risk-based exemptions at 

2 levels less stringent than the MACT floor. NACAA 

3 recommends that EPA avoid options that carry a 

4 substantial risk of a lawsuit that delays 

5 implementation of these important public health 

6 protections. 

7 The proposal to not set a MACT floor or 

8 MACT emission limit for large, gas-fired boilers 

9 is another example. EPA’s principal argument for 

10 it is that imposing MACT limits on gas-fired 

11 boilers doubles the anticipated cost of the rule. 

12 However, unlike the beyond-the-floor analysis, 

13 there is no cost test for the MACT floor. 

14 Moreover, EPA has apparently not considered or 

15 provided information in its proposal that would 

16 enable the public to evaluate whether excluding 

17 natural gas units from numeric MACT limits is in 

18 the public interest. Further, while the 

19 discussion of cost to the industry is extensive, 

20 EPA fails to analyze or calculate the full 

21 benefits of these rules to the public. 

22 With respect to variability, without any 
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 

68

1 justification EPA applies a statistical test that 

2 requires 99 percent confidence that a standard 

3 has been exceeded before a violation is 

4 established. EPA also appears to calculate this 

5 factor on the basis of variability of individual 

6 test runs, even though the applicable standard 

7 requires averaging three individual test runs to 

8 reduce the variability that would be present in 

9 individual runs. In other rules EPA has used a 

10 90-percent confidence factor applied to the 

11 average of three runs to calculate variability. 

12 The general result of requiring a higher 

13 confidence level is that the standard is higher 

14 than it otherwise would have been. 

15 In conclusion, the proposals are a marked 

16 improvement over EPA’s earlier efforts. If the 

17 Agency follows the law and simply bases its 

18 decisions on the available data, very significant 

19 reductions of both toxic and criteria pollutants 

20 will result at costs that appear to be reasonable 

21 and manageable. NACAA urges EPA to complete 

22 these rules in a timely, thoughtful, and lawful 
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 

69

1 manner. 

2 Thank you for this opportunity to 

3 testify, and we look forward to providing more 

4 thorough comments by the comment deadline. Thank 

5 you. 

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Douglas. 

7 Do we have any clarifying comments for 

8 Ms. Douglas from the panel? 

9 (No response.) 

10 Thank you. Mr. Greenhaus, whenever 

11 you’re ready to start your comments. 

12 MR. GREENHAUS: Good morning. My name is 

13 Douglas Greenhaus, and I am the Director of 

14 Environment, Health and Safety for the National 

15 Automobile Dealers Association. NADA represents 

16 over 16,000 franchised automobile and truck 

17 dealers who sell new and used motor vehicles and 

18 engage in service, repair, and parts sales. The 

19 majority of our members are small businesses as 

20 defined by SBA. 

21 We intend to file written comments on the 

22 proposed waste identification and area source 
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 

70

1 NESHAP rules that are partially the subject of 

2 this hearing. Today, I’m just going to make two 

3 points: Number 1 – These proposals should 

4 exclude used motor oil; and, Number 2 -– Over5 regulating used motor oil risks increasing harm 

6 to the environment. 

7 Since at least 1992 the used oil 

8 recycling system has been guided by the 

9 comprehensive EPA regulations set out in 40 CFR 

10 Part 279. These rules were mandated by Congress 

11 in the 1980’s, and they govern how used motor oil 

12 is collected by dealerships and other vehicle 

13 maintenance facilities and how it is subsequently 

14 managed, both on site and off site. Notably, 

15 Part 279 resulted from over 10 years of careful 

16 deliberation by EPA, a process which involved the 

17 studied examination of every aspect of used oil 

18 management, including its recycling as a fuel in 

19 burners and boilers. I began working on the 

20 development of these rules in the early 1980’s as 

21 an EPA enforcement attorney and have been 

22 involved with their development and 
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 

71

1 implementation ever since. I can assure you that 

2 every legitimate issue of concern was raised and 

3 resolved during those many years of rulemaking. 

4 Consequently, I find it somewhat 

5 disconcerting to see EPA devoting precious Agency 

6 resources attempting to address used oil in the 

7 context of the area source NESHAP and waste 

8 identification proposals under consideration. 

9 When the proposals were recently issued, my first 

10 reaction was what am I missing. Could EPA have 

11 determined that used motor oil poses some newly12 discovered risk to human health or the 

13 environment that calls for further regulation? 

14 Well, the answer to that question is an 

15 unequivocal no. Moreover, the fine-tuned used16 oil recycling system EPA helped to foster has 

17 never worked more effectively. Virtually all 

18 used oil collected at vehicle maintenance 

19 facilities is properly recycled, with do-it20 yourselfer oil more than ever finding its way 

21 into the system. In addition, the used motor oil 

22 recycled today is significantly cleaner than in 
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 

72

1 the ‘80’s and ‘90’s due to the cleaner properties 

2 of new oil, the reduced likelihood for in-vehicle 

3 contamination, and the minuscule potential for 

4 cross-contamination or adulteration during 

5 collection and processing. Simply put, given 

6 that there is nothing broken that requires 

7 fixing, EPA should exclude used motor oil from 

8 both its identification and area source 

9 proposals. 

10 Given that it is legal for do-it11 yourselfers to change their own oil in a manner 

12 that may result in soil, water, or air 

13 contamination, EPA has long recognized the 

14 importance of requiring proper used oil 

15 management while encouraging more used oil to 

16 enter into the legitimate recycling system. 

17 Thus, EPA crafted Part 279 to help reduce the 

18 hundreds of millions of gallons of used oil that 

19 are mismanaged by do-it-yourselfers each year. 

20 For example, 40 CFR 279.23 allows used 

21 oil collected from motor vehicles brought in for 

22 service and from do-it-yourselfers to be burned 
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 

73

1 in small on-site space heaters, recognizing both 

2 the efficacy of using motor oil as a fuel in on3 site space heaters and the need to encourage the 

4 recycling of do-it-yourselfer oil. Many small 

5 business vehicle maintenance facilities recycle 

6 used motor oil as a space heater fuel, and in 

7 doing so they, Number one, reduce their reliance 

8 on comparable petroleum-based fuels, achieving 

9 significant energy savings in the process; two, 

10 they reduce or eliminate the potential for off11 site management liability; and three, they 

12 enhance the collection of do-it-yourselfer used 

13 oil. 

14 Now, any unnecessary regulatory costs or 

15 burdens imposed on dealerships and other small 

16 business facilities recycling used motor oil, 

17 such as to the imposition of testing, 

18 recordkeeping, or incineration mandates, would 

19 decrease the amount of do-it-yourselfer oil 

20 brought into the legitimate used oil recycling 

21 system, resulting in increases in the amount of 

22 such oil poured on the soil, down the drains, or 
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 

74

1 into trash barrels. 

2 Moreover, used oil sent for off-site 

3 management, whether on- or off-spec, as defined 

4 in the regs, should not be considered solid waste 

5 for purposes of triggering Section 129 

6 incineration mandates. Part 279 distinguishes 

7 between on- and off-spec used oil for legitimate 

8 off-site blending, marketing, and burning reasons 

9 and has served to appropriately protect the 

10 environment for many years. 

11 There is simply no environmental 

12 justification for the artificial diversion of any 

13 used motor oil to Section 129 permitted 

14 facilities. Upending the sensitive economics of 

15 the used oil recycling system predictably will 

16 result in some amount of the used oil – excuse 

17 me, of the used oil falling outside of the 

18 system. Do we really want to risk going back to 

19 the days of improper road oiling or the mixing of 

20 used oil into heating oil for inner city 

21 apartment buildings? I think not. 

22 In conclusion, used oil properly recycled 
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 

75

1 as a fuel pursuant to 40 CFR Part 279 should be 

2 considered exempt traditional fuel under the h 

3 waste identification rule and exempt from many 

4 new requirements under the area source NESHAP. 

5 I thank you for your consideration. 

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Greenhaus. 

7 Does the panel have any clarifying 

8 questions for Mr. Greenhaus. 

9 MR. TOPSALE: I have one. 

10 You mentioned the do-it-yourself motor 

11 oil as used at small businesses. Is there any 

12 information available about the chemical 

13 constituents that motor oil primary concern heavy 

14 metals, cadmium, lead? 

15 MR. GREENHAUS: You talking about for the 

16 do-it-yourselfer oil? 

17 MR. TOPSALE: Yes. 

18 MR. GREENHAUS: Typically, the 

19 dealerships recommendation to the dealerships is 

20 -– the NADA has recommended to the dealerships is 

21 that we segregate the do-it-yourselfer oil that 

22 people bring in and that we, if they can, do a 
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 

76

1 chlorine test on it; but that’s about all that we 

2 have in the way of test data. 

3 And to the extent that they do segregate 

4 it and ship it off site, perhaps some of the 

5 transporters and processors have some data. 

6 We would be happy to look and submit for 

7 our written comments on any data regarding pure 

8 do-it-yourselfer oil. 

9 MR. FAISON: You said that you also 

10 supported off-spec off-site oil should be exempt 

11 as well; is that –- 

12 MR. GREENHAUS: Right. If you look at 

13 the regulations, I think that the citation is 

14 279.12(c) –- the regulations in 279 specifically 

15 talk about what you do with off-spec used oil. 

16 And the specifications were set back in the days 

17 when there were particular concerns for 

18 particular constituents. 

19 And, by the way, I don’t think too many 

20 of those that are in the specifications in 279 

21 are the HAPs of concern that you seem to be 

22 focused on. 
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 

77

1 So, I would take a hard look at not only 

2 the specifications in 279 but also what’s 

3 permissible with respect to -- by the way, also, 

4 off-spec oil is permissible to be processed in 

5 the on-site space heaters I was talking about. 

6 MR. FAISON: Thank you. 

7 MS. GENTILE: Any more comments from the 

8 panel? 

9 (No response.) 

10 Thank you, Ms. Douglas and Mr. Greenhaus. 

11 I appreciate your comments. 

12 The next two speakers I’d like to call to 

13 the table are Alicia Oman followed by Joe Waters. 

14 Please come up to the table when you get a 

15 chance. 

16 Ms. Oman, please start your comments 

17 whenever you’re ready. 

18 MS. OMAN: Good morning. My name is 

19 Alicia Oman, and I am the Director for Energy and 

20 Resources Policy at the National Association of 

21 Manufacturers. The NAM is the largest industrial 

22 trade association in the United States, 
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 

78

1 representing over 11,000 small, medium, and large 

2 manufacturers in all 50 states. 

3 The NAM is the leading voice for the 

4 manufacturing economy in Washington, D.C., which 

5 provides millions of high-wage jobs in the U.S. 

6 and generates more than $1.6 trillion in GDP. In 

7 addition, 80 percent of NAM members are small 

8 businesses which serve as the engine for job 

9 growth. 

10 The EPA’s proposal to impose more 

11 emission standards on industrial boilers will cut 

12 across all sectors of the NAM membership, 

13 including the chemical, auto, metalworking, 

14 petroleum refining, and forest and paper sectors. 

15 New standards for industrial boilers will have an 

16 immediate impact on our members’ bottom line. 

17 In that regard, NAM and its members have 

18 an important interest in EPA’s proposed Boiler 

19 MACT Rule and appreciate the opportunity to 

20 provide the following comments: 

21 Manufacturers are attempting to fully 

22 recover from the steepest economic downturn since 
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 

79

1 the 1930’s and bring back the 2.2 million high2 wage jobs lost during the previous recession. 

3 Federal policymakers should create conditions 

4 that will lead to economic expansion and not 

5 stifle the vitality necessary to create jobs and 

6 technologies that will continue to improve the 

7 nation’s air quality. Imposing stricter mandates 

8 on the manufacturing sector will not accomplish 

9 any of these objectives. 

10 NAM and its member companies are 

11 confronting an avalanche of additional rules and 

12 regulations from EPA, including the 

13 reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard, the 

14 reconsideration of the 2007 PM standard, the 

15 Proposal to Regulate Coal Ash, and the imposition 

16 of first-time regulations on greenhouse gas 

17 emissions. 

18 While there are aspects of the proposed 

19 rules that the NAM supports, our overriding 

20 concern is that compliance costs associated with 

21 the more stringent Boiler MACT rule will hinder 

22 manufacturers’ ability to add jobs as the 
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 

80

1 recovery attempts to gain more attraction. 

2 The NAM supports EPA’s decision to rely 

3 on work-practice standards in lieu of emission 

4 limits for certain gas-fired boilers and believes 

5 that EPA should provide for work-practice 

6 standards on all gas-fired units within this 

7 rule. 

8 The NAM believes that EPA’s HAP-by-HAP 

9 approach to setting the MACT floor violates the 

10 Clean Air Act. EPA has essentially cherry picked 

11 the best data in setting each HAP standard 

12 without regard for the sources from which the 

13 data came. This results in a combined set of 

14 standards for purely hypothetical boilers that 

15 may never have actually been achieved by any 

16 single real world source. 

17 EPA’s new floor MACT policy is setting 

18 extreme limits that are drastically different 

19 than EPA’s GACT limits which will confuse the 

20 public about the real health risks of such units. 

21 Furthermore, the NAM believes that the 

22 data EPA gathered to support these rules were 
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 

81

1 biased towards so-called top-performing 

2 facilities. This has resulted in proposed 

3 standards that are far too stringent and not 

4 representative of the subcategories to which they 

5 apply. 

6 The NAM is continuing its review of the 

7 data and analyses underpinning the proposed rules 

8 and will be providing more complete comments once 

9 the review is finished. Manufacturers are 

10 particularly concerned about how EPA addressed 

11 the issue of the variability of the data. EPA’s 

12 proposed limits may not appropriately address the 

13 variability in emissions of various HAPs. 

14 In addition, NAM is examining whether 

15 EPA’s proposed limits were unduly impacted by 

16 issues associated with the limits of detection. 

17 Thank you for your attention, and the NAM 

18 looks forward to submitting a full set of 

19 comments to the Agency. 

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Oman. Does 

21 the panel have any more –- any clarifying 

22 questions for Ms. Oman at this time? 
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 

82

1 MR. WAYLAND: Just ask one -– I’m asking 

2 all of you guys since my group is responsible for 

3 the final rule. 

4 You also called into question the 

5 database and how it was used. Will NAM be 

6 submitting any data to support their claims, or 

7 are you just asking us to go back and look at 

8 what we currently have? 

9 MS. OMAN: We plan on supporting some 

10 additional data. 

11 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 

12 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Ms. Oman. 

13 Mr. Waters, whenever you’re ready. 

14 MR. WATERS: Thank you for allowing me to 

15 speak today. 

16 My name is Joe Waters. I am President of 

17 VEXTOR Technology. We are a non-hazardous 

18 processing facility located in Medina, Ohio. 

19 We have –- today I want to talk about the 

20 secondary non-hazardous waste as an alternate 

21 fuel. 

22 VEXTOR developed a method of making what 
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 

83

1 we call an engineered fuel whereby we are 

2 combining many different types of non-hazardous 

3 industrial commercial solid waste into what we 

4 would call an engineered fuel -– in other words, 

5 a fuel designed to meet the specification of a 

6 fuel to the end user. Our main market target 

7 initially has been the cement and lime kilns. 

8 The process basically includes a 100 

9 percent QC of all material coming in, both, most 

10 importantly to make sure it’s non-hazardous 

11 waste, and secondly, to determine whether it 

12 qualifies an ingredient in the processing of the 

13 fuel to meet the end spec. 

14 The processing basically includes the QC, 

15 inventory management, ingredient, and the 

16 qualification, formulation, and then into a 

17 shredding, blending, mixing operations to reduce 

18 particle size to make a homogenous material that 

19 meets an energy spec, and a chemical spec, and a 

20 physical spec. 

21 In the cement kiln industry in particular 

22 the fuel substitutes were called, but also, since 
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 

84

1 there is no residue left over, the residue from 

2 the engineered fuel is included in the cement 

3 clinker, and hence, it has to meet not only the 

4 fuel and energy spec but has to meet a product 

5 spec. It also cannot do any physical damage to 

6 the cement kiln itself, the refractory brick, the 

7 feeding systems, et cetera. 

8 What we look for is organic content, low 

9 moisture, a non-detect mercury, low halogen, low 

10 sulfur, and very little metals. Of course, the 

11 material’s already been prequalified as a non12 hazardous waste. 

13 Some of the examples of the ingredients 

14 would include non-recyclable paper and plastic, 

15 and cardboard, mixed wood, types of sawdust, 

16 shredded consumer products, latex adhesive waste, 

17 MRF debris -- municipal recycling facility debris 

18 –- oil debris, Banbury or ring oil sludges. 

19 These are waste streams from the tire 

20 manufacturing industry –- resins and gels, carbon 

21 black, and non-recyclable plastic, soy based 

22 inks. 
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 

85

1 The final spec that we have to meet is on 

2 the order of 10,000 plus BTUs, less than two3 tenths a percent chlorine, less than 10 percent 

4 moisture, no mercury -– non-detect mercury -– 

5 small particle size, and it also must be 

6 physically conveyed either by conveyer or 

7 pneumatic. 

8 The experiences we’ve had so far are with 

9 cement and lime kiln testing. We have -– we were 

10 delivering this engineered fuel to a long-dry 

11 kiln in Pennsylvania for about a year and a half. 

12 We did a 50 percent replacement of coal on an 

13 equal BTU basis. There was -– we qualified for 

14 air emission; the cement kiln qualified for air 

15 emissions under PA DEP. There has been no 

16 negative effect on the clinker or the kiln 

17 itself. 

18 And I guess my purpose here today is to 

19 just show that there is an example -– a practical 

20 example of being able to take non-hazardous solid 

21 waste and convert them into a product that we 

22 have sold. We sell it confidentially, but on the 
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 

86

1 order of about 50 percent of the value of coal. 

2 It has –- it’s been used up to about 50 percent 

3 replacement of the coal. The spec will vary 

4 depending on if it’s used in a pre-calciter, a 

5 cement kiln, or the hot end of the cement kiln, 

6 or in a lime kiln. Particle size reduces 

7 accordingly. 

8 This engineered fuel provides a landfill 

9 avoidance to the generator and lowers our 

10 liability, replaces fossil fuel. It can -– our 

11 fuel contains about 56 percent biomass, have a 

12 lower operating cost to the cement and lime 

13 industry, and lower emissions. 

14 Thank you. 

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Waters. 

16 Any clarifying questions from the panel 

17 for Mr. Waters? 

18 (No response.) 

19 Thank you, Ms. Oman and Mr. Waters. We 

20 appreciate your comments. 

21 Before I call the next two speakers, I 

22 want to mention that we have only two speakers 
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 

87

1 signed up to speak so far; so if anybody in the 

2 room would like to speak, please see Jan in the 

3 back of the room. She’s wearing a black suit 

4 against the black wall, waving right now. So 

5 feel free to register if you’d like to speak; 

6 otherwise, I will go forward and call the next 

7 two speakers. 

8 Henry Staudinger and Jeff Brediger. 

9 Please come to the table when you get a chance. 

10 Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Staudinger, 

11 feel free to start whenever you’re ready. 

12 MR. STAUDINGER: Good morning. My name 

13 is Henry Staudinger, and I’m here to address the 

14 non-hazardous materials portion of this program. 

15 I’m here as a citizen, and I have 

16 attempted to address citizens health and 

17 environmental concerns when sewage sludge is land 

18 applied for almost 15 years. 

19 I have participated in EPA USD aerosol 

20 studies. I have served on the Virginia Expert 

21 Biosolids Panel. I have served on the Virginia 

22 Department of Health’s Advisory Committee on 
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 

88

1 Biosolids as well as the same advisory committee 

2 for the Virginia Department of Environmental 

3 Quality. 

4 I reviewed earlier comments on the 

5 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking as well as 

6 EPA’s responses. I was intrigued by the 

7 industry’s efforts to convince EPA that sewage 

8 sludge was not a solid waste in spite of clear 

9 language to the contrary in Section 1004(27) of 

10 RCRA and 40 CFR Sections 257.2 and 258.2 where 

11 solid waste clearly is identified as sludge from 

12 a wastewater treatment plant -– as well as 40 CFR 

13 257.1(11) where EPA actually excluded sewage 

14 sludge for land applied this waste under Part 503 

15 from RCRA’s minimum criteria. 

16 In its June 4th response to comments 

17 received, EPA properly pointed out that sewage 

18 sludge has long been considered a solid waste by 

19 EPA. Sewage when land applied under Part 503 

20 also fails to meet the legitimacy criteria listed 

21 in EPA’s response. 

