Wildlife and Forestry - Jeff Taverner, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
PaulNoeBiolerMACT
1. The Forest Products Industry and
the Clean Air Regulatory Challenge
Paul R. Noe
Vice President for Public Policy
American Forest & Paper Association
Arkansas Forestry Association Annual Meeting
Little Rock, Arkansas
September 26, 2012
2. Overview
Cumulative Burden of Air Regulations
Highlights of Key Air rules – Boiler MACT, etc
Carbon Neutrality
Need for Sustainable Regulations
2
3. Forest Products Industry Employment*
000 workers
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
* Includes paper and allied products, wood products, and logging.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
4.
5. Rules, Costs and Timing
Issued Final Rule Potential Cost
2010 NOx NAAQS $0.6 B
2010 SO2 NAAQS $0.2 B
2011 GHG BACT ??
2012 Boiler MACT rules ~$3 B ??
2012 Paper Risk and Technology I $5M
2012 PM NAAQS $ 0.1 to >$1 B
2013 Paper Off-gas Venting Elimination $1.6 +
2014 Pulp Risk and Technology II $3.3 B
2014 Pulp and Paper GHG Rule ??
2014 Ozone NAAQS $0.3 to 3 B
2015 Wood MACT $0.8 B
2016 Cross-state air pollution rule II $0.5 B
2016 Hydrogen sulfide MACT $2.7 B
6. Boiler MACT – Starting Point in 2010
Broadest MACT standards ever under the Clean
Air Act
Industrial, commercial and institutional boilers
and process heaters at major sources of
hazardous air pollutants.
1,600 facilities and 13,555 boilers (about 11,000
gas boilers)
Emission standards for PM, HCl, Hg, CO, and
dioxin
Multiple controls and complex monitoring to meet
limits
7. Initial Boiler MACT Rules
June 2010: Responding to court decision, EPA
proposed changes to the Boiler MACT rules.
Original rule would have cost the FP industry $7-
$9 billion in capital costs ($21 billion for all
manufacturing).
March 2011: EPA issued original final Boiler
MACT -- $7 billion capital cost for FP industry.
Jobs Study by Fisher International: over 20,000
jobs (36 mills) in jeopardy in P&P sector alone.
7
8. Fisher International Study of March 2011 Rules
Pulp & Paper Mill Jobs
Mills
At Risk 36 20,541
Total 349 113,858
% At Risk 10% 18%
8
9. Re-Proposed Boiler MACT Rules
December 2011: The EPA issued re-proposed Boiler MACT
rules.
The re-proposed rules would cost the forest products
industry an estimated $4.3 billion.
9
10. Concerted Outreach Effort
Allied Industries, Small Business, Agriculture
Labor
Congress – Bill passed House and almost in Senate
Governors, other state/local officials
Administration –
EPA, USDA, DOC, SBA/OA, OMB, White House
Arguments:
economic/employment, engineering, science, legal, a
nd political
10
11. Concerned Trade Groups
American Forest & Paper Association
Hardwood Federation
American Chemistry Council
Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association
American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute
Industrial Energy Consumers of America
American Foundry
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils
American Home Furnishings Alliance
National Association of Manufacturers
American Iron and Steel Institute
National Cotton Ginners Association
American Municipal Power, Inc.
National Lime Association
American Petroleum Institute
National Mining Association
American Public Power Association
National Oil Recyclers Association
American Sugar Alliance
National Oilseed Processors Association
American Wood Council
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association
Bioenergy Deployment Consortium
Ohio Municipal Electric Association
Biomass Power Association
PA Anthracite Council
Biomass Thermal Energy Council
Pellet Fuels Association
Brick Industries Association
Rubber Manufacturers Association
Composite Panel Association
Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
Corn Refiners Association
Southern Lumber Manufacturing Association
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
The Aluminum Association
Edison Electric Institute
Treated Wood Council
Fertilizer Institute
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
12.
