# Pulp and Paper Residual Risk and

Technology Rule

December 12, 2011

# Overview

 

## History of working with EPA – ICR  

## Assessment of risks – 112(f)  

## Cluster MACT technology review – 112(d)(6)  

## Emission allowances – legal & technical issues  

## Next Steps

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 2

## Working with EPA Early dialogue and information exchanges over 5 yrs Improving emission and source parameters EPA examined industry excess emission reports Supported ICR – three parts, huge amount of data Supported narrow focus to rulemaking – not sector Pulping sources, paper machines and wastewater treatment Not Subpart MM or NSPS

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 3

## Residual Risk – 112(f) Cluster MACT has resulted in reduced risks AF&PA analysis is aligned with EPA’s that concludes Cancer, chronic and acute risk acceptable – Ample Margin of Safety Population risks very small Conclusion – no cost effective emission reductions under 112(f)

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 4

## Technology Review – 112(d)(6) MACT one
-time program – no need to fully reexamine Cluster requirements, evaluate technology changes No legal challenge to 1998 rule – HAPs, controls, or emission allowances/SSM No new technologies for control of process offgases Collect and send to control device – boiler, kiln, or incinerator HVLC and LVHC Condensate treatment systems – wastewater treatment systems, anaerobic digester and strippers Compliance since 2001 (LVHC) and 2006 (HVLC or CCA)
IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 5

## Emission Allowances for Process Variability MACT floor analysis found best performers vented – maintenance and process variability 1% for LVHC, 4% for HVLC, and 10% for strippers/ anaerobic treatment systems Safety concerns – system integrity (explosions) and workplace safety Even with redundant controls (more common with LVHC) need allowances transition time, maintenance & process disruptions (e.g., pressure surges and safety by
-passes) Emissions data associated with these periods were provided in the ICR Part II Survey – no risks IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 6

## Legal Rationale for Retaining Emission allowances central to 1998 floor determination – nothing has changed EPA has not conducted new technology assessment of different practices to justify elimination 2008 D.C. Circuit Court case does not compel elimination of emission allowances focused on General Provisions and SSM not periods of higher emissions during unavoidable operational variability of best performers

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 7

## Policy Concerns No risks – part of emissions EPA modeled as safe Safety concerns – workers and equipment Already minimize excess emissions – General Duty HUGE cost – redundant controls, no feasible options $10 M to $20 M per mill
- $1 to 2 billion industry wide EPA has not captured these impacts in RIA Mills cannot comply (100% of time) even with redundant controls

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 8

## Next Steps Retain MACT floor emission allowances not a 112(f) or 112(d)(6) issue; beyond scope of settlement agreement; EPA has data from ICR to demonstrate no public health risk Ask for extension from court – if needed Industry is committed to work with EPA, but EPA must allow sufficient time (6
-12 months to study)

IMPROVING TOMORROW’S ENVIRONMENT TODAY ® 9