22 For example, just as sewage sludge fails 
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 

89

1 to meet the legitimacy criteria for contaminants 

2 and fuel when incinerated, sewage sludge fails to 

3 meet those same criteria for contaminants in 

4 fertilizer when land applied. 

5 Unfortunately, EPA added in its response 

6 that it was not addressing other secondary 

7 material end uses. However, EPA’s responsibility 

8 does not end when it identifies a particular 

9 material as a solid waste. It must also ensure 

10 that the disposal methods used actually comply 

11 with RCRA requirements. 

12 Since Part 503 does not ensure that RCRA 

13 requirements are met, it is important for EPA to 

14 now remove that unlawful exclusion of land15 applied sewage sludge under Section 257.1(11). 

16 According to a 2005 article published by 

17 Dr. Caroline Snyder in the International Journal 

18 of Occupational Land and Environmental Health, 

19 the sewage sludge exclusion was put in place at 

20 the demand of Thomas Jorling, then Assistant 

21 Administrator for the Office of Water, to be 

22 consistent with EPA’s policy at that time of 
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 

90

1 promoting sludge -– land application of sludge as 

2 the management of -– method of disposing of this 

3 particular sludge. However, that was never a 

4 lawful basis for failing to impose RCRA 

5 requirements. 

6 As pointed out by Dr. Snyder, this 

7 exclusion was put in place over the warnings of 

8 EPA’s own William Sanjour who wrote that this 

9 action was –- quote – illegal and inconsistent 

10 with the Agency’s Congressional mandate to 

11 protect human health and the environment –-

12 unquote. 

13 In any event, the stated basis of this 

14 exclusion is now moot as EPA long ago stopped 

15 promoting land application over other disposal 

16 options. In spite of repeated complaints from 

17 citizens residing close in proximity to sewage 

18 sludge application sites, citizens whose health 

19 and well being have been and are currently being 

20 negatively impacted, no effort has been made 

21 under Part 503 to establish buffers to protect 

22 health sensitive individuals, to identify 
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 

91

1 pollution-sensitive sites, and preclude 

2 applications on those site, or even to limit at 

3 the time of application constituents known to 

4 harm water quality -- for example, excessive 

5 phosphorous. And, of course, there is no 

6 enforcement to ensure compliance with RCRA 

7 requirements because they’re not there. 

8 Since the Office of Water was not 

9 directed by EPA to ensure that RCRA requirements 

10 were put in place, it is not surprising that the 

11 Office of Water failed to do so. Moreover, I can 

12 assure EPA, after years of experience, that 

13 sewage sludge land application regulations in 

14 states like the Commonwealth of Virginia fall far 

15 short of providing the protections to health and 

16 in the environment as provided by RCRA. 

17 It is important for EPA to look at the 

18 big picture. Think of the Agency as being 

19 responsible for plugging many leaks in a dam and 

20 to reduce the adverse impacts from those leaks. 

21 In the process EPA simply cannot ignore some of 

22 those leaks, especially when such action would 
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 

92

1 encourage other leaks. 

2 In this case, as long as EPA refuses to 

3 remove the unlawful exclusion of sewage sludge 

4 from compliance with RCRA’s requirements when 

5 it’s land applied, simple economics will dictate 

6 that the sewage sludge generators will stay with 

7 or gravitate to the less stringent land 

8 application disposal method and away from the 

9 more protective incineration, which is what -– 

10 you know, if you put it in place, it doesn’t help 

11 if you allow it to leak out on the other side. 

12 And I think it’s imperative as part of 

13 this rulemaking or some other process that this 

14 be addressed because identification is just step 

15 one. Step two is making sure that the next part 

16 is complied with and people are protected. 

17 So I thank you very much for your time 

18 and appreciate it. 

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Staudinger. 

20 Do we have any comments from the hearing 

21 panel for Mr. Staudinger? 

22 (No response.) 
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 

93

1 Okay. Mr. Brediger, feel free to start 

2 whenever you’re ready. 

3 MR. BREDIGER: Thank you. Good morning. 

4 My name is Jeff Brediger, and I am the Director 

5 of Utilities for the City of Orrville, Ohio, a 

6 small city of about 900 residents and a small 

7 coal-fired electric plant that would be subject 

8 to the Boiler MACT rule. I also testify today as 

9 the Chair of the Generators Group at American 

10 Municipal Power, which is composed of other small 

11 municipalities who also generate electricity 

12 primarily by burning local coal resources with 

13 increasing investments in hydroelectric and other 

14 renewable and energy efficiency projects. The 

15 Generators Group includes the Ohio cities of 

16 Painesville, Shelby, Dover, and Hamilton; and we 

17 help coordinate the concerns of other small 

18 municipal generators in other states. Together 

19 with my home city of Orrville, we represent a 

20 unique subset of the Boiler MACT source category 

21 because we generate electricity as part of our 

22 primary output. We operate as electric 
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 

94

1 utilities, but we are too small to be included in 

2 the Utility MACT source category. 

3 Municipal electric plants provide 

4 reliable electricity for public services, like 

5 police and fire protection, and for hospitals and 

6 schools. We also serve residents and businesses 

7 with electricity priced at the cost of 

8 generation. Low-cost electricity helps entice 

9 businesses to locate in our areas and long-term 

10 price commitments encourage businesses to stay 

11 and grow in our communities. In these difficult 

12 economic times offering reliable low-cost 

13 electricity is an important incentive for 

14 attracting and retaining jobs in our communities. 

15 We have many concerns regarding the 

16 proposed Boiler MACT rule and how it will affect 

17 our operations. 

18 First, we understand the Boiler MACT rule 

19 is due to come out before the Utility MACT rule, 

20 which means that our small municipal public power 

21 plants will be facing the cost of emission 

22 controls for hazardous air pollutants many 
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 

95

1 months, if not years, before the investor-owned 

2 utilities. The timing of these two regulations 

3 places our generators at a significant 

4 disadvantage to the much larger investor-owned 

5 utilities. EPA can mitigate this burden by 

6 establishing a separate subcategory for small 

7 municipal utilities and setting a compliance 

8 schedule for us that is consistent with the 

9 schedule for large investor-owned utilities to 

10 comply with the Utility MACT. 

11 Municipal electric plants are also 

12 concerned with the significant projected cost of 

13 the Boiler MACT rule. To install all the control 

14 equipment anticipated by the Boiler MACT rule 

15 would cost over $20 million for our facility 

16 alone. We certainly understand how important it 

17 is to protect the environment, and as city 

18 officials, we are committed to providing a safe 

19 environment for our residents. However, we have 

20 to ask ourself this level of expenditure is 

21 necessary to protect our citizens and our 

22 environment. We think that this rule fails to 
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 

96

1 strike the right balance between job 

2 preservation, and growth, and environmental 

3 protection. 

4 The Clean Air Act offers U.S. EPA 

5 discretion in certain areas that can and should 

6 be used to help balance economic and 

7 environmental interests. Exercising this 

8 discretion is particularly important in difficult 

9 economic times as regulatory burdens can become 

10 the straw that breaks the economic backs of U.S. 

11 manufacturers and jeopardizes the jobs that are 

12 crucial to sustained economic recovery. 

13 We ask that EPA exercise this Clean Air 

14 Act discretion with strength and vision to focus 

15 resources on serious health threats from air 

16 emissions and offer relief from economic burdens 

17 when such health threats are not indicated. 

18 To relieve some of the burden for these 

19 boilers and process heaters, EPA should exercise 

20 the health threshold discretion that Congress 

21 allows under Section 112(d)(4) of the Act. 

22 Congress recognized that some pollutants are safe 
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 

97

1 at low concentrations, and they allowed EPA to 

2 consider this health threshold when setting 

3 emission limits. Hydrogen chloride is a common 

4 acid and one of those compounds that is safe at 

5 low concentrations. EPA may use health risk 

6 information to test emission standards that 

7 reflect health thresholds so that we are not 

8 spending money on control equipment that is 

9 unnecessary required to protect human health. 

10 In these strained economic times, EPA 

11 should certainly exercise its discretion to stop 

12 the regulatory burden when health is adequately 

13 protected. This can reduce environmental 

14 expenditures by two t three million dollars per 

15 unit at each of our municipal electric plants. 

16 The Act also allows less burdensome work 

17 practice standards when it is not feasible in the 

18 judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or 

19 enforce an emission standard. This is taken from 

20 Section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. 

21 We encourage the EPA to utilize this 

22 discretion as liberally as court decisions allow 
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 

98

1 to relieve the burdens of emission standards, 

2 particularly where work practices provide 

3 effective emission control assurances at lower 

4 cost and burdens to the operators. 

5 The Clean Air Act also provides EPA with 

6 broad discretion to subcategorize within the 

7 Boiler source category based on size, type, and 

8 class of source to help ensure that the emission 

9 limits are determined by the best performing 

10 similar sources and that the emission standard 

11 can be ultimately achieved in practice. 

12 Then within the proper subcategory, EPA 

13 has the discretion to use a method for setting 

14 emission standards based on what real world best 

15 performing units actually achieve so that the 

16 units setting the bar for the rest of the 

17 subcategory will not have additional emission 

18 control obligations. 

19 If the EPA were to use the discretion 

20 provided in the Clean Air Act, it could 

21 significantly alleviate the burden of this rule 

22 without compromising the environmental benefits 
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 

99

1 that Congress intended. Flexible approaches in 

2 the Boiler MACT rule that appropriately address 

3 the diversity of units, operations, sectors, and 

4 fuels could prevent severe job losses and 

5 billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory 

6 costs. 

7 Two of our largest customers, the JM 

8 Smucker Company and The Quality Casting Company 

9 have sent concerns to lawmakers, and I’d like to 

10 offer a few of their comments. 

11 Tim Smucker, Chairman of the Board and 

12 Co-CEO for the JM Smucker Company stated, our 

13 company has elected to remain in the Orrville 

14 community for many reasons, including low rates, 

15 reliable service, and community benefits of 

16 working with a city-owned and operated electric 

17 utility. The Orville municipal utility plays an 

18 essential role in the community to ensure 

19 competitive electric rates for residential and 

20 business customers as well as emergency services. 

21 Certainly, public utilities should be held to 

22 high standards as we work to preserve our 
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 

100

1 environment, but such standards should reflect 

2 regulations that are industry and size specific. 

3 It appears as though municipal utility 

4 representatives have offered viable options to 

5 the EPA for alternative and effective 

6 regulations. 

7 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Brediger, I hate to 

8 break in, but you’ve gone a minute over the 

9 limit. Can you wrap up pretty soon? 

10 MR. BREDIGER: Yes, I am. I’ll wrap it 

11 up right now. 

12 Our utility will continue its proactive 

13 efforts in the areas of improving plant 

14 efficiency while making investments in hydro and 

15 energy efficiency projects and participating in 

16 this rulemaking project. We all have the 

17 responsibility of developing standards that are 

18 realistic and economically achievable without 

19 sacrificing health risk. 

20 Thank you for your time and attention. 

21 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your 

22 comments. 
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 

101

1 Any clarifying comments from the panel? 

2 (No response.) 

3 Thank you, Mr. Staudinger and Mr. 

4 Brediger. You may step down now. Thank you for 

5 your comments. 

6 I’d like to call the next two speakers, 

7 Paul D’Eustachio and Janice Nolen. Please come 

8 to the table. 

9 Mr. D’Eustachio, feel free to start your 

10 comments whenever you’re ready. 

11 MR. D’EUSTACHIO: Thank you very much. 

12 I’m feeling somewhat –- I’m impressed to be in 

13 the august company here of all the previous 

14 speakers. 

15 I’m, unfortunately, not going to be able 

16 to sit here and cite various paragraphs and 

17 subsections, parentheses XXX of a particular 

18 regulation. I’m not a highly paid lobbyist or 

19 even a lawyer. I guess my qualification 

20 primarily is that I do what I think probably 

21 everybody else in this room does, and that is, I 

22 breathe. 
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 

102

1 And I’d like to draw your attention, 

2 really, to maybe the need for just a common sense 

3 approach sometimes. Let me start here. 

4 Good morning. For the record my name is 

5 Paul E’Eustachio. I’m a resident of Takoma Park, 

6 Maryland, and a long-time volunteer for the 

7 American Lung Association. I am testifying today 

8 as a member of the general public to voice my 

9 strong support for the EPA’s proposed regulations 

10 governing emissions from commercial, 

11 institutional, and solid waste incinerators. 

12 These comments are intended to provide general 

13 support for all four of the proposed regs under 

14 discussion today rather than addressing any 

15 particular proposed rule. 

16 I’d just like to also note for the record 

17 I noticed that my name on the speaker’s list was 

18 associated with NC4. That is my employer. I am 

19 not speaking on behalf of my employer today but 

20 as a general -– as an individual. 

21 The proposed regulations will 

22 substantially reduce emissions from industrial, 
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 

103

1 commercial, and institutional boilers and solid 

2 waste incinerators. These boilers and 

3 incinerators are spread across the country, in 

4 our communities, in our big cities, in industrial 

5 parks, and are minimally regulated and 

6 historically have generated the toxic brew of 

7 particulates, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and 

8 other materials -- again, common sense that the 

9 human lung is just not intended to ingest. 

10 For those of us that like to exercise 

11 outside, the reduction of these pollutants is not 

12 just an academic or legalistic discussion. I 

13 bicycle to work on a daily basis, from Maryland, 

14 across the District of Columbia, and into 

15 Virginia. On one hand, that exercise is 

16 substantially improve my physical fitness; but on 

17 the other hand, lungful of lead, cadmium, 

18 dioxide, and God knows what else, certainly 

19 doesn’t do much for my well being. 

20 As I said at the outset, I’m not an 

21 expert -– medical expert, a chemical engineer, 

22 but I am an accountant by training and 
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 

104

1 profession. The EPA, to their credit, has done 

2 an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of these 

3 proposed regulations. Without going into great 

4 detail, it’s pretty clear that the benefits to be 

5 achieved on an overall or on a large scale –- on 

6 a macro basis far outweigh the cost of 

7 implementation. 

8 Obviously there’s going to be local 

9 dislocations as we’ve heard one of the previous 

10 speakers point out; but I think if we look at the 

11 large picture, this is not something that,, in 

12 fact, is a cost but a long-term benefit. 

13 We just finished watching the political 

14 drama of enacting major health care reform 

15 legislation. If nothing else, we’ve come away 

16 from that conversation with a clear, clear 

17 understanding that the long-term cost of health 

18 care in this country is measured in the hundreds 

19 of billions of dollars. And anything that we can 

20 do to reduce that cost will have a resounding and 

21 positive economic impact. These rules are going 

22 to do that. 
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 

105

1 We’ve waited way too long for these rules 

2 to be proposed by EPA. This is not something 

3 radical. This is not dangerous. This is not 

4 economically destructive. These rules are just 

5 plain common sense. It’s common sense that we 

6 don’t want our kids -– my kids – breathing 

7 mercury. It’s common sense that formaldehyde is 

8 not good for anyone’s lungs, and it’s just common 

9 sense that the economic cost of an asthma attack 

10 triggered by minimally regulated particulates is 

11 simply unacceptable these days. 

12 My mother used to say, when all else 

13 fails, apply common sense. Ladies and gentlemen, 

14 I urge you to apply that common sense. Let’s 

15 move these rules from the proposed stage to the 

16 done-deal stage now. 

17 I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

18 today. I thank you very much for your time and 

19 attention. 

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, sir. 

21 Any clarifying comments from the panel 

22 for Mr. D’Eustachio? 
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 

106

1 (No response.) 

2 Thank you. Ms. Nolen, feel free to start 

3 whenever you’re ready. 

4 MS. NOLEN: I’m having a little trouble 

5 talking, so I’ll try to speak into the mike. 

6 Good morning. I am Janice Nolen, 

7 Assistant Vice-President for Policy and Advocacy 

8 for the American Lung Association. Thank you for 

9 this opportunity to share our thoughts. These 

10 comments will apply to all the proposed rules, 

11 and we will provide more complete comments into 

12 the docket. 

13 The American Lung Association saves lives 

14 through the prevention of lung disease and the 

15 promotion of lung health. We are committed to 

16 the fight for healthy air. 

17 Key to that fight has been our work to 

18 support the cleanup of emissions from widespread 

19 pollution sources. We have long been concerned 

20 about industrial, commercial, and institutional 

21 boilers as well as solid waste incinerators. We 

22 want to thank the EPA for taking this critical 
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 

107

1 step to cut down the toxic air pollution, 

2 including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, 

3 which spew from these boilers and incinerators. 

4 The American Lung Association strongly 

5 supports EPA requiring the cleanup of major 

6 source and area source industrial, commercial, 

7 and institutional boilers and solid waste 

8 incinerators. These steps are long overdue. 

9 These chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, 

10 and other industrial, commercial, and 

11 institutional sources have been sources of life12 threatening and life-altering gases and particles 

13 in communities all across the nation. It is time 

14 they were cleaned up. 

15 These boilers and incinerators produce 

16 particulate matter -– tiny bits of solids and 

17 aerosols formed by the sulfur dioxide and 

18 nitrogen oxide emissions. Particulate matter is 

19 the most dangerous of the widespread air 

20 pollutants. Particulate matter triggers asthma 

21 attacks, heart attacks, and strokes, among other 

22 damage, but most critically, particulate matter 
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 

108

1 kills. Breathing find particles increases the 

2 risk that children with asthma and older adults 

3 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or 

4 cardiovascular disease will end up in the 

5 emergency room or the hospital. 

6 These units also spread mercury and lead, 

7 hazardous metals that can harm children’s brains, 

8 hurting their IQ and limiting their ability to 

9 learn and to remember what they have learned. 

10 Many of the other toxic pollutants spewing from 

11 these sources cause cancer, including 

12 formaldehyde, dioxin, cadmium, furans, and 

13 hydrochloric acid. Because these devices are so 

14 numerous and so widespread, their toxic pollution 

15 infiltrates communities across the nation. Their 

16 harm to health settles heaviest on those who live 

17 near them, communities that are often poorer, 

18 less well educated, and minorities. 

19 Study after study finds that pollution 

20 harms these folks far more than it does others. 

21 Cleaning up these boilers and incinerators will 

22 save lives. EPA estimates that between 2,000 and 
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 

109

1 5,000 lives will be saved every year because of 

2 the changes put in place by these requirements 

3 beginning in 2013. 

4 But that’s only part of the benefits. 

5 Having less pollution to breathe should benefit –

6 - should prevent over 3,000 non-fatal heart 

7 attacks, avoid over 35,000 cases of worsened 

8 asthma, and eliminate nearly 3,400 hospital and 

9 emergency room visits each year –- each year. 

10 The total benefits far outweigh the costs 

11 of cleaning up. EPA estimates that the cleaner 

12 air from cutting emissions from major sources 

13 will save nearly 18 billion to over 43 billion 

14 each year beginning in 2013. Total capital costs 

15 for installing equipment on all of these boilers 

16 is estimated to range from 10.5 billion to 12 

17 billion with total amounts for operations, 

18 maintenance, and other requirements of 3.9 

19 billion. 

20 The American Lung Association urges EPA 

21 to strengthen the proposed rule for incinerators 

22 and for the definition of solid waste. The 
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 

110

1 definition of solid waste proposed here is narrow 

2 -– so narrow that any facility could burn 

3 practically any substance as solid waste and not 

4 have to follow the requirements, opening a huge 

5 loophole that threatens public health. They 

6 would also never have to tell the public what 

7 they are burning or how much. That is wrong. 

8 We urge EPA to not allow industry to burn 

9 waste in uncontrolled and unmonitored facilities. 

10 We see today powerful and vocal industry lobbies 

11 here opposing these rules. We’re not that 

12 powerful and, certainly today, not that vocal; 

13 but we represent children with asthma and the 

14 communities next door to these facilities. We 

15 speak for the adults on oxygen who cannot be here 

16 to say that we must have air that does not make 

17 it harder for them to breathe. We speak for 

18 those whose lives are threatened by the pollution 

19 spewing from these boilers and incinerators. All 

20 of us deserve to breathe clean air. We are 

21 counting on EPA to deliver cleaner, healthier air 

22 in every community. Too many people have 
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 

111

1 suffered too long. Now is the time to require 

2 all of these plants to clean up. Thank you. 

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Nolen. 

4 Any clarifying questions from the panel 

5 for Ms. Nolen? 