13. HCl Emissions
2005 US Emissions of HCl by Boiler Type
Utility Boilers: Coal
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters -
coal
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters -
wood or waste
Utility Boilers: Oil
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters -
natural gas
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters -
oil
Utility Boilers: Natural Gas
Utility Boilers: Wood or Waste
14. Hg Emissions – Small Contributors
2005 US Mercury Emissions By Boiler Type
Utility Boilers: Coal
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
- oil
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
- coal
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
- wood or waste
Utility Boilers: Oil
Utility Boilers: Wood or Waste
ICI Boilers & Process Heaters
- natural gas
15. SO2 Emissions from Pulp and Paper Mills in PM 2.5
Non-Attainment Areas (15/35, 2010)
4%
SO2 Emissions within PM Non-
Attainment Areas
SO2 Emissions Outside of PM
Non-Attainment Areas
96%
16. Boiler MACT – Further Improvements Needed
Key Improvements from 2010 through Dec. 2011 Reproposal:
Cost-effective work practices rather than arbitrary and unachievable limits
Emission limits accounting for variability in performance of top boilers
Adjusted some limits to account for fuel variability
Defined more biomass residuals as fuels
Grouping like boilers together – separate biomass from coal
Further Improvements Sought:
More compliance time -- one or two years
Achievable standards -- esp. carbon monoxide
Classify more biomass residuals as fuels -- encourage renewable, carbon-
neutral alternatives to fossil fuels
16
17. Boiler MACT Estimated Costs
EPA Action Cost to Forest Cost to All EPA Cost
Products Sector Manufacturers Estimates
Original Proposal ~$9 B $21 B $11.1 B
(June 2010)
Original Final $7 B $14.3 B $6.3 B
(March 2011)
Reproposal $4.3 B $14.2 B $5.8 B
(December 2011)
Final ?? ?? ??
(2012??)
Cost Reductions > $4.7 B >$6.8 B >$ 5.3
17
18. Paper Risk and Technology Rules
Final Clean Air rule (9/11/12) covers pulping and papermaking
operations
EPA found health risks acceptable
EPA determined no control technology upgrades cost effective
Costs reduced from $700-900M in proposal to only $5 M
Next Step: litigation by stakeholders
More EPA rules under Paper Sector program
Risk & Technology rule Phase II – furnaces and kilns, late 2013
Reevaluate existing venting allowances – summer 2013
Determine if changes to Kraft Pulp New Source Performance Std
– court ordered deadline of May 2013
18
19. NAAQS
Permitting Gridlock
2010 NOx and SO2 NAAQS plus 2006 particulate matter
Modeled emissions exceeding standards – stops projects
PM NAAQS – June proposal
Tighter limits could impose more than $1 billion in added costs
depending on how implemented
Scientific uncertainty questions need for lower limits
Ozone NAAQS – proposal in late 2013
Big costs and scientific uncertainty
19
21. Timberland Growth/Removal Ratio By Region
5.00
4.50
Rocky Mtn
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
North
2.00 Pacific
Coast
1.50
1.70
1.37 South
1.00
1.22 1.05
0.50
-
1976 1986 1996 2006
North South Rocky Mtn Pacific Coast
21
22. Biogenic Carbon Emissions
Oct. 2009: “Fixing A Critical Accounting Error,” Science
magazine
Dec. 2009: EPA Endangerment Finding on GHG emissions
May 2010: EPA Tailoring Rule to direct regulations at large
emitters
July 2011: EPA imposed 3-year deferral for regulation of
biogenic emissions from stationary sources
Sept. 2011: EPA proposed Accounting Framework for
Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources
July 2012: EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) issued
draft report critical of the Agency’s proposed accounting
framework; supports anticipated future baseline
22
23. Regulations Can Undermine Competitiveness
NERA/MAPI study: costs of major regulations increased at
average rate of 7.6% a year since 1998.
EPA imposes the largest regulatory cost burden on
manufacturing sector ($117 billion in constant 2010 $).
Cumulative impact of major regulations between 1993 and
2011 will lower manufacturing output by up to 6% over the
next decade.
Will reduce paper and wood products output by 6% and
3%, respectively.
23
24. Sustainable Regulations
• Need for sustainable regulation (meet economic
needs, environmental concerns, and social expectations)
• Rigorous application of efficiency criteria and sound
science.
• Consider employment impacts and need for compliance
time; allow for economic recovery.
• The incorporation of job losses into regulatory cost-benefit
analyses could alter the calculus for some propose
regulations.
