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