6 (No response.) 

7 Okay. Thank you, Mr. D’Eustachio and Ms. 

8 Nolen for your comments. We appreciate that. 

9 We have one more speaker at this point. 

10 I’d like to call Tracey Norberg up to the table. 

11 And if any of you have not registered yet 

12 and would like to speak, please feel free to talk 

13 to Jan, who is now standing in the right side of 

14 the room, the black suit with pink shirt. She 

15 can register you right away. 

16 Thanks, Ms. Norberg. Feel free to start 

17 your comments whenever you’re ready. 

18 MS. NORBERG: Thank you very much. 

19 I’m Tracey Norberg with the Rubber 

20 Manufacturers Association, and I’m here today 

21 representing our manufacturer members and 

22 primarily our tire manufacturer members who 
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 

112

1 manufacture most of the new tires sold in this 

2 country. 

3 Our member companies, both our tire 

4 members and our non-tire members will be affected 

5 by both the Boiler Major Source Rule and the 

6 Minor Source Rule; but I’m not here to speak on 

7 those today. I wanted to use this time to 

8 address the solid waste rule instead. 

9 Since 1990 our members have worked hard 

10 to increase the rate of scrap tire management and 

11 recovery in this country. In 1990 when we first 

12 became involved, only about 11 percent of tires 

13 went to end-use markets -- and primarily in tire 

14 derived fuel markets. 

15 Today, almost 90 percent of tires do go 

16 to end-use markets. That means that tires are 

17 not landfilled at the rate they once were. And 

18 more importantly, they’re not in illegal 

19 stockpiles that have fire and other challenges. 

20 We are very proud of the success that we 

21 have achieved, both with –- in partnership with 

22 the EPA and in partnership with the states. And 
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 

113

1 here I wanted to speak on a challenge that we see 

2 coming forward looking at the solid waste rule 

3 because we are concerned that this market really 

4 is in jeopardy. 

5 Tire derived fuel is a -– is a market 

6 that’s very important to the tire –- I’m sorry, 

7 to the scrap tire management field. It serves as 

8 basically an anchor market which enables other 

9 markets for scrap tires for both recycling and 

10 recovery to flourish. It’s an economical market 

11 that achieves environmental benefits, including 

12 greenhouse gas reductions as cited by EPA in the 

13 proposed rule. 

14 We are concerned that how the rule is 

15 drafted, particularly the tires that are consumed 

16 as whole tire derived fuel, will not be able to 

17 be treated as fuels, but instead deemed waste, 

18 absent a successful petition through the petition 

19 process laid out by EPA. 

20 We’re, by the way, very pleased to see 

21 that EPA has included a petition process as a 

22 process of last resort for facilities that are 
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 

114

1 consuming waste -– or, I’m sorry, consuming fuels 

2 that would otherwise be classified as waste; and 

3 they can show that these materials have not been 

4 previously discarded. 

5 However, we believe with tires in the 

6 first instance when tires are coming from 

7 annually generated sources of tires, they’re not 

8 coming from landfills or stockpiles, but instead, 

9 coming off of people’s vehicles treated with 

10 value, that these materials have not been 

11 discarded and should not be considered waste. 

12 We urge EPA to go back to the approach 

13 that you took in the ANPRM. We felt that 

14 approach set the proper balance, looking at 

15 annually generated tires separately from those 

16 tires coming out of stockpiles. 

17 As I mentioned, tires that are annually 

18 generated, left at tire dealerships through –- 

19 enter in an established infrastructure where 

20 those tires are treated as valuable commodities. 

21 They are then to a processor who delivers them to 

22 the end user. And we feel that at no time have 
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 

115

1 those tires been discarded. 

2 When we look at the plain language test 

3 that the courts have laid out for determining 

4 whether a material has been discarded, clearly 

5 tires in this context do not meet that 

6 definition. And we urge EPA to really go back to 

7 the approach that you set out in the ANPRM. 

8 We feel that when you look at tires from 

9 stockpiles, yes, those tires were discarded in 

10 the first instance and understand the processing 

11 requirement that has been set forth for materials 

12 that have been previously discarded. 

13 We would urge, though, an expanded 

14 definition of processing to really look at what 

15 processing is appropriate for the given end use 

16 and not require processing that would go beyond 

17 what might be appropriate in that case. 

18 For example, in the cement kiln context, 

19 tires would -– if they were coming stockpiles, 

20 would be required to be processed and have the 

21 metals removed. Interestingly, the metal in 

22 tires in the cement kiln process do not -– the 
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 

116

1 metal is not serving as a contaminant. Instead 

2 it’s serving as a raw ingredient, requiring 

3 additional processing and requiring that material 

4 to come out of tires would really just require 

5 increased energy use, increased emissions, and 

6 really be completely opposite of what this rule 

7 sets out to do. 

8 So we would urge that the level of 

9 processing really be geared towards the end use 

10 and not sort of a one-size-fits-all approach to 

11 processing. 

12 Now just quickly turn to what would 

13 happen if facilities decided to stop using tire 

14 derived fuel instead of being regulated under 

15 Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. 

16 We see about 50 million scrap tires going 

17 into cement kilns every year. And if these 

18 markets evaporate, truly we will see a 

19 landfilling crisis in this country with tires and 

20 increased stockpiling across the country. That’s 

21 a big concern to us as tire manufacturers. We 

22 want these materials to be used appropriately and 
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 

117

1 as fuels so that we don’t have a solid waste 

2 problem. 

3 Some states could increase use in other 

4 markets, but many states could not. And we would 

5 see additional ripple effects beyond the loss of 

6 those markets because tire-derived fuel does 

7 serve as a primary economical market. 

8 So we really urge you to go back. Look 

9 at the ANPRM again. And we wholeheartedly 

10 approach that approach. 

11 I’m happy to answer questions now. Thank 

12 you. 

13 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Ms. Nolen. 

14 Any questions from the panel? 

15 (No response.) 

16 Okay. Thank you very much for your 

17 comments. 

18 MS. NORBERG: Thank you. 

19 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. 

20 MS. GENTILE: I think we have one more 

21 speaker. I just got a signal from Janice. And 

22 then we’re going to go into a -– I think a 30-
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 

118

1 minute break. 

2 Our next speaker before the break is Guy 

3 Martin. 

4 Thanks, Mr. Martin. Feel free to start 

5 whenever you’re ready. 

6 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Thank you very 

7 much for giving me the opportunity to speak today 

8 and to present what I would call an insider’s 

9 view of what the issues could -– that the rules 

10 generate that could change the face of the pulp 

11 and paper industry as a whole and a company in 

12 specific. 

13 I represent Domtar as Director of 

14 Environment Sustainability, and we will be 

15 submitting more elaborate comments in written 

16 form towards the end of July. 

17 I would like to present first off an 

18 overview of Domtar. For those of you who don’t 

19 know, we are the largest uncoated free sheet 

20 paper manufacturer in North America. We make 

21 copy paper, business papers, food and specialty 

22 papers, and also pulp for various applications 
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 

119

1 such as diapers and other hygiene products. 

2 We have 10 paper mills in the U.S., 

3 spread out over 9 states. Our use of renewable 

4 energy is remarkable. Where we have 75 percent 

5 of our energy that is used –- that is -– that we 

6 use –- sorry, that comes from renewable sources, 

7 69 percent of the electricity we use within the 

8 company is self-generated, and about 60 percent 

9 of that electricity also comes from renewable 

10 sources such as biomass and hydroelectricity. 

11 The company itself has a strategy that –- 

12 in place that we –- to reduce our dependence on 

13 fossil fuels and to reduce our environmental 

14 footprint as can be evidenced by two recently 

15 announced biomass cogeneration projects in 

16 Wisconsin and in South Carolina. 

17 To go a little bit over the impact of the 

18 rules –- sorry, the four rules on our operations, 

19 the rules will cover 32 boilers that we operate 

20 in 10 mills, both in liquid, the gas coal, and 

21 biomass categories. 

22 Let me start by saying the purpose of EPA 
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 

120

1 in putting this rule is definitely a noble one. 

2 It is -– and it will go a long way towards making 

3 America a world leader in environmental conscious 

4 actions. 

5 However, the rule could in its present 

6 form have devastating impacts on both the pulp 

7 and paper industry in the entire manufacturing 

8 sector in the U.S. as the limits are way too 

9 restrictive, and in some cases, unachievable. 

10 As was pointed out earlier, the data that 

11 was used to set the MACT floors ignores the vast 

12 majority of boilers and emissions data that 

13 exists out there. EPA needs to consider all of 

14 the data available to set the rules and not just 

15 a select few. 

16 Also, the variability of the emissions 

17 need to be better considered, especially events 

18 of start-ups, shutdowns, and the variability in 

19 fuel mixes, the variability in steam loads, 

20 something that is very common in the pulp and 

21 paper industry. 

22 As the rule stands now, even some of the 
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 

121

1 boilers identified as top performers such as 

2 biomass boiler that we have at our facility in 

3 Kingsport, Tennessee, which was identified, as I 

4 said, as a top performer for CO, could not meet 

5 the rule standard at all times. 

6 The rule discourages the use of biomass, 

7 and that goes against all of the efforts that 

8 Domtar has made to maximize the use of biomass 

9 and will likely cause us to reverse some of our –

10 - some of our practices, which will mean an 

11 increase in fossil fuel and increase in landfill 

12 of materials. 

13 Some limits such as mercury, and dioxins, 

14 and furans were set using non-detectable test 

15 values, which could mean that at a facility that 

16 has never measured detectable amounts of these 

17 compounds could be in non-compliance. And to me 

18 it appears to be a little -– excuse me for the 

19 word –- silly to be in non-compliance with a 

20 compound that you have never measured in 

21 detectable quantities. 

22 Under CISWI other alternate materials 
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 

122

1 that presently that we use as fuel would have to 

2 be disposed of differently -– again causing us to 

3 increase our use of fossil fuel, increase our 

4 costs, and put us at a much more competitive 

5 disadvantage with the rest of the world. 

6 On a financial aspect, the anticipated 

7 cost of the rule for Domtar will be well in 

8 excess of a hundred million dollars. Thirty 

9 percent of these costs, however, will be related 

10 to non environmental improvements such as 

11 redesigning stacks to account for the provisions 

12 of emissions averaging which do not allow us to 

13 average over subcategories when –- for boilers 

14 that burn similar fuels . 

15 An example of this is one of our 

16 facilities burns -– has three boilers connected 

17 to a common stack. Two of them burn coal with 

18 tangentially fired units; the other one is stoker 

19 fired. They had different limits. Under the 

20 current rule we would not be able to emissions 

21 average these boilers; therefore, a significant 

22 amount of investment required to just separate 
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 

123

1 the stacks in order to meet the rule. Again, 

2 these investments under the current rule would 

3 not benefit the environment at all. 

4 And even after all these monies have been 

5 spent, we cannot guaranty EPA, our stockholders, 

6 our employees, our customers, and the public that 

7 we will be able to meet the rules at all time 

8 because of the issues of variability and -– 

9 excuse me -– and the fact that in some cases 

10 there are no investments or no technology that is 

11 existing out there to actually meet the 

12 requirements at all time. 

13 And this is clearly in violation of our 

14 own environmental policy which states that we 

15 will meet all requirements at all time, and it 

16 will cause us to make harsh decision to the 

17 future of some of our facilities. 

18 Again, I think you for the time. We will 

19 have, like I said, written comments detailing a 

20 lot of these points later on, and then I invite 

21 any questions if you have them. 

22 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Martin. 
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 

124

1 Any comments from the hearing panel? 

2 MR. WAYLAND: You referenced your 

3 Kingsport, Tennessee facility. Was that part of 

4 the Agency’s information collection request? 

5 MR. MARTIN: Yes, it was. 

6 MR. WAYLAND: Do you, by any chance, have 

7 any longer term CO data that you could submit? 

8 MR. MARTIN: And they will be submitted 

9 along with our comments. 

10 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Great. Thank you. 

11 MR. MARTIN: And they are submitted also 

12 in the efforts of the American Forest and Paper 

13 Association. 

14 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Great. Thank you. 

15 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 

16 Mr. Martin. We appreciate it. 

17 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 

18 MS. GENTILE: I think at this point we 

19 have no speakers signed up for the next half 

20 hour; so I think we’re going to go into a 30-

21 minute break. Let’s plan to come back here and 

22 resume the hearing at 11:30. Thank you. 
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 

125

1 (Brief recess.) 

2 MS. GENTILE: Good morning, folks. We’re 

3 going to get started again. We’re going to 

4 reconvene the hearing in a minute. 

5 Thank you. The next two speakers we have 

6 are Andrew Francis and Scott Parker. Please come 

7 up to the table. 

8 Mr. Francis, feel free to start your 

9 comments whenever you’re ready. 

10 MR. FRANCIS: Okay. Basically, I may be 

11 unique here in that I am not connected at all to 

12 the energy industry, to lobbying, to politics, to 

13 anything. I’m from the Allied Health Industry; 

14 and basically I saw a call go out to say come on 

15 down and make some comments about this and help 

16 us. It was an environmental organization say 

17 help us to push for increased regulations of what 

18 goes into our air. So I’m here as a breathing 

19 citizen of the United States, basically. 

20 But my industry -– I’ve never done this 

21 before either. I’m not like a hired gun. I 

22 don’t go out and do this ever. So this is the 
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 

126

1 first time I’ve done it. 

2 My industry is Allied Health. I work for 

3 a small association in D.C., and we have found 

4 that what most people think about what my 

5 industry is about, which is orthotics and 

6 prosthetics, is that returning war veterans come 

7 home, and they need prosthetics. What is really 

8 true about my industry is that it’s obesity which 

9 is the problem in my industry. So, most of the 

10 problems in my industry are a health issue. 

11 So I’m here to say that we have to be 

12 thinking about the air that we breathe as a 

13 health issue for the future. We didn’t think 

14 about that 30 years ago when we started pushing 

15 sugar into the diet, et cetera, in the industry 

16 that I’m in. And that’s caused the -– it’s 80 

17 percent of my industry is because of obesity. 

18 And that surprises a lot of people because they 

19 think that prosthetics are something to do with 

20 accidents and war wounds, and things like that. 

21 And I’m basically here using this -– this 

22 is what I know, and that’s why I’m talking about 
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 

127

1 it. I’m using this to say that we have to be 

2 incredibly mindful of what we’re putting into our 

3 air because it’s going to affect us in 30, 40, 50 

4 years, which I know we all know because we’ve 

5 polluted far worse than we’re doing now. 

6 But when we hear -– and I represent a lot 

7 of people -– the people I talk to, the people in 

8 my community, my relationships, my girlfriend’s 

9 daughter, for example, who has asthma –- people 

10 are beside themselves when they hear that there’s 

11 a potential that regulations will be cut back or 

12 that anybody would ever want to cut back 

13 regulations on what goes into our air, especially 

14 when it’s the heavy metal pollutants and things 

15 like that. 

16 And I’m here as a kind of representative. 

17 I may be unique in this room that I’m just a 

18 representative of those people that are simply 

19 saying we do not want more stuff going into our 

20 air. We don’t want less regulation. We want 

21 more regulation. And we’re willing to pay, also. 

22 There’s a lot of -– will the taxpayer pay for 
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 

128

1 that. We actually don’t mind. We know –- and 

2 again, this is a group of maybe 40 people that I 

3 converse with on a daily basis over a month’s 

4 time. 

5 But we know that in countries where their 

6 taxes are through the roof that they have clean 

7 air, that they have better services, and we’re 

8 fine with that. 

9 So, that’s why I’m here. I’m here to say 

10 that I and everybody I talk to -- I don’t meet 

11 many people that would ever say that we want to 

12 cut back –- pull back any kind of regulation. 

13 So I can’t speak -- I don’t know the 

14 industry; I can’t speak to specifics about what’s 

15 in all the paperwork that’s on the table out 

16 there. I understand the industry has a bottom 

17 line that they’re worried about; but in my 

18 opinion and all these people’s opinions the 

19 bottom line is the health in the future. It 

20 isn’t the finances of a corporation. The 

21 corporations, if they provide jobs, if they’re 

22 progressive, they move forward. 
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 

129

1 They do what Denmark has done, for 

2 example. I know that Denmark has trash-burning 

3 plants, for example, that are putting nearly zero 

4 emissions into the air of any heavy metals. And 

5 they’re all over the country, and they provide 

6 power and heat for that country. And that’s 

7 astounding that we don’t have a huge system doing 

8 that ourselves. 

9 And we don’t know why. They people I’m 

10 talking for don’t know why that is. We are the 

11 United States of America; we’re supposed to be 

12 innovators. We’re supposed to have all the 

13 scientists at all the universities that have done 

14 all these wonderful things over the past century 

15 to develop technologies; and yet other countries 

16 are doing these kinds of highly, highly 

17 progressive technologies and solving their 

18 problems -– solving our problems, but we’re not 

19 getting on board. 

20 So that’s what a lot of the people I’m 

21 talking to are thinking. That’s what they’re 

22 saying. 
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 

130

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Francis. 

2 Does the hearing committee have any 

3 comments for Mr. Francis? 

4 (No response.) 

5 Thank you. 

6 Mr. Parker? 

7 MR. PARKER: So I -– good morning. My 

8 name is Scott Parker, and I’m also a breathing 

9 citizen of the United States. I am the Executive 

10 Director of NORA, An Association of Responsible 

11 Recyclers. We are formally known as the National 

12 Oil Recyclers Association. 

13 Today NORA offers a general statement 

14 concerning the rule recently proposed by the U.S. 

15 EPA to promulgate regulations governing solid 

16 waste-derived fuels. NORA will submit much more 

17 detailed comments on or before the August 3rd, 

18 2010 deadline. TO provide you with some 

19 background on the oil recycling industry, NORA’s 

20 more than 240 members provide collection and 

21 recycling services in each of the 50 states and 

22 the District of Columbia. Our members collect 
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 

131

1 and recycle used oil, antifreeze, waste water, 

2 oil filters, absorbents, and parts cleaning 

3 chemicals, and comply with stringent regulatory 

4 safeguards for used oil recycling pursuant to 40 

5 CFR Part 279 and many other sets of environmental 

6 regulations, including the Clean Air Act. The 

7 basic components of Part 279 were adopted by EPA 

8 in 1985 and strengthened in 1992 pursuant to a 

9 clear Congressional mandate to encourage 

10 legitimate methods of used oil recycling. 

11 The legislative history of used oil 

12 regulation should not be ignored in the present 

13 rulemaking effort. In 1980, 1984, and 1986 

14 Congress directed EPA to develop regulations that 

15 protect human health and environment while 

16 encouraging legitimate used oil recycling. In 

17 other words, Congress recognized that if over18 regulation kills a recycling market, the adverse 

19 environmental consequences may be severe. 

20 A set of balanced regulatory controls 

21 emerged that, for all practical purposes, 

22 accomplished Congress’ goal. NORA members 
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 

132

1 collect and manage vast quantities of used oil as 

2 a valuable product in compliance with EPA’s 

3 regulations. If, instead of a balanced 

4 regulatory approach -– if used oil had been 

5 declared a hazardous waste, as had been seriously 

6 considered, far less used oil would be recycled 

7 and the system for handling used oil would be 

8 extremely expensive without any environmental 

9 protection benefits. The history of used oil 

10 regulation in the United States provides a 

11 valuable lesson and blueprint for policy makers 

12 who genuinely care about environmental 

13 protection. 

14 NORA’s basic perspective on the proposed 

15 rule is very straightforward. NORA agrees with 

16 EPA’s conclusion that on-specification used oil 

17 fuel does not constitute a solid waste because it 

18 is not abandoned and otherwise discarded. It 

19 constitutes a legitimate and traditional fuel. 

20 NORA contends that for precisely the same reasons 

21 off-specification used oil does not constitute a 

22 solid waste. The facts demonstrate that off-spec 
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 

133

1 used oil is a legitimate and traditional fuel. 

2 It should be emphasized that the distinction 

3 between on-spec and off-spec used oil fuel had 

4 nothing to do with its heating quality. Both 

5 categories of used oil fuel will generally have 

6 the same BTU content. It’s roughly 140,000 BTUs 

7 per gallon, the equivalent of virgin petroleum 

8 oil – if the water content is the same. 

9 The distinction between the two 

10 categories of used oil fuel is a somewhat 

11 arbitrary one, created by EPA in 1985. If any 

12 parameter of four metals exceeds a specified 

13 concentration, the used oil is classified as off14 specification. If total halogens are greater 

15 than 4,000 parts per million, the used oil is 

16 off-specification. 

17 Also, if the flashpoint of the used oil 

18 is lower than a hundred degrees Fahrenheit, the 

19 used oil is classified as off-specification. 

20 NORA’s collective experience in the nearly 25 

21 years since this rule was adopted by EPA is that 

22 the metals rarely exceed the specified 
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 

134

1 concentrations. We have some detailed 

2 information which are in our written comments on 

3 that. 

4 Rather, used oil is –- used oil fuel is 

5 off-spec because of total halogens or flashpoint. 

6 However, neither of those factors adversely 

7 affects the quality of this type of used oil as a 

8 fuel. The market for off-spec used oil under the 

9 current regulations is strong and reliable. 

10 There are, according to the EPA’s 

11 Material Characterization paper on used oil for 

12 this rule making, approximately 750 industrial 

13 fur4naces and boilers that burn off-spec used oil 

14 fuel. These are primarily cement kilns, boilers 

15 for utilities, furnaces at steel mills, and other 

16 major industrial burners. All these burners are 

17 stringently regulated by the Clean Air Act, and 

18 each utilizes and maintains expensive pollution 

19 control equipment. 

20 There is absolutely nothing in the 

21 preamble to any of the proposed rules that 

22 suggests that when burning used oil fuel, these 
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 

135

1 industrial burners or boilers emits halogens in 

2 quantities greater than would be the case if the 

3 off-spec used oil fuel were burned in facilities 

4 with Section 129 permits. This point needs to be 

5 carefully considered by EPA because there would 

6 be no justification of this proposed rule as it 

7 would apply to off-specification used oil fuel if 

8 no environmental benefits are to be achieved. 

9 It is also worth pointing out that 

10 Exhibit 6 of the Material Characterization paper 

11 shows that the principal benefit of combustion of 

12 used oil are associated with upstream production 

13 offsets, include substantial reduction of NOx, 

14 CO, and CO2 emissions. 

15 In terms of combustion-specific 

16 emissions, use of used oil results in notably 

17 lower NOx emissions, in particular, when compared 

18 to residual fuel oil. The term upstream –- this 

19 is in quotes -– upstream production offsets is a 

20 shorthand way of recognizing some of the benefits 

21 of used oil recycling. It means that when a 

22 quantity of fuel is produced from used oil that 
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 

136

1 is collected and recycled, the adverse 

2 environmental impacts would have been created by 

3 producing the same quantity of virgin fuel have 

4 been eliminated. Unfortunately, these benefits 

5 are threatened by the proposed rule that, perhaps 

6 unintentionally, could effectively destroy the 

7 market for off-spec used oil fuel. 

8 Currently, there is a steady and reliable 

9 market for off-spec used oil fuel. Off-spec used 

10 oil is collected and marketed in much the same 

11 way as on-spec used oil. The difference is in 

12 the number of end users -– approximately 750 

13 industrial furnaces and boilers –- versus a more 

14 limited number of Section 129 solid waste 

15 incinerators. Fewer outlets will result in 

16 dramatically increased transportation costs from 

17 the geographically diverse generator locations to 

18 these limited facilities. 

19 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Parker, I’m sorry to 

20 interrupt, but you’re one minute past the limit. 

21 Can you please wrap up? 

22 MR. PARKER: Absolutely. 
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 

137

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. 

2 MR. PARKER: The traditional fuels 

3 definition -– I’ll skip ahead to the alternative 

4 approach. 

5 The traditional fuels definition for the 

6 alternative approach is apparently changed from 

7 the traditional fuels we have identified earlier 

8 to specifically exclude on-spec used oil. And 

9 this could change or should have been addressed 

10 in the above statement. 

11 Again, it’s in my written comments here; 

12 but as we had some going back and forth regarding 

13 the alternative approach –- and it appears that 

14 they are going to be including on-spec oil as a 

15 solid waste. 

16 I want to thank you, and NORA appreciates 

17 the opportunity to present this statement, and 

18 we’ll have much more statements before the August 

19 3rd comment. 

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Parker. 

21 Does the hearing panel have any questions 

22 for Mr. Parker? 
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 

138

1 (No response.) 

2 Thank you both gentlemen, Mr. Francis and 

3 Mr. Parker, for giving your comments today. We 

4 appreciate that. 

5 We have one final speaker, I believe, 

6 right now; and that’s Jerry Brindle. Please come 

7 on up to the table. 

8 Thanks, Mr. Brindle. Feel free to start 

9 your comments whenever you’re ready. 

10 MR. BRINDLE: Thank you. 

11 My name is Jerry Brindle, and I’m a 

12 member of the United Steel Workers Local 925. I’m 

13 a PPRC Regional Special Projects Director, and I 

14 work at AbitibiBowater’s pulp and paper mill in 

15 Catawba, South Carolina. 

16 AbitibiBowater produces a wide range of 

17 newsprint, commercial printing papers, market 

18 pulp, and wood products. It is the eighth 

19 largest publicly traded pulp and paper 

20 manufacturer in the world. AbitibiBowater owns 

21 or operates 21 pulp and paper facilities and 24 

22 wood products facilities located in the United 
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 

139

1 States, Canada, and South Korea. 

2 The Catawba mill is one of the most 

3 efficient and environmentally friendly mills in 

4 the world. We produce coated paper and market 

5 pulp. In addition, the mill provides a livable 

6 wage for 850 employees. 

7 The continued cumulative impact of EPA 

8 regulations is enormous and is putting our 

9 industry and many others at a cost disadvantage 

10 compared to our worldwide competitors. 

11 The Boiler MACT as issued for my mill 

12 alone will require capital expenditures of at 

13 least $20 to $40 million and an annual operating 

14 cost will range from 4 million to in excess of $7 

15 million. 

16 The Boiler MACT rules needs to be fixed. 

17 The rule, as proposed, will actually discourage 

18 industry from using biomass over more traditional 

19 fossil fuels or natural gas. 

20 The database used to develop the rule 

21 contained some errors. If EPA used its 

22 discretion to set reasonable limits from good 
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 

140

1 data, EPA would continue to protect public health 

2 without driving industry out of business with 

3 unrealistic control requirements. 

4 It is critical that the EPA create more 

5 flexibility in the rule. We need this 

6 flexibility in order to choose more efficient 

7 alternatives. 

8 Biomass boilers should be given special 

9 consideration. Biomass boilers are carbon 

10 neutral and beneficial to the environment. My 

11 mill has two biomass boilers. EPA should 

12 encourage the continued operation of biomass 

13 boilers. By setting unreasonable limits on these 

14 biomass boilers, EPA will drive industry toward 

15 fossil fuel when EPA should be favoring biomass 

16 use. 

17 The top performer boilers were selected 

18 by individual parameters rather than considering 

19 the total performance of the boiler. 

20 During the worst economic crisis since 

21 the Great Depression, this rule will impose an 

22 unsustainable regulatory burden. 
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 

141

1 This rule is more expensive than it needs 

2 to be and will ultimately result in more mill 

3 closures and job losses. 

4 I appreciate the opportunity to comment, 

5 and thank you. 

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Brindle. I 

7 appreciate your comments. 

8 MR. BRINDLE: Thank you. 

9 MS. GENTILE: At this point I believe –- 

10 oh, I’m sorry. Are there any comments from the 

11 panel? 

12 (No response.) 

13 Thank you. You may step down. Thanks 

14 for your comments. 

15 At this point we have no additional 

16 speakers, so we’re going to go on a temporary 

17 recess. 

18 What that means is that the panel will be 

19 in the area, and if anybody signs up to speak, we 

20 can reconvene the panel; but at this time we’re 

21 going to go into recess. 

22 And the official lunch break begins at 
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 

142

1 12:30. It goes until 2:00 o’clock. Thank you. 

2 (Brief recess.) 

3 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon, folks. 

4 It’s a little bit after 12:00. 

5 We have one final speaker before our 

6 recess for lunch, and I’d like to call Paul Fiore 

7 to the table. 

8 MR. FIORE: Thank you. My name’s Paul 

9 Fiore. I’m the Director of Government and 

10 Business Relations for the Tire Industry 

11 Association, known at TIA. We’re an 

12 international association representing all 

13 segments of the tire industry, including those 

14 that manufacture retreaded tires, repair, 

15 recycle, sell, service, or use new or retreaded 

16 tires, and also those suppliers or individuals 

17 who furnish equipment, material, or services to 

18 the industry. Our recycler members collect over 

19 a hundred and thirty million tires annually. 

20 We’re testifying today to register our 

21 concerns with the rulemaking governing the use of 

22 tires as fuel in cement kilns and other 
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 

143

1 combustion units. I will more than likely echo 

2 many comments heard today, so I’m going to be 

3 brief –- specifically from RMA. 

4 We worry about the consequences of any 

5 changes in the classification of tires as fuel. 

6 We are simply unable to fathom the dawning 

7 prospect of millions of tires suddenly appearing 

8 on the landscape, both literally and 

9 figuratively. 

10 Our industry has forcefully dealt with 

11 one of the most significant environmental issues 

12 that our country ignored for many years as scrap 

13 tire piles are finally coming to an end in this 

14 industry. The existence of these piles created 

15 numerous health hazards as vast breeding grounds 

16 for disease-carrying insects and the aftermath of 

17 a tire fire is now labeled as a toxic superfund 

18 by this Agency. We will be disappointed if this 

19 were -– if this environmental success story were 

20 reversed by this ruling. 

21 Closer to home –- and this may be one of 

22 the more important points I’d like to make –- our 
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 

144

1 retail members have by and large come to 

2 understand the importance of recycling tires in 

3 the correct manner, and any change in the pattern 

4 of this cycle could set back retail behavior for 

5 years. 

6 Our processor members have certainly come 

7 to depend on the economies of scale that maintain 

8 the value of this commodity and regulate this 

9 market. As new industries form around the 

10 constant innovation that we see for recycled 

11 rubber, the market must remain stable to support 

12 this research and development. 

13 And lastly the point I want to make is 

14 that the states will be left with the burden of 

15 dealing with these growing tire piles with little 

16 resources to utilize. As we have heard from our 

17 state affiliates, that many state tire recycling 

18 funds have been raised by -– have been raided by 

19 state treasuries desperate for general funds. 

20 I just want to thank you for the 

21 opportunity to testify, and we’re looking forward 

22 to working with the stakeholders and the process, 
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 

145

1 and we will be submitting more detailed written 

2 comments. 

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Fiore. 

4 Any comments from the hearing panel? 

5 (No response.) 

6 Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

7 comments. 

8 MR. FIORE: Thank you. 

9 MS. GENTILE: With that we have no 

10 additional speakers right now; so I think it’s a 

11 good time to break for lunch. 

12 Our lunch break will be 12:30 until 2:00 

13 p.m. 

14 If we don’t see any of you after lunch, 

15 thanks so much for coming. We appreciate your 

16 comments. 

17 And the transcript for today’s hearing 

18 will be in the docket on the EPA website within 

19 about 10 days. 

20 Thank you. 

21 MR. WAYLAND: Business days. 

22 MS. GENTILE: Business days. 
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 

146

1 SPEAKER: All four dockets? 

2 MS. GENTILE: The question was will it be 

3 in all four dockets. 

4 MR. WAYLAND: I think there are only two 

5 dockets, right? There’s one for your rule and 

6 the three air rules; but yes, it will be in both 

7 places. 

8 MS. GENTILE: Yes. 

9 MR. WAYLAND: And it will also be on the 

10 EPA website where the actual rule –- 

11 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) website? 

12 MR. WAYLAND: Yes. 

13 MS. GENTILE: And to clarify, that was 10 

14 business days it will be available. 

15 Thank you. 

16 (Discussion off the record.) 

17 MS. GENTILE: I have one question for 

18 anybody who is still here. We’re looking for a 

19 Chris Hornback of NACWA. 

20 Chris Hornback not here? 

21 (No response.) 

22 Okay. Thank you. 
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 

147

1 (Brief recess.) 

2 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon, everybody. 

3 And thank you for attending today’s public 

4 hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

5 Proposed Rules for Industrial, Commercial, and 

6 Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 

7 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

8 Incinerators, and Identification of Non-Hazardous 

9 Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste. 

10 We appreciate you taking the time to 

11 address these proposals and would look forward to 

12 your comments. 

13 My name is Laura Gentile, and I’m the 

14 acting Branch Chief of the Communications Branch 

15 in the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

16 Response. I’ll be the chair for today’s hearing. 

17 With me on the panel are the following 

18 people: To my immediate left, Mark Thomas of the 

19 Program Implementation and Information Division 

20 of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 

21 Recovery -– pardon me. 

22 Robert Wayland from the Sector Policies 
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 

148

1 and Programs Division at the Office of Air 

2 Quality Planning and Standards; Susmita Dubey 

3 from EPA’s Office of General Counsel; and James 

4 Topsale from EPA Region 3. 

5 We are here today to listen to your 

6 comments on four proposed rules that EPA 

7 announced on April 30th of this year. These 

8 rules were published in the Federal Register on 

9 June the 4th. 

10 More details about the proposed 

11 amendments and rules and instructions for how to 

12 submit public comments are available in the 

13 registration area outside of this room. 

14 We also have prepared a list of topics on 

15 which we are specifically seeking comment. 

16 That’s also available in the registration area 

17 and may be helpful to you as you’re making 

18 comments today for later on submitting written 

19 comments. 

20 EPA will accept written comments on these 

21 proposed rules until August 3rd of 2010. 

22 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 
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 

149

1 the hearing is going to work as follows: I will 

2 call the scheduled speaker to the microphone two 

3 at a time. You will come up to the table to our 

4 far left –- the table right -- way over there 

5 when it’s time for you to speak. 

6 When you get to the table, please state 

7 your name, your affiliation, and the rule or 

8 rules your verbal comments are addressing. We 

9 may ask you to spell your name for the court 

10 reporter who is transcribing the comments for the 

11 official record. 

12 To be fair to everyone, please, we ask 

13 that you limit your testimony to six minutes or 

14 less. We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

15 green, yellow, and red lights directly in front 

16 of Robert Wayland. 

17 When you begin speaking, the green light 

18 will come on. The yellow light will signal that 

19 you have one minute left. We’re going to ask you 

20 to please stop speaking when the red light comes 

21 on indicating that you’ve come to six minutes. 

22 Please stay at the table until both 
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 

150

1 speakers have completed their testimony. 

2 We’re here today to take your comments on 

3 these proposed rules. However, from time to 

4 time, any of us on the hearing panel may ask 

5 questions to clarify your testimony. 

6 If you have brought a written copy of 

7 your comments, please give a copy to Brian 

8 Kneiser, our court reporter sitting at my right. 

9 All written copies of comments will be submitted 

10 to the docket. We will work hard to ensure that 

11 everybody has a chance to comment today. Today’s 

12 hearing is scheduled to close at 8:00 p.m., but 

13 we’ll stay later if we need to. 

14 We will take breaks for meals during the 

15 day. If you would like to testify but have not 

16 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 

17 registration table outside of this room. 

18 For those who have already registered to 

19 speak, we have tried to accommodate your specific 

20 request for time slots. We ask for your patience 

21 as we proceed through the list. We might need to 

22 make some adjustments as the day goes on. 
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 

151

1 Thank you again for coming, and we’d like 

2 to get started now. 

3 I’d like to call our first two speakers 

4 up to the table: Derek Swick and Chuck Bartley. 

5 Mr. Swick, as soon as you’re ready, feel 

6 free to start commenting. 

7 MR. SWICK: These comments will be on the 

8 solid waste rulemaking. 

9 Good afternoon. My name is Derek Swick 

10 with the American Petroleum Institute, API. API 

11 is a not-for-profit trade association 

12 representing all segments of the oil and gas 

13 industry. 

14 In terms of API’s waste advocacy, we have 

15 participated in all rulemakings and litigation 

16 involving the definition of solid waste since 

17 RCRA was first promulgated in 1980. 

18 We will be submitting detailed written 

19 comments on the solid waste proposal -– non20 hazardous solid waste proposal before the comment 

21 due date. We’re still reviewing the proposal, 

22 but today we’ll offer a few key comments. 
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 

152

1 A summary of API’s key points follows. 

2 Based on our review of the proposal, the 

3 principles underlying the proposed rule are 

4 generally consistent with the statutory 

5 definition of solid waste, and from our 

6 perspective, encourage a greater role of energy 

7 recovery from secondary materials in meeting 

8 energy needs, both today and in the future. 

9 Second, the proposed definition of 

10 secondary material differs from the understanding 

11 of that same term under Subtitle C. If codified, 

12 the definition in the proposal from our 

13 perspective would result in challenges in 

14 implementing RCRA. The proposed definition of 

15 secondary material needs to be reworked. 

16 And our third main point is that the 

17 proposal recognizes that traditional fuels are 

18 not solid wastes when burned in a combustion 

19 unit. Certainly, fuels are not discarded when 

20 combusted and are not solid wastes. This premise 

21 is promising. It’s in the proposal in the 

22 preamble, and we think that EPA can do a little 
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 

153

1 more in the final rule to bring that out further. 

2 API’s interest in this rulemaking 

3 follows: We’re interested in this proposal 

4 primarily for two reasons: Because -– and this 

5 is no surprise. There’s one definition of solid 

6 waste, concepts that EPA advances in the proposal 

7 logically should, in the long run, influence 

8 further development of the Subtitle C definition 

9 of solid waste. 

10 And all of API’s members either produce, 

11 collect, or process various hydrocarbon-bearing 

12 second materials that are non-hazardous and that 

13 are highly suitable for legitimate use as fuels 

14 or as ingredients in combustion units. 

15 Accordingly, our members will be affected by this 

16 proposal. 

17 Now, for the most part, Point one, the 

18 principles underlying the proposed rule are 

19 consistent with the statutory definition of solid 

20 waste. For RCRA to be a solid waste, the 

21 material must be discarded. And this is where 

22 the lawyer comments come in. API does not 
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 

154

1 believe that it is possible to apply a plain2 English meaning of discard to a situation where 

3 materials are neither disposed nor abandoned but 

4 retained and legitimately burned as fuel for 

5 energy recovery or used as an ingredient in a 

6 manufacturing process. With a few exceptions 

7 that we’ll highlight in our written comments, 

8 EPA’s proposed rule appears to conform with this 

9 principle, which is good. 

10 We believe that the proposed rule 

11 represents an improvement over the current 

12 Subtitle C definition of solid waste. The 

13 Subtitle C definition has historically reflected 

14 a bias against burning for energy recovery. That 

15 bias is far less evident in today’s proposal. 

16 In the proposal EPA acknowledges and 

17 moves beyond the historic association of 

18 combustion of secondary materials with disposal. 

19 This position seems like a common sense 

20 interpretation of the term solid waste, per RCRA. 

21 Moreover, the proposal is quite forward22 thinking by acknowledging both advances in 
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 

155

1 technology and the potentially much greater role 

2 of energy recovery from secondary materials in 

3 supplying future energy needs. 

4 Our second comment, the proposed 

5 definition of secondary material needs to be 

6 reworked. 

7 The proposed rule initially presumes that 

8 non-hazardous secondary materials that are 

9 combusted are solid wastes. The proposal then 

10 provides exclusions for materials or fuels used 

11 in a combustion unit and that also meet the 

12 legitimacy criteria. The term secondary material 

13 is thus very important to the scope of the 

14 rulemaking. The proposed rule would define 

15 secondary material as any material that is not 

16 the primary product of a manufacturing or 

17 commercial process and can include post-consumer 

18 material, off-spec commercial chemical products 

19 or manufacturing chemical intermediates, post20 industrial material, and scrap. 

21 We question why EPA is proposing a 

22 definition of secondary material that is 
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 

156

1 different than the common understanding from the 

2 usage of that term in the RCRA Subtitle C 

3 regulations. Now although the Subtitle C 

4 regulations do not spell out and define secondary 

5 materials or even employ the term, we note that 

6 EPA did explain in the preamble to the 1985 

7 revisions to the Subtitle C definition of solid 

8 waste that -– quote -– the rule itself refers to 

9 the following types of secondary materials: 

10 spent materials, sludges, by-products, scrap 

11 metal, and commercial chemical products, recycled 

12 in ways that differ from their normal use. 

13 In short, there are two different 

14 interpretations and definitions looking at this 

15 proposal and what’s in RCRA Subtitle C. We think 

16 that this can lead to unnecessary confusion in 

17 implementing RCRA; and we question why there are 

18 different definitions. 

19 At a minimum, the proposed definition 

20 could be amended to avoid inadvertently capturing 

21 materials EPA does not intend to capture. For 

22 example, the definition refers to a material that 
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 

157

1 is not the primary product of a process. This 

2 makes no allowance for the concept of co-products 

3 that is familiar to most RCRA practitioners. 

4 As another example, the definition refers 

5 without qualification to off-spec commercial 

6 chemical products or manufacturing chemical 

7 intermediates. Under Subtitle C only such 

8 products or intermediates burned in lieu of their 

9 normal manner of use are considered secondary 

10 materials. Under the proposal here, off-spec 

11 traditional fuels could be considered secondary 

12 materials, but that is not clearly consistent 

13 with EPA’s intent. 

14 And our final point is with regard to the 

15 fact that traditional fuels are not solid wastes 

16 when combusted, and we think that’s self-evident. 

17 Again, this principle is stated in the 

18 preamble of the proposal. Particularly because 

19 of the potentially confusing definition of 

20 secondary material that I just discussed, we 

21 would encourage EPA to include regulatory 

22 language in the final rule that clearly excludes 
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 

158

1 traditional fuels from the scope of the rule. 

2 We appreciate the opportunity to comment 

3 and will follow up with written comments before 

4 the due date. 

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Swick. 

6 I want to ask the hearing panel if 

7 anybody has any clarifying questions for you. 

8 (No response.) 

9 Thank you. 

10 Mr. Bartley, feel free to start whenever 

11 you’re ready. 

12 MR. BARTLEY: Okay. I’m Charles Bartley. 

13 I work -– I’m an hourly worker. I work for 

14 MeadWestvaco in Covington, Virginia, at the 

15 Covington plant, and I’m here to speak on Boiler 

16 MACT. 

17 My name is Charles Barley, and I’m a 

18 fourth generation paper worker at the Covington 

19 Paper Mill. My great grandfather started there 

20 in 1899. The four generations of my family -– 

21 immediate family have worked there for over a 

22 hundred and twenty-five years. Many uncles, 
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 

159

1 cousins, nephews, brothers, and brothers-in-law 

2 have worked there and are working there at 

3 present. 

4 I have bought cars, trucks, a home, and I 

5 paid for two kids to go to college. I have lived 

6 the American Dream. Sadly, for many Americans, 

7 in recent years, this dream is vanishing. 

8 I joined the Pulp and Paperworkers 

9 Resource Council over 10 years ago when I saw 

10 American jobs leaving at an alarming rate. We’re 

11 hourly workers from competing companies, working 

12 together as brothers to save our jobs. The 

13 economy, higher fiber and energy costs added to 

14 the need for a profit, combined with increasing 

15 regulatory costs, can be the nail in the coffin. 

16 Creating new jobs is a must, but don’t get rid of 

17 the remaining jobs we have left. 

18 Our company is a leader in sustainability 

19 and has been for generations. We support efforts 

20 to protect the environment and have voluntarily 

21 worked to reduce emissions in our manufacturing 

22 operations. Together with other leaders in our 
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 

160

1 industry, paper and forest products manufacturers 

2 have reduced air pollution from our operations by 

3 more than 50 percent in the past 20 years. 

4 As you know, the industry is one of the 

5 most heavily regulated in the United States. It 

6 harms our ability to compete with manufacturers 

7 in countries that do not share our commitment to 

8 environmental performance. Despite this burden, 

9 new regulations, such as the Boiler MACT, 

10 continue to be proposed that would require 

11 additional investment with no substantial 

12 environmental benefit. 

13 Requiring this investment means 

14 additional job losses in our industry and in the 

15 important manufacturing sector of our economy. 

16 At a time when we should be promoting job and 

17 economic growth at home, we are handicapping U.S. 

18 industry with a new layer of regulations that are 

19 unproven to provide any health or environmental 

20 benefit. 

21 Two particular components of the Boiler 

22 MACT regulation are of particular concern. The 
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 

161

1 first is the lack of any health-based assessment. 

2 When the Clean Air Act was first developed, 

3 Congress established that lowering emissions 

4 further would only be necessary when there are 

5 clearly-defined health benefits. Without a 

6 health-based assessment, the regulation could 

7 require significant investments in actions that 

8 would not provide any corresponding benefit. 

9 The second is the need for a real-world 

10 assessment of individual emission reductions on 

11 the overall boiler systems. Greatly reducing one 

12 component of a total emission can be done, but it 

13 may cause other emission values to vary. Best 

14 performing boilers –- excuse me. 

15 Best performing boilers should be 

16 identified on their overall capacity and 

17 capability, not on an emission-by-emission basis. 

18 Otherwise, it would in result in the 

19 establishment of standards that cannot be 

20 achieved. 

21 Just in Virginia these regulations could 

22 impose an additional one billion in capital cost 
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 

162

1 for manufacturers, increasing operating costs, 

2 and actually decreasing energy efficiencies. 

3 These monies spent to comply with this regulation 

4 would not substantially improve our air quality 

5 but will cost us jobs and future growth 

6 investments. We cannot afford to limit our 

7 ability to compete in the global marketplace by 

8 layering additional costly regulations on our 

9 manufacturing. The EPA should develop reasonable 

10 approaches to emission reduction. They should 

11 strive to achieve measureable health and 

12 environmental benefits. They should consider the 

13 investment of time and resources that will be 

14 necessary for compliance. They should include a 

15 health-based compliance alternative and a 

16 realistic review of the best performing units 

17 that can meet all the regulated pollutants. They 

18 must consider the impact on jobs, economic 

19 growth, and the global competitiveness of 

20 American manufacturers. 

21 MeadWestvaco and our workers are 

22 committed to doing our part to protect and 
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 

163

1 enhance the environment. We support reasonable, 

2 balanced efforts to responsibly reduce emissions. 

3 We hope the EPA will join us in developing 

4 solutions that do not harm America’s 

5 manufacturers and manufacturing employees. 

6 Just in review, our industry has lost 

7 350,000 jobs since 2006. They lost a hundred 

8 thousand jobs in 2009 alone. 

9 You know, us, as Americans, we’ve got to 

10 keep manufacturing here in the United States and 

11 produce good products so we can pay taxes and 

12 raise our families. And I ask that the EPA use 

13 discretion in their regulations and help keep our 

14 jobs in America. 

15 That’s all. 

16 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bartley. 

17 Any clarifying questions or comments from 

18 the panel? 

19 MR. WAYLAND: Let me ask Mr. Bartley –- 

20 you mentioned the health-based compliance 

21 alternatives. Will your company be submitting 

22 any additional data in your written comments to 
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 

164

1 support the inclusion of such a provision? 

2 MR. BARTLEY: I’m not even sure what –- I 

3 was asked by the Pulp and Paper Resource Council. 

4 I’m sure they will. 

5 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. 

6 MR. BARTLEY: I’m sure they will, but I 

7 haven’t talked to anybody that’s verified that. 

8 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you. 

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you both, Mr. Swick 

10 and Mr. Bartley. We appreciate your comments 

11 very much. 

12 Our next two speakers, David Wise and 

13 Steve Peace. 

14 Mr. Wise, feel free to start your 

15 comments whenever you’re ready. 

16 MR. WISE: My name is David Wise. I’m –- 

17 work for Smurfit-Stone Container, and I’m also a 

18 member of the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource 

19 Council. 

20 My name is David Wise. I’m a General 

21 Mechanic for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, 

22 a Kraft liner mill in Florence, South Carolina. 
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 

165

1 I am a member of the United Steel Workers’ Local 

2 1877. I am also the Southeast Region Director 

3 for the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council. 

4 The PPRC is a grassroots labor coalition 

5 concerned with fiber supply, the Endangered 

6 Species Act, and the environment in an effort to 

7 protect and preserve American Forest Products 

8 jobs. 

9 My mill is located in rural Florence 

10 County on approximately 2,000 acres and employs 

11 525 people and meets a yearly payroll of $46 

12 million. This facility also pays $1.6 million 

13 annually in property taxes and annually moves 3.9 

14 million tons of freight. 

15 Back in the late fifties and early 

16 eighties, the textile industry was a strong, 

17 thriving industry. Both my grandparents and most 

18 of my aunts and uncles worked in this industry. 

19 I also had family members that worked in the 

20 furniture industry in North Carolina. These were 

21 good-paying, tax-generating, stable American 

22 jobs. Both of these industries have become –- 
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 

166

1 have almost become extinct in the United States. 

2 The small towns, communities, local businesses, 

3 schools, and churches that they supported have 

4 withered away, as did the cities of the old west. 

5 It is our concern that if Boiler MACT 

6 continues in its present form, the American 

7 forest products industry and the communities it 

8 supports will ultimately meet the same fate. 

9 Our nation’s recent economic down turn 

10 has not been very kind to the forest products 

11 industry. In the past two years, our industry’s 

12 profits were approximately $1 billion. Over 40 

13 mills closed, and another 150 had to take idled 

14 down time. Tens of thousands of high-paying jobs 

15 have been lost, and the way of life as we knew it 

16 has drastically changed. The capacity of these 

17 mills has been shifted to emerging overseas’ 

18 markets such as China and Brazil, where companies 

19 can operate with little or no environmental or 

20 labor regulations. 

21 If these current standards are 

22 implemented, the cost to an already struggling 
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 

167

1 industry will be devastating. As I have 

2 previously stated, our industry’s profits were 

3 approximately $1 billion. And that is for our 

4 whole industry, not just Smurfit-Stone Container 

5 -– the whole industry was $1 billion. For the 

6 past two years that’s about what we made. 

7 To meet these new standards and be EPA 

8 compliant, our industry will have to spend 

9 approximately 6 to $7 billion, and this could be 

10 the final blow to the American forest products 

11 industry, forcing our companies to close their 

12 doors, move their operations overseas. When this 

13 happens, we will not only have lost a high14 paying, tax-generating jobs that help support our 

15 country, we will also be multiplying the very 

16 same emissions that we are trying to control in 

17 the first place, causing the American people to 

18 lose all the way around. 

19 The forest products industry would be 

20 glad to work with EPA to protect both public 

21 health and jobs by targeting environmental 

22 investments where they are needed. We hope that 
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 

168

1 the EPA will provide a more flexible approach in 

2 Boiler MACT rule and appropriately address the 

3 diversity of boilers, operations, sectors, and 

4 fuels it could meet -– it could meet its goals 

5 while preventing severe job losses and billions 

6 of dollars in unnecessary regulatory cost. 

7 The motto of the PPRC is to seek a 

8 balance. And what we’re after is we understand 

9 we have to have the environment for our industry 

10 to thrive. If we don’t have good trees and we 

11 don’t replant trees, then we won’t have a place 

12 to work. 

13 So, we need to seek a balance between 

14 these two things so that we can work and we can 

15 have our environment. 

16 And that’s all I have. 

17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Wise. 

18 Any comments or clarifying questions from 

19 the panel? 

20 (No response.) 

21 Mr. Peace, whenever you’re ready feel 

22 free to start your comments. 
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 

169

1 MR. PEACE: Good afternoon. My name is 

2 Steve Peace, and I’m from Blakely, Georgia. I’m 

3 a member of the IBEW and a Special Projects 

4 Director with the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource 

5 Council. I’ve worked at GP, Cedar Springs 

6 operations for 37 and a half years -– hourly 

7 worker -– Cedar Springs, Georgia. Cedar Springs 

8 produces containerboard, which is linerboard and 

9 medium. After it’s made, the containerboard is 

10 shipped elsewhere and the end product is 

11 corrugated containers and drums. 

12 The mill sits on 1,400 acres in Early 

13 County and employs approximately 550 people with 

14 green jobs. In 2009, ad valorem and sales taxes 

15 paid in Early County from this facility were 

16 almost $3 million. We sit in the corner of 

17 Georgia, bordering Florida and Alabama. Sixty18 nine percent of the workers are from Georgia; 28 

19 percent of the workers are from Alabama; and 9 

20 percent -– 3 percent are from Florida. The mill 

21 has a significant impact on all three states. 

22 The annual payroll is more than $50 million a 
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 

170

1 year. As you can see, these are good paying jobs 

2 and important to the small counties to survive in 

3 this area. 

4 In 2009 our Number 3 paper machine was 

5 shut down due to economic downturn. As a result 

6 of this shutdown, some 110 people were out of 

7 work for about a year. But it’s not just the 

8 mills that are affected; there is a ripple effect 

9 on the jobs in the community as well. There are 

10 4 to 10 jobs related to every one job at the 

11 mill. As a result, many other families were 

12 affected during the machine’s downtime as well. 

13 Thankfully, this machine is back up and running 

14 in 2010, and most of the workers are back on the 

15 job. These jobs are so important to rural areas 

16 where median wages so very low even with mill 

17 workers’ salaries figured in. 

18 Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs operation 

19 has spent more than a hundred million dollars in 

20 capital projects in the last five years. We have 

21 already spent over $40 million on Boiler MACT. 

22 This was before the thing was vacated earlier, 
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 

171

1 before the testing was done and updating and the 

2 boiler numbers were figured. To comply with the 

3 new figures that we’re seeing, we will spend 

4 upward of another $7 million. 

5 I’ve painted you the picture of where I 

6 work and what we face, but there is a much larger 

7 picture. The paper and forest industry employs 

8 nearly 900,000 workers. The forest products 

9 industry has lost more than 350,000 jobs since 

10 the beginning of the downturn in 2006 –- a 

11 hundred thousand of these jobs last year alone. 

12 Approximately 75 mills have been closed in the 

13 last five years. These mill closures were not due 

14 to Boiler MACT but the economy and foreign 

15 competition. China and Latin America are the 

16 major players and are not held to the same 

17 rigorous environmental standards as American 

18 companies face. We need a level playing field. 

19 The entire paper industry made only one billion 

20 dollars in the last two years, as you previously 

21 heard. The cost of Boiler MACT in the State of 

22 Georgia alone is going to be somewhere around 
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 

172

1 $520 million, and across the industry in the next 

2 two to four years could be 6 to $7 billion. 

3 The proposed Boiler MACT rule could 

4 damage the manufacturing sector’s ability to 

5 recover during these hard economic times and is 

6 far more restrictive than needed to protect the 

7 environment. 

8 Trees are the most powerful concentrators 

9 of carbon on earth. The paper industry does more 

10 to restore –- to store carbon than any other 

11 industry. Carbon is stored within the product -– 

12 paper, boards, wood, furniture. More trees are 

13 planted to help manage the forest, and the new 

14 trees help absorb more carbon. Forests and 

15 forest products absorb and store enough carbon 

16 dioxide to equal 10 percent of the annual carbon 

17 emissions in the United States in a year. On 

18 average, paper and wood product mills generate 65 

19 percent of their own industry needs with 

20 renewable biomass. Our increase -– the increased 

21 use of renewable energy has allowed the industry 

22 to reduce its use of carbon-intensive fossil 
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 

173

1 fuels and purchased energy per ton of product by 

2 19 percent since 2000. The industry has 

3 continually increased efforts to recover 

4 recyclable paper which saves space in landfills, 

5 reduces methane emissions, and minimizes waste. 

6 The forest product industry is the leading 

7 producer of carbon-neutral renewable biomass 

8 energy and produces more energy from biomass than 

9 all the energy produced from solar, wind, and 

10 geothermal sources combined. 

11 This is who we are, but most importantly, 

12 we’re American workers trying to survive. 

13 We hunt, fish, hike, and love the 

14 environment just y’all do. We all want clean 

15 air. We also believe in balance between 

16 protecting the environment and preserving 

17 American jobs. We believe this balance can be 

18 reached. We question how American industry and 

19 green jobs can continue with the high cost of 

20 environmental regulations. We ask that EPA 

21 examine the new limit and the long-term effect 

22 they will have on America’s green jobs. 
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 

174

1 I thank you for your time, your 

2 assistance in helping save my job, community, and 

3 keeping green jobs in America by examining and 

4 raising limits on Boiler MACT. Thank you very 

5 much. 

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Peace. 

7 Any questions from the panel for Mr. 

8 Peace? 

9 (No response.) 

10 Mr. Wise and Mr. Peace, thank you for 

11 your time and for your comments. Thank you very 

12 much. 

13 Our next two speakers are Jim Pew and 

14 Louis Hengen. Please come to the table. 

15 Mr. Pew, whenever you’re ready, feel free 

16 to start providing your comments. 

17 MR. PEW: Thank you. I’m going to 

18 comment briefly on the major source boiler rule 

19 and then on the proposed definition of solid 

20 waste. 

21 Let me start with the major source boiler 

22 rule. 
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 

175

1 MS. GENTILE: Could you move the 

2 microphone a little bit closer to you. It’s hard 

3 to hear. Thank you. 

4 MR. PEW: Can you hear me now? 

5 MS. GENTILE: Yes. 

6 MR. PEW: Okay. Let me start with the 

7 major source boiler rule. 

8 We want to thank and congratulate EPA for 

9 doing a good job on this proposal. This rule is 

10 going to take an important step to cleaning up 

11 the toxic emissions from refineries and chemical 

12 plants that is making our air unsafe and 

13 unpleasant to breathe. And this is a long time 

14 in coming. These rules are 10 years overdue. No 

15 previous administration, no previous 

16 administrator would take this step. This one 

17 did, and we appreciate it very much. 

18 Especially important to us is EPA’s 

19 decision to eliminate the outrageous malfunction 

20 exemption that has caused so much distress in so 

21 many communities around the community. 

22 Let me go into some detail on this. At 
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 

176

1 refineries and chemical plants it is well 

2 established from state emissions data that there 

3 have been decades of routine violations of 

4 emission standards during so-called malfunction 

5 events. 

6 When these events happen, the neighboring 

7 communities are blanketed in toxic emissions. 

8 People are made sick immediately. They lose work 

9 days. They have to visit doctors and seek 

10 medical care that many can’t afford. Their 

11 children miss school. And because the emissions 

12 are so toxic it also increases their chances of 

13 catastrophic health effects like cancer and birth 

14 defects. 

15 Now, this exemption has been ruled 

16 unlawful by a Federal Court of Appeals. We hope 

17 that EPA will be taking it out of other rules but 

18 taking it out of this rule which governs 

19 thousands of major sources of hazardous air 

20 pollutants, including many of the worst abusers 

21 of the exemption, will go a long way by making 

22 them run their sources cleanly or be held 
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 

177

1 accountable; and we think this is very important. 

2 Now, we know that industry lobbies are 

3 lining up against this rule. They want 

4 exemptions. They want delay, and they want the 

5 rules weakened. So let me just focus on 

6 something that EPA itself concluded. The major 

7 source boiler rule will save 4,800 lives every 

8 year -– 4,800 lives that would be lost 

9 prematurely if this rule were weakened or as 

10 industry seeks, there were a health-based 

11 exemption thrown in. And that’s just the tip of 

12 the iceberg because when EPA counted the number 

13 of lives that would be saved, it only looked at 

14 the emission reductions of fine particulate 

15 matter. 

16 It didn’t look at the 7 tons of mercury 

17 that would be reduced or the literally thousands 

18 of tons of lead and arsenic and chromium that we 

19 reduced, or the dioxins, or the formaldehyde, or 

20 the benzene. Yet all of these things have very 

21 serious health effects. These metals can cause 

22 cancer. So can benzene and formaldehyde and 
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 

178

1 dioxins. Mercury can cause birth defects and 

2 developmental damage in children. So, if the 

3 real health effects were taken into account, we’d 

4 be looking at a lot more than 5,000 lives saved. 

5 We don’t know how many it is because EPA doesn’t 

6 quantify or monetize it. 

7 But let me get back to the monetization 

8 also because those 4,800 lives are worth billions 

9 more than the cost to industry will be. In fact, 

10 by EPA’s calculations even with just 4,800 lives 

11 the ratio is about 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 in terms of 

12 benefits to costs. It would be far more 

13 overwhelming if the full benefits were 

14 calculated. 

15 So, if we have one thing to say on this 

16 issue, it is to Administrator Jackson. Thank you 

17 for the good work, but this is nothing more than 

18 the law requires. We’re glad you’re doing it. 

19 Hold the line. Do not cave in to industry 

20 pressure and get this rule out at least as strong 

21 as it is, stronger in some cases, and without 

22 delay. 
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 

179

1 Now let me switch to the definition of 

2 solid waste issue. This is a completely 

3 different set of comments, unfortunately, because 

4 this rule is dangerous and irresponsible. 

5 Let me just say that the rule defines as 

6 fuel things like spent plastics, used solvents, 

7 waste chemicals, used oil, industrial sludges. 

8 And it allows these wastes -– and EPA refers to 

9 them as secondary materials. These are wastes by 

10 anybody’s -– any real person’s standards – allows 

11 these wastes to be burned in boilers and process 

12 heaters that are not subject to any meaningful 

13 pollution controls, or monitoring requirements, 

14 or reporting requirements. 

15 Now how could this possibly be? These 

16 are the area sources -– area sources that are not 

17 subject to any of these requirements. How many 

18 sources are we talking about and where are they? 

19 Well, we don’t know because EPA never asked. We 

20 know that there are 1,700 chemical plants that 

21 are area sources, though. Any one of these 

22 things could be burning their waste chemicals 
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 

180

1 right next to a community. They would not have 

2 to control the pollution. They wouldn’t have to 

3 monitor it, and they wouldn’t have to tell the 

4 neighbors what they were emitting. 

5 How many of them are there? This is 

6 where it really gets remarkable. EPA states in 

7 the area source boilers rule that it believes 

8 that not one of the more than 165,000 area source 

9 boilers is burning any secondary material, 

10 whether it’s a waste or not. What’s the basis 

11 for that belief? There is none. There is 

12 absolutely nothing in the record which even 

13 suggests that EPA asked what the area source 

14 boilers were burning or how much of it or how 

15 many. 

16 The one thing that EPA does know is that 

17 lots of the major source boilers are burning 

18 materials that are unquestionably secondary 

19 materials. So that it knows that there is a 

20 large proportion in the major source boilers 

21 rule, and it has no basis to assume that the 

22 proportion in the minor source –- in the area 
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 

181

1 source boilers rule isn’t just as large or 

2 larger. 

3 Well, let’s just assume that only 10 

4 percent of the 165,000 area source boilers are 

5 burning secondary materials. That means that 

6 with this proposal EPA just exempted 16,000 

7 facilities from any significant control, 

8 monitoring, or reporting requirements. That’s 

9 16,000 communities who will be subject to a waste 

10 incinerator right next to them emitting toxics 

11 without controls that they can’t find out about 

12 or do anything about. Is that really the result 

13 that EPA wants? 

14 Now, the rationale in this proposed rule 

15 for this exemption is a legal argument. EPA 

16 claims not that it is a good thing to have all of 

17 these unregulated incinerators operating in 

18 people’s back yards. It claims that it’s forced 

19 to this result by the law. 

20 That argument is wrong. In fact, this 

21 exemption is not just not required, it violates 

22 the law. At a minimum –- and this is what I 
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 

182

1 think what’s really important for Administrator 

2 Jackson to take home with this. This is well 

3 with Administrator Jackson’s authority. She can 

4 define used oil, waste plastics, spent chemicals 

5 as waste. Hiding behind a legal argument to do 

6 otherwise is a very dangerous precedent. 

7 We urge her to recognize that this is a 

8 stark choice; it is in her court, and she can 

9 either choose to let these facilities continue to 

10 poison the communities next to them or control 

11 them. 

12 Thank you very much. 

13 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Pew. 

14 I’m going to ask the hearing panel if 

15 they have any comments or clarifying questions 

16 for you. 

17 MR. WAYLAND: Just one question. I’m 

18 presuming your written comments that will come in 

19 later –- you’ll specifically identify these 

20 secondary materials. I tried to write as many of 

21 them as you listed, but you’re going to give us 

22 the list of those which –- like the off-spec oil 
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 

183

1 and the spent –- that kind of stuff that’s -— 

2 MR. PEW: I could give it to you, but 

3 it’s in the proposal and in the advanced notice 

4 of proposed rulemaking. I simply mentioned a few 

5 of the ones that EPA, itself, has listed. 

6 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. You’re talking about 

7 the list that’s already -– okay. That’s all I 

8 needed. Thank you. 

9 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Pew. 

10 Mr. Hengen, whenever you’re ready. 

11 MR. HENGEN: Hi, good afternoon. My name 

12 is Louis Hengen, and I’m here today representing 

13 SFK Pulp. I’ll take a little bit of a different 

14 approach than my colleague to my left. 

15 SFK Pulp is the largest recycled market 

16 pulp company in the world. We want to thank you 

17 for the opportunity to briefly highlight our 

18 initial reactions to EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT 

19 rules published on June 4th. 

20 SFK Pulp is a Canadian based market pulp 

21 manufacturing company headquartered in Montreal, 

22 Canada. With three mills in North America we 
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 

184

1 employ approximately 500 people. Our Quebec mill 

2 produces northern bleached softwood kraft market 

3 pulp while our –- both our U.S. mills produce 

4 recycled bleached kraft market pulp. They’re 

5 located in Fairmont, West Virginia, and 

6 Menominee, Michigan. These mills represent two 

7 of only three air-dried RBK market pulp mills in 

8 operation today. 

9 With relatively new installations and 

10 modern technology, the Fairmont and Menominee 

11 mills commenced operations in the mid nineties 

12 and have built a reputation as a market-leading 

13 source for high-quality RBK. 

14 As the national economy continues to 

15 recover from the recession and the unemployment 

16 rate hovers at near 10 percent, the Clean Air Act 

17 rules recently announced by the EPA will be 

18 economically unsustainable for the pulp and 

19 manufacturing community and the high-paying jobs 

20 it provides unless greater flexibility is allowed 

21 in meeting targets. 

22 Due to the methodology EPA is using under 
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 

185

1 the reissuance of Boiler MACT rule, the emission 

2 limits are expected to be exceedingly stringent, 

3 approaching levels that can barely be detected. 

4 Even boilers using clean fuels like 

5 biomass, such as ours in Michigan and West 

6 Virginia, which I’ll discuss in further detail 

7 later, will be subject to ultra low emission 

8 levels that will be unreasonably burdensome to 

9 meet if they can be met at all. 

10 Achievement of the limits established in 

11 this rule would require installation of up to 

12 four different air pollution control devices that 

13 will conflict with other existing control 

14 requirements and will impose tens of millions of 

15 dollars in unnecessary capital costs at thousands 

16 of facilities around the country. 

17 The standards for new boilers are so 

18 stringent that boiler manufacturers cannot 

19 guaranty compliance, which will assuredly stifle 

20 investment in new systems that feed economic 

21 growth. 

22 The total capital costs for the forest 
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 

186

1 products industry alone are estimated around 7 

2 billion for the next two to four years, which I 

3 heard mentioned earlier. And the cost for all 

4 manufacturing could be 20 to 50 billion. Those 

5 are huge numbers. 

6 In Michigan and West Virginia, the states 

7 where SFK has operations, the boiler MACT costs 

8 for the forest products industry are expected to 

9 be approximately 270 million and 20 million, 

10 respectively. Those numbers are staggering by 

11 themselves, but take into account that the entire 

12 forest products industry only made one billion 

13 dollars in each of the last two years. 

14 This will result in severe hardship and 

15 tens of thousands of job losses in the forest 

16 products sector alone. Given the cost of other 

17 likely environmental programs, the compounded 

18 effects will result in hundreds of thousands of 

19 job losses in a sector that lost 350,000 jobs 

20 since 2006. 

21 If this rule remains in its current form, 

22 SKF’s plans to invest $300 million in two 
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 

187

1 industrial scale projects converting both its 

2 U.S. mill operations to renewable biomass cogen 

3 facilities will be lost. The new facilities 

4 would include bubbling fluidized bed boiler 

5 system and condensing extraction turbine 

6 generators designed to produce approximately 31 

7 megawatts of renewable electricity for the region 

8 and also supplying the facilities’ thermal 

9 requirements, replacing natural gas. 

10 The cogeneration facilities would be 

11 fueled 100 percent by woody biomass or a 

12 combination of wood and recycled pulp mill 

13 residue. Significant investments have been made 

14 in both states to secure proper engineering and 

15 design, environmental permitting, electrical 

16 interconnection, and fuel availability studies. 

17 The two projects would take approximately 

18 two and a half years to complete and include the 

19 hiring of 400 contract employees to help in 

20 construction, with an additional 60 employees 

21 hired for operation of the facility. 

22 The local logging and trucking industry 
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 

188

1 can expect to see an additional 200 jobs to carry 

2 the increased load. We want to continue with 

3 this project. 

4 The solid waste definitions EPA has set 

5 has the potential to restrict which types of 

6 biomass may be burned for their carbon-neutral 

7 energy value which may be pushed into the waste 

8 stream and consequently within the confines of 

9 CISWI standards. This concept defies logic and 

10 simply cannot happen due to the standardized 

11 components of processing. 

12 In the non-hazardous secondary materials 

13 rule EPA should define these secondary biomass 

14 materials like resonated trim, pulp paper, waste 

15 water residuals, and promote their use which 

16 displaces fossil fuels and is consistent with the 

17 President’s call for greater renewable fuels. 

18 For example, recycled process residuals 

19 must be considered a fuel because they are 

20 critical to the feed stocks for pulp and paper 

21 mills. They have inherent heat value. They are 

22 intentionally recovered from the manufacturing 
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 

189

1 process and are processed before being burned. 

2 As defined, RPRs are materials that are 

3 removed during the repulping of recovered fiber 

4 to generate fibers which can be used to make new 

5 pulp, paper, and paperboard products. The 

6 recovered fibers are obtained through various 

7 commercial and residential recycling programs and 

8 are never discarded, given their value. 

9 EPA has long determined that recycled 

10 paper is not a solid waste. They are secondary 

11 materials generated on site as part of the 

12 manufacturing process. The preparation process 

13 for recovered fibers, removing non-paper 

14 components such as inks, which is what we do in 

15 our processes, is equivalent to the way trees are 

16 processed to remove non-papermaking components 

17 such as bark and ligament. Both processes are 

18 used to provide consistent fibers to make 

19 products from common feedstock. 

20 It must be understood that RPRs are 

21 secondary materials from recovered fiber 

22 repulping process. They are processed to enhance 
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 

190

1 heating value. They do not materially contribute 

2 to excess air pollutants. They serve a 

3 fundamental part of the fuel mix used by pulp and 

4 paper mills. Therefore, RPR should never be 

5 considered a solid waste and burned for energy 

6 recovery. 

7 EPA’s assumption that non-hazardous 

8 secondary materials that are used as fuels and 

9 are managed outside the control of the generator 

10 are solid wastes unless they are processed –- 

11 unless they are processed into non-waste fuel 

12 products is patently inaccurate. 

13 This narrow view of recycling is not 

14 based on any record showing that non-hazardous 

15 materials that are transferred to other entities 

16 are discarded. Case law does not support the 

17 sweeping assumption that any material that leaves 

18 the control of the generator is per se solid 

19 waste. 

20 The record compiled by EPA for this 

21 rulemaking demonstrates that biomass residuals 

22 are legitimately recycled by being burned for 
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 

191

1 energy recovery. The record does not demonstrate 

2 any discard occurring from this practice or any 

3 adverse impacts to human health or the 

4 environment. 

5 These materials never enter the waste 

6 stream and never become part of the waste 

7 disposal problem. Accordingly, it would exceed 

8 EPA’s authority to promulgate regulations that 

9 would bring these materials under regulation 

10 under the solid waste and RCRA. 

11 I see my time is up, and I’ll finish this 

12 with two sentences if I might. 

13 During the worst economic crisis since 

14 the Great Depression this rulemaking is heading 

15 toward imposing unsanable (phonetic) regulatory 

16 burden. I hope you can appreciate our concerns 

17 and act accordingly when crafting the final 

18 rules. 

19 I want to thank you for the opportunity. 

20 I know you’ve been here all day, and I hope that 

21 you will express SKF’s concerns in the final 

22 rule. Thank you. 
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 

192

1 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 

2 Mr. Hengen. 

3 I’m going to ask the panel members if 

4 they have any clarifying questions or comments 

5 for you. 

6 (No response.) 

7 Okay. Thank you so much for your 

8 comments. We appreciate that. 

9 At this time –- it’s about 2:51, at 10 to 

10 3:00. Our next speaker is not scheduled until 

11 3:05, so we’re going to go into a temporary 

12 recess for this hearing until that time. 

13 We’re going to reconvene at 3:05 right 

14 back here. 

15 Thank you. 

16 (Brief recess.) 

17 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon. We’re 

18 going to reconvene the hearing at this time. 

19 Before I bring up our next two speakers, 

20 I want to remind everybody of a couple things. 

21 If you have written comments that you 

22 have brought with you, please give them to the 
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 

193

1 court reporter at my right so we can put them in 

2 the docket. And please limit your comments to 

3 six minutes. 

4 And to make it easier for you to keep 

5 track of your time, we have a timekeeper over 

6 here. It’s a little box. When you’re speaking 

7 at the desk over there at the table on my far 

8 left, you can see the light go from green to 

9 yellow to red. Red obviously means you’ve 

10 reached your limit. 

11 So, with that I want to pull up our next 

12 two speakers, Vernice Miller-Travis and Robert 

13 Bessette. Come on down. 

14 Ms. Miller-Travis, feel free to begin 

15 your comments whenever you’re ready. 

16 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Thank you so much. 

17 As you said, my name is Vernice Miller18 Travis. I am the Vice Chair of the Maryland 

19 State Commission on Environmental Justice and 

20 Sustainable Communities, and as of today a newly 

21 re-appointed member of the EPA’s National 

22 Environmental Justice Advisory Council. 
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 

194

1 And my comments will focus on sort of 

2 across the rules but in particular on the 

3 industrial solid waste incineration units and the 

4 definition of non-hazardous solid waste and the 

5 environmental justice implications of those. 

6 So, how is EPA evaluating the 

7 environmental justice impacts of these rules? In 

8 the documents that were provided for the webinar 

9 that the Agency conducted last Wednesday -- the 

10 rather excellent webinar I might add -– in those 

11 documents it described the demographic evaluation 

12 of population distribution around the sources 

13 impacted by the Boiler MACT CISWI rule and the 

14 definition of non-solid hazardous waste. 

15 EPA’s demographic analysis of the 

16 industrial boilers rule clearly shows that 33 

17 percent of the population around these existing 

18 facilities are people of color, and 29 percent of 

19 the population around the CISWI incinerators are 

20 people of color. Both analyses demonstrate that 

21 areas in closest proximity to these two 

22 categories of facilities exceed the percentage of 
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 

195

1 people of color in the nation’s population at 

2 large, which is 25 percent. 

3 I want to note that while the demographic 

4 analysis represents a significant step forward by 

5 EPA in determining the potential impacts of its 

6 rulemaking, it is nonetheless an insufficient 

7 analysis of adverse impact of the operations of 

8 these facilities on the nearby communities. 

9 The demographic analysis also shows that 

10 surrounding communities also have higher levels 

11 of people living at or below the national poverty 

12 levels. EPA’s determination of benefits of these 

13 rules to environmental justice communities 

14 outweighing impacts is spotty and needs to be 

15 expanded to include public health impacts that 

16 extend beyond the simple and mere demographic 

17 analysis. 

18 Looking at the definition of non-solid 

19 hazardous waste from major source boilers is 

20 still troubling to environmental justice 

21 communities. By defining industrial waste as a 

22 fuel, that will allow all but a few facilities to 
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 

196

1 burn spent chemicals, spent solvents, scrap 

2 plastics, industrial sludges, coal mining waste, 

3 and used motor oil, and other waste in boiler 

4 process heaters with no obligations to control or 

5 monitor their toxic pollution and no obligation 

6 to quantify or identify their toxic emissions to 

7 EPA or to the public at large. 

8 So whatever the adverse public health 

9 impacts of those exposures of burning those fuels 

10 in those sources in those facilities will be we 

11 won’t be able to measure that because we are not 

12 requiring that they identify how much of those 

13 sources they’re burning and that they’re not 

14 required to inform the public at large or EPA for 

15 that matter, what they’re burning. And, 

16 therefore, how do you quantify what those 

17 emissions are and how those emissions are 

18 adversely affecting those who live closest to the 

19 plants. 

20 This is a longstanding set of issues and 

21 concerns for environmental justice communities 

22 across the nation in all four categories of 
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 

197

1 facilities that these rules are speaking to and 

2 the definition of solid waste which we have been 

3 tracking for quite awhile now. 

4 And we are very concerned that the Agency 

5 is trying to move forward, and we sincerely 

6 applaud the efforts of the Agency to bring these 

7 rules to closure to enact these rules and to then 

8 have them be the law of the land; but we don’t 

9 want half measures. We want measures that really 

10 incorporate and address all of these adverse 

11 impacts that are now known to the Agency. The 

12 Agency is developing all kinds of tools to 

13 measure, but the measure has to be more than a 

14 demographic analysis. A demographic analysis is 

15 just one aspect of an environmental justice 

16 analysis. It is not the sum total. And most of 

17 the rulemakings -— at least the slides that were 

18 provided for the webinar last week -– talk about 

19 a demographic analysis. 

20 Data is given; a demographic table was 

21 provided on who would be impacted, who lives in 

22 closest proximity to these facilities; but that 
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 

198

1 was the sum total of the environmental justice 

2 analysis. There was no analysis about the 

3 potential emissions levels or the emissions that 

4 would be cut by the enactment of these rules. 

5 There was no quantifying of what the 

6 potential public health impact was of the rules. 

7 And so we say that you’re –- you’re 50 percent of 

8 the way there, but you still have 50 percent of 

9 the way to go to get a really complete picture of 

10 how the rules will or will not improve public 

11 health and improve the health conditions and the 

12 air quality conditions for those who live in 

13 closest proximity to these facilities. 

14 I want to offer again, as I have offered 

15 numerous times, particularly around the 

16 conversation around the definition of solid 

17 waste, that there are folks around the country –- 

18 and particularly through the National 

19 Environmental Justice Advisory Council -– experts 

20 of every level -– scientists, attorneys, 

21 physicians, public health specialists, people who 

22 live in these communities and run community-based 
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 

199

1 non-profit organizations, academic. There’s a 

2 wide range of people who through the National 

3 Environmental Justice Advisory Council and all 

4 the entities that participate in the NEJAC or 

5 have worked with the NEJAC to help the Agency 

6 come to a better and more comprehensive 

7 understanding of what these environmental justice 

8 issues are, how to measure them, how to gauge 

9 them, and how to factor them into the rulemaking 

10 process. 

11 Again, the Agency is 50 percent of the 

12 way there, but let me say this on the record: 

13 Fifty percent of the way there is a damn sight 

14 better than where we were some years before in 

15 doing these rulemakings and enacting these rules. 

16 And we excluded a lot of populations and a lot of 

17 populations have borne a fairly heavy public 

18 health burden from not being included in the 

19 rulemaking. 

20 So I want to lift the Agency up for 

21 opening the door and saying that we have to look 

22 at what the impacts are on all populations; but 
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 

200

1 you’re not there yet. And we don’t just want to 

2 castigate you for having an incomplete analysis; 

3 we want to offer that there are so many people 

4 who are willing to work with you to help pull 

5 this analysis together, including folks in the 

6 private sector who have been looking at this 

7 issue for a very, very long time. 

8 So I want to conclude my comments there 

9 and say thank you for the opportunity. There 

10 will be more comments provided on the written 

11 record, and we would like to have a direct 

12 conversation between the National Environmental 

13 Justice Advisory Council and those of you at the 

14 Agency who are working on these four rulemakings. 

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Miller16 Travis. 

17 I’d like to ask the panel members if they 

18 have any questions or comments clarifying your 

19 testimony. 

20 MR. WAYLAND: I have one question. 

21 In your written comments, the more 

22 detailed comments, will you be providing any 
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 

201

1 input to us on how we should factor in the 

2 economic impacts to environmental justice, the 

3 job losses, plant closures that would take away 

4 health insurance and things on how we should –- 

5 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Well –- 

6 MR. WAYLAND: -- account for that? 

7 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: I wasn’t planning to, 

8 but I can now that you’ve asked that question; 

9 but let me say this: It is a fairly strong 

10 misnomer to believe that or to assume that 

11 because a facility is –- 

12 MR. WAYLAND: True. 

13 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: -- operating in a 

14 particular demographic or geographic location 

15 that the people who live in closest proximity to 

16 that facility necessarily work in that facility 

17 or nave any economic benefits. That’s a widely 

18 held misunderstanding. And just because a 

19 facility is in a location doesn’t mean that the 

20 people who live closest to it work in that 

21 location and have some economic benefits. 

22 So –- but your question is nevertheless a 
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 

202

1 valid one, and I will try and address it in my 

2 written comments. 

3 MR. WAYLAND: Thank you. That’s something 

4 we’ve struggled with, so any help you could give 

5 us would be much appreciated. 

6 MS. MILLER-TRAVIS: Sure. 

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much. 

8 Mr. Bessette, feel free to start whenever 

9 you’re ready. 

10 MR. BESSETTE: My name is Bob Bessette. 

11 I’m President of the Council of Industrial Boiler 

12 Owners. We’re going to comment on the full suite 

13 of the four rules, the major source MACT, area 

14 source MACT, fuel waste -– fuel definition, and 

15 CISWI rules. 

16 CIBO is a national trade association of 

17 industrial boiler owners, architect-engineers, 

18 related equipment suppliers, and universities 

19 representing 20 major industrial sectors since 19 

20 -– we’ve been doing this since 1978. 

21 CIBO works to promote sustainable energy 

22 supply and improved environment. CIBO membership 
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 

203

1 represents industries as diverse as chemicals, 

2 paper, cogeneration, automotive, refining, 

3 brewing, combustion engineering, and food 

4 products. CIBO members also include more than a 

5 dozen universities and colleges -- the facility 

6 owners at universities and colleges. 

7 We have worked on these rules with EPA to 

8 develop scientifically sound environmentally 

9 beneficial and technologically and economically 

10 achievable rules since the formation of the 

11 Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking in 

12 1995. 

13 As you are aware, the U.S. is trying to 

14 recover from the great recession, and many, many 

15 people have lost their jobs in the sectors of the 

16 economy that will be directly impacted by these 

17 rules. There is no doubt that sustained 

18 employment increases must be based on private 

19 sector job creation. As proposed, EPA’s 

20 combination of four rulemakings is diametrically 

21 opposed to supporting U.S. industrial 

22 competitiveness and domestic job growth. Without 
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 

204

1 considerable change, it appears these rules will 

2 seriously undermine U.S. employment growth and 

3 economic recovery. 

4 The breadth and impact of these rules can 

5 be seen by the number of facilities listed in 

6 EPA’s Boiler/Process Heater MACT Survey database. 

7 Over 2,400 facilities across more than 50 NAICS 

8 Codes, including not only manufacturing 

9 facilities but also educational services –- 

10 colleges and universities -– hospitals, nursing 

11 and residential care facilities, and national 

12 security, military bases will be impacted. 

13 EPA indicates that the Boiler/Process 

14 Heater MACT Rule will cover 13,555 units at 1,608 

15 facilities nationwide. And the Area Source Rule 

16 will cover 183,000 units at 91,000 facilities 

17 nationwide. The CISWI Rule and the Solid Waste 

18 Definition Rule will directly impact many of 

19 these sources and many other facilities and 

20 combustion units. 

21 As proposed, the rules impose emission 

22 limits with no known means or assurance of 
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 

205

1 achieving them. This will result in incredible 

2 uncertainty in the regulated community and a 

3 reluctance to invest in the United States. 

4 We would like to remind EPA that MACT 

5 includes the word achievable. New source limits 

6 so low as to preclude installation of new sources 

7 are not in line with Congress’ intentions in 

8 drafting NESHAP provisions for the Clean Air Act. 

9 Facility owners must be able to obtain 

10 combustion equipment and emission controls to 

11 utilize the available and most economical fuels 

12 with vendor guaranties that emissions can 

13 actually meet the –- meet the limits during 

14 normal and expected operating conditions. The 

15 proposed existing, and especially new source 

16 emission, limits preclude that ability. CIBO 

17 challenges EPA to identify existing units that 

18 have demonstrated the ability to achieve all the 

19 proposed existing or new source emission limits 

20 simultaneously with the ability to be replicated 

21 any place in the United States. 

22 Imposing severe and unattainable emission 
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 

206

1 limitations on sources that use or may use 

2 locally available alternative fuels such as bio3 based fuels, landfill gas, and process off-gases, 

4 will decrease the use of alternative fuels and 

5 put greater demand on conventional fossil fuel 

6 use to the extent that continued operations are 

7 justified. These impacts are counter to the 

8 stated administration goals of improving national 

9 energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gases, 

10 increasing national security, and increasing 

11 employment. 

12 The work practice approach proposed by 

13 EPA for Gas 1 sources is appropriate and CIBO 

14 strongly supports its use; however, it should be 

15 expanded to encompass most, if not all, of the 

16 Gas 2 sources and distillate fuel oils. 

17 EPA has the Clean Air Act authority 

18 through the 112(d)(4) to formulate MACT rules 

19 using a health threshold approach that would 

20 provide flexibility for sources while also 

21 ensuring the protection of public health. There 

22 is precedent for using that approach, and CIBO 
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 

207

1 urges EPA to include that approach as a means to 

2 provide acid gas control in a cost-effective 

3 manner. 

4 The health and potential impacts of these 

5 proposed rules demand fair and thorough 

6 consideration of all underlying data and 

7 information. In addition to the proposed rules 

8 themselves, the sheer volume of support documents 

9 and the gigabytes of supporting data require time 

10 to review so that constructive comments can be 

11 filed in a timely manner. 

12 While we greatly appreciate the 

13 opportunity for a hearing and the comment 

14 extension for -– to 60 days, that overall time is 

15 grossly inadequate for filing comments in this 

16 particular case. We will be submitting a request 

17 for additional time tied to the final extension 

18 or to the extension of the final promulgation 

19 date so that EPA has adequate time to consider 

20 all comments and additional supporting data. 

21 Thank you for the opportunity. We look 

22 forward to working with EPA, as in the past, to 
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 

208

1 produce a final rule that is scientifically 

2 sound, environmentally beneficial, and achievable 

3 without adversely impacting the economic recovery 

4 of the country. 

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bessette. 

6 I’d like to ask the members of the panel 

7 if they have any questions for you. 

8 (No response.) 

9 Thank you very much, both of you –- Ms. 

10 Miller-Travis and Mr. Bessette –- for your 

11 comments. We appreciate your time. 

12 Our next speaker –- I’d like to call up 

13 Todd Ragula. 

14 Thanks, Todd. Feel free to start your 

15 comments whenever you’re ready. 

16 MR. RAGULA: Thank you. 

17 I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

18 today. I’m not going to be as technical as some 

19 of the speakers you had, but you’ve got to get 

20 your opportunity to get your comments out. 

21 My name is Todd Ragula. I’m the 

22 Environmental Health and Safety Manager from 
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 

209

1 American Woodmark. We’re a kitchen cabinet –-

2 kitchen and bathroom cabinet manufacturer with 11 

3 manufacturing facilities across the country. 

4 I wasn’t going to speak today, but as I 

5 sat here listening to the comments -— the broad 

6 range of comments that we’ve had today –- I felt 

7 it necessary to get across what some of my 

8 thoughts were. 

9 I’ve heard the reference to a breathing 

10 member of the community several times today; and 

11 I’m a member of that community as well as my 

12 family. And I want clean air as much as anybody 

13 else. However, we need to strike a balance. 

14 In my position I often hear the comment, 

15 are they trying to regulate business out of this 

16 country. And our business has been cut in half 

17 over the last couple years as we are tied 

18 directly to the housing market. And we’re also 

19 under increased pressure from the regulatory side 

20 from both OSHA and the EPA. And these new 

21 regulations do come at a price, despite what many 

22 of the speakers, I believe, felt here today. 
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 

210

1 Industry does not have unlimited resources and 

2 funding. 

3 Regulations such as this put a heavy 

4 burden on industry and will drive many 

5 manufacturers out of business and to other 

6 counties. 

7 I urge you to, you know, to strike a 

8 balance with these regulations and work towards a 

9 cleaner environment but help -– you know, help 

10 us, you know, stay in business and stay in the 

11 country. 

12 And I thank you for the opportunity. 

13 That’s all I have to say. 

14 MS. GENTILE: Thanks, Mr. Ragula. 

15 MR. RAGULA: Thank you. 

16 MS. GENTILE: I’d like to ask our panel 

17 members if they have any comments or questions 

18 they’d like to ask you. 

19 (No response.) 

20 Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. 

21 MS. RAGULA: Thank you. 

22 MS. GENTILE: At this time -– it’s 3:25, 
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 

211

1 and se have no scheduled speakers right now for 

2 the rest of the afternoon. We are scheduled to 

3 go until 5:00 o’clock. 

4 So we’re going to go into temporary 

5 recess, and we’re going to stay in the area, and 

6 if we have more people who sign up to speak, 

7 we’re going to go back in to reconvening the 

8 panel. 

9 If you have not spoken and you would like 

10 to speak, please work with the people at the 

11 registration table to sign up. Otherwise, we’re 

12 going to be on recess until 5:00. And for the 

13 rest of the afternoon the plan is we have 5:00 

14 until 6:30 is our scheduled dinner break. And 

15 6:30 to 8:00 is the late evening portion of the 

16 hearing. 

17 Anything more from you guys? 

18 (No response.) 

19 Okay. With that, we’re going to go into 

20 recess. Thank you. 

21 (Brief recess.) 

22 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon. We’re 
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 

212

1 going to reconvene the hearing at this time and 

2 bring up our next speaker, Kate Pollard. 

3 And, Kate, just to let you know, we’re 

4 asking everyone to keep their testimony to six 

5 minutes or less. 

6 And please come to the front table at my 

7 far left to deliver your comments. And if you 

8 have any written comments, please give them to 

9 the court reporter so we’ll put them in the 

10 official docket. 

11 MS. POLLARD: Thank you for the 

12 opportunity to speak on the proposed Boiler MACT 

13 Rule today. 

14 My name is Kate Pollard, and I am the 

15 Field Organizer with the Virginia Beyond Coal 

16 Campaign of the Sierra Club. 

17 The sierra Club is the largest and oldest 

18 grassroots environmental organization in the 

19 country. And in Virginia we work with thousands 

20 of members and volunteers in our communities to 

21 pursue policies that protect the environment and 

22 public health which is intrinsically linked to 
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 

213

1 the health of our ecosystems. 

2 In Virginia, we are glad that the EPA has 

3 proposed to take steps to reduce toxic air 

4 pollution from commercial boilers. We hope the 

5 Agency will go further and be stricter in its 

6 regulation of such facilities in the future, 

7 ensuring that there are no loopholes leaving our 

8 communities vulnerable to their dangerous 

9 pollutants. 

10 The new rules will substantially reduce 

11 emissions of hazardous air pollutants and the 

12 risk of serious health effects, including cancer, 

13 reproductive disorders, and birth defects in the 

14 communities across our state and the country. 

15 Boilers that burn coal and waste material 

16 are an antiquated, highly destructive way to 

17 produce energy. EPA action to crack down on 

18 toxic pollutants, including mercury, that come 

19 from small coal boilers –- especially those that 

20 many college campuses continue to use -– is well 

21 overdue. The new rules will require significant, 

22 welcome upgrades at many of the campus coal 
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 

214

1 plants across the nation, including both the 

2 University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. 

3 The new rules will protect students and 

4 residents who live near and downwind from those 

5 coal –- excuse me -– coal-burning boilers. 

6 Emissions of toxic air pollution such as mercury, 

7 arsenic, cadmium, and acid gases, would be 

8 significantly reduced. These pollutants are 

9 extremely dangerous, and EPA’s actions will help 

10 remove thousands of pounds of toxics from the 

11 air, including 15,000 pounds of mercury and tens 

12 of thousands of tons of acidic gases that cause 

13 breathing problems, particularly in vulnerable 

14 individuals like children and the elderly. About 

15 36,000 asthma attacks could be prevented each 

16 year and result in approximately $18 to $44 

17 billion in health savings annually, according to 

18 the EPA’s analysis. 

19 Mercury is an extremely dangerous 

20 neurotoxin that can impact a child’s ability to 

21 walk, talk, read, write, and learn. The mercury 

22 problem in the United States is so pervasive that 
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 

215

1 one in six women today have mercury levels in 

2 their blood high enough to put her baby at risk, 

3 according to the EPA. High mercury levels have 

4 also been linked to an increased risk of heart 

5 disease in men. 

6 We need drastic reductions in toxic 

7 pollution and greenhouse gas pollution, and these 

8 boilers are a major source of this pollution, 

9 even if not individually, then cumulatively. 

10 There are nearly 14,000 major source boilers 

11 alone around the country. Even the smaller types 

12 of boilers burning coal and waste present a grave 

13 threat to human health and the environment. 

14 Toxins like mercury and selenium are harmful even 

15 in small doses, and many of these facilities are 

16 located in very highly populated areas. 

17 Students at Virginia Tech have been 

18 working to transition from the current coal-fired 

19 steam plant on their campus to clean renewable 

20 energy by 2020. The student organization, 

21 Virginia Tech Beyond Coal, has grown in numbers 

22 and influence on campus through consistent public 
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 

216

1 education of the health and economic issues of 

2 burning coal for energy. The campaign is 

3 contacting the university administration to begin 

4 finding a solution for ending coal use on its 

5 campus. We expect that a similar campaign may be 

6 taken up at UVA to move their campus off coal and 

7 avoid jeopardizing the health of their students, 

8 faculty, and the larger community. 

9 Burning waste of any kind is a very bad 

10 practice, and the current proposal allows an 

11 enormous amount of waste burning to go 

12 unregulated because it exempts a huge amount of 

13 industrial waste. We believe that the EPA can do 

14 better, but we applaud this effort to help us 

15 move to a clean energy future. The EPA has the 

16 authority and the obligation to impose the 

17 strictest available standards on anyone burning 

18 industrial or other waste. 

19 Thank you so much. 

20 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments, 

21 Ms. Pollard. 

22 I want to ask the members of the hearing 
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 

217

1 panel if they have any questions or thoughts for 

2 you. 

3 (No response.) 

4 Okay. Thank you very much for your 

5 comments. Appreciate it. 

6 If you have written comments you’d like 

7 to give to the court reporter, he’s sitting right 

8 over here. 

9 MS. POLLARD: Thank you. 

10 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. 

11 At this time -– it’s 4:04. We have no 

12 speakers signed up to speak right now until after 

13 dinner, which is -– the break is 5:00 o’clock. 

14 So right now we’re going to take a recess 

15 until 5:00 o’clock. We’ll be in this area in 

16 case any speakers do arrive that want to speak. 

17 The rest of the evening goes as follows: 

18 We break at 5:00 o’clock for an official dinner 

19 break until 6:30, reconvene at 6:30 and end at 

20 8:00 p.m. 

21 Thank you. We’re officially on recess. 

22 (Brief recess.) 
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 

218

1 MS. GENTILE: It’s 5:00 p.m., and this 

2 hearing is officially going on dinner break. 

3 We’ll resume at 6:30 p.m. 

4 (Dinner recess.) 

5 MS. GENTILE: We are reconvening today’s 

6 public hearing at 6:30 p.m. We’re going to go 

7 into recess right now because our last speaker 

8 has not arrived yet. 

9 We’re going to come back once the speaker 

10 has arrived. 

11 Thank you. 

12 (Brief recess.) 

13 MS. GENTILE: Good evening. I want to 

14 thank you all -– sorry. Haven’t got the court 

15 reporter ready. 

16 Good evening, and thank you for attending 

17 this evening’s public hearing on the EPA’s 

18 proposed rules for industrial, commercial, and 

19 institutional boilers and process heaters, 

20 commercial and industrial solid waste 

21 incinerators, and the identification of non22 hazardous secondary materials that are solid 
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 

219

1 wastes. These rules were published in the 

2 Federal Register on June 4th, and EPA will accept 

3 comments on these proposed rules in writing until 

4 August 3rd of 2010. 

5 Before we ask our two commenters to come 

6 up to provide their comments, I want to remind 

7 you of a couple of things. We’d like to ask all 

8 commenters to limit their comments to six 

9 minutes. And we have a timekeeper at the front 

10 table that will let you know by the green, the 

11 yellow, and red light when your time is up. When 

12 the light turns yellow, you have one minute left. 

13 When the light turns red, you’re going to be 

14 asked to please stop speaking. 

15 Also, if you brought a copy of written 

16 materials or written comments you’d like to 

17 provide as part of the docket, please provide 

18 those written comments to the court reporter 

19 sitting at my right. 

20 With that, we’re going to start with our 

21 first two commenters of the evening. I’d like to 

22 call up Mark Mitchell and Emily Enderle to the 
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 

220

1 table at my far left. 

2 MR. MITCHELL: We’re speaking separately. 

3 MS. GENTILE: Yes, but we like to come -– 

4 yes, sorry I didn’t explain that part very well. 

5 And we’ll ask you to please speak one at 

6 a time and then both stay at the table until both 

7 people are done speaking. 

8 We’ll start with Mark Mitchell. Whenever 

9 you’re ready, please start your comments. 

10 MR. MITCHELL: Okay. I’m Dr. Mark 

11 Mitchell. I am President of the Connecticut 

12 Coalition for Environmental Justice, and I’m an 

13 environmental -– and a public health physician. 

14 I wanted to talk a little bit about 

15 Connecticut. In Connecticut we have the highest 

16 percentage of our trash burned of any state in 

17 the country. Over 81 percent of our trash is 

18 incinerated in trash energy incinerators. 

19 These incinerators are disproportionately 

20 located in low-income communities and in 

21 communities of color. The largest trash 

22 incinerator in Connecticut, which is the fifth 
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 

221

1 largest in the country is located in Hartford, 

2 Connecticut, which has a population that’s 78 

3 percent black and Latino. 

4 The second largest in Connecticut, which 

5 is the 11th largest in the country, is in 

6 Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is, again, a 

7 majority of black and Latino. 

8 We are very concerned about asthma in our 

9 communities, with cancer, diabetes, and 

10 endometriosis. In Hartford our asthma rate is 20 

11 percent, and then there’s another 10 percent of 

12 people who have symptoms which may or may not be 

13 asthma. 

14 I want to comment on all of the -– on all 

15 of the rules. And we’re very concerned about the 

16 trash –- we’re very happy that EPA is tightening 

17 the rules on trash incinerators and on sewage 

18 sludge incinerators. 

19 I forgot to mention that we also have the 

20 largest sewage sludge incinerator in the state in 

21 Hartford. And, in fact, we have 8 regional waste 

22 facilities –- our trash facility takes waste from 
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 

222

1 70 different surrounding suburban towns –- 

2 wealthy suburban towns -– to bring it to Hartford 

3 which is one of the poorest cities in the United 

4 States. 

5 And so we’re very concerned about the 

6 toxins from that, and we believe that it 

7 contributes to our high rates of asthma, cancer, 

8 diabetes, endometriosis, and other health 

9 effects. 

10 We –- so we think that’s it’s really 

11 important to have tighter rules. What we’re 

12 concerned about, though we think that the rules 

13 should be tighter, and particularly since some in 

14 trash and sewage sludge what’s burned is –- 

15 changes from minute to minute. So we believe 

16 that there should be much stricter, continuous 

17 emissions monitoring. 

18 Our trash incinerators are monitored once 

19 a year for dioxins and for metals and so on; but 

20 we believe that the newer technology allows much 

21 more -– allows for continuous emissions 

22 monitoring for not just particulates but also the 
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 

223

1 metals themselves. We believe that mercury, and 

2 lead, and arsenic, and chromium should be at 

3 least some of the metals that are monitored 

4 continuously because they vary so much from time 

5 to time. 

6 We’re also concerned about the explosions 

7 and fires. We have at least 10 major explosions 

8 and fires per year –- an average of 10 major 

9 explosions and fires a year at our trash 

10 incinerator in Hartford. It used to be that we 

11 had over a hundred fire calls a year. Most of 

12 them were false alarms, but there used to be 

13 dozens of fires at our trash incinerator. And 

14 none of those –- and the emissions that are 

15 emitted during those fires do not count toward 

16 the limits for air toxins and air pollution; and 

17 we believe that they should. We believe that 

18 these facilities should be responsible for their 

19 mishaps, for their upsets, for their fires and 

20 explosions. 

21 We –- I want to just switch to the 

22 institutional boilers and commercial and 
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 

224

1 institutional boilers. And we’re very concerned 

2 about that. We have looked at the boilers in 

3 cities throughout Connecticut, and the 

4 institutional boilers are the –- generally the 

5 largest polluters are the electrical power 

6 plants; then the second is the trash-to-energy 

7 facilities; and then the third are the 

8 institutional boilers. 

9 And I’m particularly concerned about some 

10 of the boilers like at schools. The boilers at 

11 schools tend to be high up on the rank of -– you 

12 know, they tend to be Number 4, or Number 5, or 

13 Number 6 in the highest polluting sources in the 

14 cities in Connecticut. 

15 We’re also concerned about the hospitals. 

16 The hospital boiler emissions have increased over 

17 the 2000s. From 1998 through the year 2008 the 

18 emissions from the hospital boilers has increased 

19 dramatically, and -- even though they’re required 

20 to meet back standards. And I believe that 

21 that’s because they’re switching from using 

22 natural gas to Number 6 fuel oil. There’s no -– 
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 

225

1 there is no penalty. The BACT standards for 

2 Number 6 fuel oil are obviously much higher and 

3 allow many times more emissions than the BACT 

4 standards for natural gas. 

5 We believe that there should be -– you 

6 know, and obviously if -– as a physician, your 

7 body doesn’t care what kind of fuel you’re using. 

8 Well, the issue is how much pollution there is 

9 and what the emissions are and how many toxins 

10 are in those pollution –- is in that pollution. 

11 So we’re very concerned about that, and 

12 we believe that there should be some kind of 

13 incentive to use the cleanest fuel possible for 

14 these facilities and to get them to use at least 

15 Number 2 fuel as their back-up fuel. 

16 And speaking of back-up fuel, there’s no 

17 definition of what back-up fuel is, so they can 

18 use back-up fuel for 90 percent of their 

19 operations and their primary fuel for 10 percent 

20 of their operations. And that’s a real problem 

21 that we believe needs to be corrected. 

22 We’re also concerned about biomass and 
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 

226

1 the definition of biomass. It only –- that if 

2 you’re going to use biomass, it would only be 

3 clean wood, not treated wood, not lead -– wood 

4 with lead in it and other types of contamination. 

5 We believe that there needs to be stronger 

6 regulation of these -– of what’s defined as 

7 biomass also. 

8 Thank you for your time. 

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

10 I’d like to ask the hearing panel if they 

11 have any questions they’d like to ask you before 

12 you step down. 

13 MR. WAYLAND: I had one clarifying 

14 question, Dr. Mitchell. 

15 When you were talking about the 

16 continuous emission monitors, you mentioned 

17 mercury, lead, arsenic, and I think there was 

18 either one or two others that I didn’t catch. I 

19 wasn’t writing fast enough. 

20 MR. MITCHELL: I’m saying chromium -– 

21 yes, I had to speak quickly, obviously. 

22 MR. WAYLAND: Okay. Thank you, sir. 
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 

227

1 MR. GENTILE: Thank you. 

2 Ms. Enderle, whenever you’re ready, you 

3 can start your comments. 

4 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you guys for having 

5 this opportunity for people to speak out. 

6 I live here in D.C. I work for the 

7 organization Earth Justice as our Environmental 

8 Health Advocate, and I live in D.C., as I 

9 mentioned. And as a resident of D.C., it’s 

10 always fairly disappointing to see on every rank 

11 card that D.C. scores an F in every air toxic 

12 category there is out there, which is why I’m 

13 really specifically concerned about rules that 

14 impact the air community. 

15 So, first off, I wanted to thank the EPA 

16 for coming up with a MACT rule for boilers and 

17 incinerators that’s really strong, and, I think, 

18 protective of communities throughout the country. 

19 I think when we’re thinking about air 

20 toxic rules it really is about protecting public 

21 health, especially in communities that have been 

22 over burdened across this country. And we’re 
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 

228

1 talking about a number of different issues here 

2 in terms of refineries, chemical manufacturers, 

3 and other industries across the country. 

4 I just spent the last week in Texas -– in 

5 Houston, Texas; Port Arthur; Texas, Bay City, 

6 Lake Jackson, and other areas. And these 

7 communities are disproportionately impacted, 

8 certainly, by a number of air pollution issues, 

9 including the malfunction piece. 

10 And in this particular rule it’s been 

11 really nice to see that that loophole has been 

12 closed. And, hopefully, this is going to be 

13 finalized; this will protect communities across 

14 the country from basically being poisoned by 

15 polluters. 

16 This isn’t about over-regulation or jobs. 

17 This really is about saving taxpayers and the 

18 U.S. Government millions –- actually billions of 

19 dollars a year in terms of missed school days, 

20 missed work days, emergency room visits, 

21 respiratory arrest. There are several –- I think 

22 it’s 4,800 unnecessary deaths are going to be 
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 

229

1 avoided by instituting or finalizing the MACT 

2 rule. And that’s certainly been something that 

3 we’re encouraged to see in the environmental and 

4 also the public health community. 

5 So, first off, I want to thank you for 

6 that and hope that you guy promulgate a rule that 

7 continues to suggest that it will be protective 

8 of communities throughout the country. 

9 The one piece that is of special concern 

10 in the Public Health Community and also the 

11 environmental community is the definition of 

12 solid waste. Essentially, for us, we find this a 

13 fairly irresponsible rule and actually illegal. 

14 And I know Jim Pew testified earlier 

15 today and talked a little bit more about why 

16 exactly that’s illegal, looking at RCRA and also 

17 the Clean Air Act. And so, for me, I really 

18 wanted to talk a little bit more about the 

19 stories of communities that I’ve been in in terms 

20 of there are all kinds of things that are thrown 

21 in boilers that are small, medium-sized, large, 

22 and essentially exempting facilities across this 
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 

230

1 country from having to install protective 

2 controls on those facilities, has continued to 

3 put those communities at risk. 

4 The technology is available off the shelf 

5 for all of those size boilers; and yes, it will 

6 cost a little bit of money to do it, but it 

7 essentially is going to -– hopefully, even in 

8 doing a cost-benefit analysis you look at our 

9 toxic rules and the CBAs actually show that there 

10 are tremendous values to having protective rules. 

11 And so I think it’s really about creating 

12 a rule that’s genuinely protective and at the 

13 very least having an inventory of all the 

14 facilities across this country of what they’re 

15 burning, in what quantities they’re burning. 

16 Right now we have no idea what the 

17 universe of incinerators, boilers are across this 

18 county. Even thinking about some of the small 

19 ones are –- I think it’s estimated that 180,000 

20 of these may be out there; and we don’t know 

21 exactly what they’re burning. We don’t know what 

22 the control technologies are there. We don’t 
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 

231

1 know what the impacts are in communities across 

2 the country. 

3 So, really, for me, it’s a public health 

4 issue. It’s something that can hopefully save us 

5 billions of dollars, lots of health visits, 

6 strange cancers that have been linked to toxic 

7 air emissions across the country, looking at 

8 petrochemical companies, looking at refineries, 

9 especially –- and it’s really encouraging, 

10 certainly, to see the MACT rule come out in a 

11 protective way; but it is concerning to a number 

12 of people in communities across the country -– 

13 the solid waste rule. And I think especially at 

14 the hearings in LA and in Houston you will get a 

15 much, I think, more robust representation of 

16 stories that are going to come out and kind of 

17 talk about this particular issue. 

18 I guess there were a couple more points I 

19 wanted to be sure I hit while I was here. 

20 Mainly, I wanted to come –- I mean, I work for an 

21 environmental organization; but really, I wanted 

22 to come as a private citizen because, I mean, I 
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 

232

1 live in D.C. When you look around, we are 

2 impacted by petrochemical industries and chemical 

3 industries not because they’re right here in our 

4 back yard but because they’re basically upwind 

5 and because we’re downwind, we’re failing at our 

6 air toxics tests. 

7 There are reasons why basically our lungs 

8 are being poisoned and they’re not because of 

9 emissions that are happening right here in our 

10 back yards. And a lot of it are coming from 

11 boilers and incinerators that aren’t being 

12 regulated with off-the-shelf technology. And for 

13 us, it’s just really important to see communities 

14 protected. 

15 I’m a person who’s of childbearing age. 

16 I am probably going to be having kids in the next 

17 five years. I have no idea what pollutants are 

18 going into my lungs, what those pollutants are 

19 going to have on my reproductive system, what 

20 they are going to have on my potential children 

21 down the line. And as I get older, it just gets 

22 more distressing that the EPA basically has the 
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 

233

1 authority to move forward with promulgating 

2 protective rules, yet we’re seeing things like 

3 the definition of solid waste that genuinely are 

4 protective of people. 

5 So, my remarks are short, but I wanted to 

6 be able to share that with you today. 

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Enderle. 

8 I want to ask the panel members if they 

9 would like to ask you any additional questions to 

10 clarify your testimony. 

11 MR. THOMAS: Some of these off-the-shelf 

12 technologies either today or during your written 

13 comments can you share with us kind of what you 

14 have in mind? 

15 MS. ENDERLE: Oh, yes, in terms of being 

16 able to install -– I wish I had the fancy names 

17 of all of them. I just kind of have been touring 

18 a number of facilities here recently, but I’m 

19 understanding that a lot of them can essentially 

20 install –- it’s like for -– since some of them 

21 aren’t mercury, but the mercury control – 

22 MR. THOMAS: Activated carbon? 
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 

234

1 MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, there’s like the 

2 injection technology. 

3 MR. WAYLAND: Activated carbon injection? 

4 MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, thank you. I’m sorry 

5 I’m not really well versed in kind of all of the 

6 different technologies that are available, but –- 

7 MR. WAYLAND: You probably –- 

8 MS. ENDERLE: Yeah, I was going to say 

9 you probably are. So maybe you have something to 

10 share with me. 

11 MR. WAYLAND: Yes. 

12 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you. 

13 But I have toured a number of facilities 

14 and heard that there are -– I mean there are some 

15 good actors that are out there and have been able 

16 to do this, and they are essentially protecting 

17 communities around them. 

18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your 

19 comments, Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Enderle. We 

20 appreciate your comments very much. 

21 At this time we have no scheduled 

22 speakers for the rest of the evening. 
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 

235

1 So we’re going to at this time take a 

2 temporary recess for the hearing. We’re going to 

3 reconvene as soon as somebody signs up to speak 

4 tonight. So, thank you. 

5 MS. ENDERLE: Thank you, guys. 

6 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. 

7 (Brief recess.) 

8 MS. GENTILE: We’re officially 

9 reconvening the hearing. That’s now on the 

10 record. 

11 Ms. Fields, I take it you’re going to be 

12 commenting tonight? 

13 MS. FIELDS: Yes. 

14 MS. GENTILE: Okay. Let me just remind 

15 you of some of the rules we have here since you 

16 weren’t hear earlier. 

17 We’d like everyone to keep their comments 

18 to six minutes or less. We have a timekeeper up 

19 front, and we have a system where we’re going to 

20 show a green light when you’re ready to speak. 

21 Yellow light shows you have one minute left, and 

22 the red light shows that your time is up. 
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 

236

1 I would like to ask you to walk up to the 

2 table on the very far left and begin your 

3 comments whenever you’re ready. 

4 And please state your affiliation and the 

5 rule or rules that you’re going to be commenting 

6 on today, please. 

7 MS. FIELDS: Good evening. My name is 

8 Leslie Fields. I am the National Environmental 

9 Justice and Community Partnership Director for 

10 the Sierra Club here in Washington, D.C. And I 

11 appreciate this opportunity to comment on EPA-HQ12 OAR-2002-0058 and EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, the 

13 major source boiler rule and the definition of 

14 solid waste. 

15 The Sierra Club’s Environmental Justice 

16 and Community Partnership Program, EJCP, has 

17 provided support to more than dozens of low 

18 income and communities of color in their 

19 environmental justice struggles. We work to –- 

20 we work with low-income and communities of color 

21 to overcome environmental assaults on their lives 

22 and communities. The Sierra Club’s work is 
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 

237

1 national in scope. We were founded in 1892, and 

2 we have about a million members, yet it has a 

3 grassroots presence everywhere in the county. It 

4 is volunteer based and operated and includes 

5 professionals willing to devote their volunteer 

6 time to build local communities as well. We have 

7 successfully built such bridges in our EJCP 

8 partnerships program in El Paso, Detroit, 

9 Flagstaff, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans, 

10 Washington, D.C., and the Appalachia region and 

11 in Puerto Rico, bringing together Sierra Club 

12 volunteers, staff, affected community members to 

13 strengthen the fight against environmental 

14 injustices. 

15 We want to thank EPA Administrator 

16 regarding the Major Source Boilers Rule. We want 

17 to thank EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for 

18 taking this step to control the toxic air 

19 pollution from chemical plants, refineries, paper 

20 mills and other industrial sources that are 

21 making our air unsafe to breathe. EPA’s new rule 

22 will finally make the largest of these facilities 
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 

238

1 control the emissions from their boilers and 

2 process heaters. It is really about time. These 

3 standards are 10 years overdue. Across the 

4 country families and communities need protection 

5 these rules will provide. 

6 In addition, once again we appreciate 

7 Administrator Jackson’s emphasizing environmental 

8 justice as one of the main priorities during her 

9 tenure. Many environmental justice communities, 

10 such as the 48217 Detroit community in which the 

11 Sierra Club EJCP program works will greatly 

12 benefit from this new rule. 

13 Especially important to us is EPA’s 

14 decision to eliminate the outrageous malfunction 

15 exemption. State’s emissions data have made it 

16 clear that chemical plants, refineries, and other 

17 polluters violate their emissions standards 

18 routinely during so-called malfunction events. 

19 During these events they blanket neighboring 

20 communities in toxic pollution, making people 

21 sick and forcing them to miss work, miss school, 

22 and seek medical help. These events also 
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 

239

1 increase the likelihood that the people in these 

2 communities will suffer from cancer, birth 

3 defects, and other catastrophic adverse health 

4 effects. The malfunction loophole has already 

5 been held unlawful by a Federal Appeals Court. 

6 Closing it will bring an end to the abuse by 

7 ensuring that polluters can be held accountable 

8 when they violate emission standards. 

9 One great example of that is in Corpus 

10 Christi, Texas, where it has been documented that 

11 some of the major releases –- you can actually 

12 document by the major releases the next day the 

13 number of children in emergency rooms. And you 

14 can also document the time lost by their parents 

15 from work by the number of children who are in 

16 emergency rooms and the fugitive releases and 

17 other releases in the communities in the 

18 evenings. 

19 We know that powerful industry lobbies 

20 are lining up to oppose these rules. They want 

21 the loopholes and exemptions. We want the rules 

22 -– they want the rules weakened and delayed. 
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 

240

1 These rules will prevent about 4,800 

2 unnecessary deaths each -– every year and will 

3 save billions of dollars in costs -– medical 

4 costs, time costs, costs to communities in terms 

5 of lost time and lost -– and lost ability to 

6 externalities to be able to work, live, and play 

7 in a safe environment. 

8 The benefits overwhelm the costs by a 

9 ratio of between 5 and 10 to 1. And that’s only 

10 the tip of the iceberg. It only reflects the 

11 health benefits by reducing major source boilers’ 

12 emissions of fine particulate matter. It doesn’t 

13 count the benefits of eliminating more than seven 

14 tons of mercury emissions every year that cause 

15 birth defects in babies and developmental damage 

16 in young children, or thousands of tons of lead, 

17 cadmium, and other metals that are known as 

18 suspected carcinogens, or the dioxins and other 

19 organic pollutants that cause cancer. 

20 Thus our message to Administrator Lisa 

21 Jackson is don’t cave in to industry pressure. 

22 Make this rule stronger, not weaker, and issue it 
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 

241

1 without delay. 

2 And then I want to speak briefly on the 

3 definition of solid waste, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 

4 I appeared last year to testify on behalf 

5 of the Sierra Club on the revisions to the 

6 definition of solid waste. Again, we are please 

7 to testify to say although EPA’s rule for major 

8 source boilers deserves applaud, EPA’s definition 

9 of non-hazardous solid waste is dangerous and 

10 irresponsible. 

11 By defining industrial wastes as fuel, 

12 the proposal will allow facilities operating in 

13 communities across the country to burn spent 

14 chemicals, spent solvents, scrap plastics, 

15 industrial sludges, coal mining waste, used motor 

16 oil, and other wastes in boilers and process 

17 heaters without no obligation to control or 

18 monitor their toxic pollution and no obligation 

19 to report the identity and quantity of these 

20 toxic emissions to EPA, state permitting 

21 authorities, or the public. 

22 Which the facilities that are exempted 
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 

242

1 include boilers and process heaters operated in 

2 area source facilities like the one –- like one 

3 of our nation’s 1,700 area source chemical 

4 plants. 

5 About how many facilities are we talking 

6 about? There is one of the shocking aspects of 

7 this rulemaking. EPA states in its area source 

8 boilers rule that it does not believe that any 

9 more than 165,000 boilers operating any source 

10 burn any source -– secondary material, whether 

11 its defined as waste or not, according to 75 

12 Federal Register 38 -– 31896 and 31899 from June 

13 4th, 2010. EPA has not attempted to determine 

14 how many area sources are burning wastes or what 

15 those wastes will be. It does know, however, 

16 that many boilers and process heaters are major 

17 sources –- are burning chemicals, spent solvents, 

18 and other secondary materials as the Agency 

19 prefers to call them. Even if 10 percent of the 

20 165,000 area source boilers are burning these 

21 wastes, EPA’s proposal will exempt more than 

22 16,000 facilities from any meaningful control, 
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 

243

1 monitoring, reporting requirements. 

2 What toxic emissions will be released by 

3 these facilities in these communities? Neither 

4 the community, people in the communities, or EPA 

5 will ever know. The emissions won’t have to be 

6 monitored or reported. What EPA does know is 

7 that burning wastes in poorly controlled boilers 

8 and process heaters produce highly toxic 

9 emissions. That’s why Congress enacted a special 

10 provision to ensure protective emission standards 

11 for all waste incinerators. 

12 If this proposal is finalized, it will 

13 hurt people in communities across the country by 

14 allowing them to be exposed to toxic pollution 

15 from uncontrolled waste incinerators and by 

16 depriving them of any way to identify the toxics 

17 they’re exposed or hold the polluters 

18 accountable. It will badly damage this Agency’s 

19 credibility as a protector of communities. 

20 So, Administrator Jackson, we are hoping 

21 that you don’t let this issue be obscured by 

22 arguments that are misguided, that it’s well 
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 

244

1 within your authority to bring toxic emissions 

2 under control in these industrial incinerators. 

3 We are very, very happy with the way 

4 Administrator Jackson is working on many issues, 

5 including Montauk removal, which we work on, 

6 including, again, the review of definition of 

7 solid waste from last year. 

8 And we work closely with her -– I was 

9 just on a call today with –- she came on with the 

10 National Environmental Justice Advisory 

11 Commission on the BP oil spill and has dedicated 

12 the Agency to resolve –- to work on that issue. 

13 So we’re hoping that this won’t be an aberration, 

14 not to protect –- so to protect the communities. 

15 And on behalf of the members of the 

16 Sierra Club, we respectfully request that EPA 

17 withdraw this rule, which will significantly 

18 weaken the public’s protection from millions of 

19 tons of non-hazardous waste. And we hope you’ll 

20 consider seriously how this rule endangers the 

21 public and our environment that would go counter 

22 against her environmental justice priority and so 
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 

245

1 we want to make sure that the –- no community is 

2 unfairly burdened or endangered. 

3 And I’ll conclude my remarks and thank 

4 you. 

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. 

6 Before you step down, I’d like to ask the 

7 members of the panel if they would like to ask 

8 you any clarifying questions. 

9 MR. WAYLAND: I have one question on your 

10 last comment. You’re asking us to withdraw the 

11 definition of solid waste? 

12 MS. FIELDS: No, I’m sorry, withdraw the 

13 -– what did I say –- to the rule. To not 

14 finalize the rule. That’s what I meant. 

15 MR. WAYLAND: Which of the four rules 

16 were you asking us not to finalize? 

17 MS. FIELDS: The last –- the EPA-HQ-RCRA18 2008-0329. 

19 MR. WAYAND: Okay. Thank you. 

20 MS. FIELDS: Thank you. 

21 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. 

22 Appreciate your comments. 
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 

246

1 At this time we have no one signed up to 

2 speak, and right now it’s about 7:36. We are 

3 going to put this hearing into temporary recess 

4 until we get another speaker that signs up. And 

5 we’re scheduled to end at 8:00 p.m. at this 

6 point. So right now we’re going to be in recess 

7 until we get another speaker. 

8 Thank you. 

9 (Brief recess.) 

10 MS. GENTILE: The public hearing is 

11 officially closed. 

12 (Whereupon, at 8:01 p.m., the Public 

13 Hearing was adjourned.) 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22