24
25. Wrap-up
Uniquely challenging time.
Worst economy since the creation of the modern
administrative state.
Stubbornly high unemployment.
Aggressive foreign competition.
Pressing need for smarter, more cost-effective
regulatory approaches.
25
26. Questions
???
Paul Noe
Vice President for Public Policy
American Forest & Paper Association
Paul_Noe@afandpa.org
26
Notas do Editor
We keep updating this ‘train wreck” slide every year with all the air rules, and it remains very crowded. One reason is that many rules get delayed as EPA fails to meet its own ambitious deadlines.Others are deferred but come back around again a few years later , such as the Ozone NAAQS.Finally, the Clean Air Act has periodic reviews of rules (sometimes every five years in the case of NAAQS, or 8 years for MACT), which keeps the regulators (and us) very busy.The bottom line is that when we sum the cost of them all up, the potential capital costs is still on the order of $17 billion.
Updated for September 2012Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials and Incinerator MACTCompanion rules to the Boiler MACT set HAP controls on incinerators that burn solid wastes. The definition of solid waste determines whether a combustor is regulated under the very stringent Incinerator MACT requirements or the more reasonable Boiler MACT program.We hope EPA adopts definitions that encourage the continued use of a wide variety of biomass residuals as fuels. Otherwise, these materials may be placed in landfills and replaced with other fuels.PM NAAQSThe courts have put EPA on an accelerated schedule to finalize changes to the current particulate matter (PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards by December. The sources of PM include nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides which paper mills emit but have reduce significantly over the last several decades.The tougher limits proposed in July will put more mills in non-attainment areas but more importantly could trigger further control obligations in many other mills depending on how the changes are implemented by EPA and the states.Costs could approach a billion in new capital if there is little flexibility in their implementation or tightened below the levels proposed.And there are other NAAQS standards being implemented (NOx and SO2) and changes to the Ozone NAAQS will be proposed next year which impacts our mills as well.Air Rules targeted at Pulp and Paper millsEPA just completed its health risk and control technology assessment for major portions of pulp and paper mills and concluded no further controls are needed. This shows that the billions in investments on the Cluster MACT worked so EPA could back away from an onerous proposed rule.Now EPA is looking at the rest of the paper mill (like recovery furnaces) to see if any changes are needed. Given the types of sources and pollutants, changes could be very expensive.It appears likely that EPA will change the standards for our venting procedures for process gases. We vent to protect the safety of our workers and equipment so we hope that any new approach by EPA takes that into account.Finally, EPA is considering listing Hydrogen Sulfide as a Hazardous Air Pollutant which could lead to more expensive MACTs.
Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) rules for major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) fall under the Clean Air Act . Due to a court decision, EPA proposed changes to the Boiler MACT rules in 2010. The proposed changes would have cost the forest products industry between $7 and 9 billion in capital costs . In March 2011, EPA issued final Boiler MACT rules. If implemented, the rules would have cost the forest products industry about $7 billion in new capital expenditures. (Although the Agency almost immediately stayed the final rules, a court nullified the stay earlier this year.)A study by Fisher International showed that the March 2011 rules would have caused 36 mills, employing some 20,500 people, to be at risk of closing given the suite of other expected air rules.
Fisher International analysis showed that the original final Boiler MACT rules would have placed 10% of pulp and paper mills and 18% of the pulp and paper mill workforce in jeopardy.
The EPA subsequently issued re-proposed Boiler MACT rules in December 2011. Changes included generally less stringent emissions limits, work practices standards in place of unachievable emission limits for some HAPs, and new groupings to put like boilers together
AF&PA and the FP industry mounted a comprehensive outreach effort.
Half of the trade groups are affected by the stringency of the biomass limits
Paper industry made dramatic progress in reducing emissions before Boiler MACT.
These biomass, gas and oil boilers (or even coal) are not significant contributors to national HCl loadings. HCl not a national health issue,Same is true for mercury especially oil and biomass that represent just 5% of the emission from the category
Biomass and gas boilers are insignificant contributors to mercury loadings; even oil and coal industrial boilers are fairly small; won’t make a difference with fish advisories or water quality loadings given national and international transport.
PM 2.5 non-attainment areas account for only 4% of SO2 emissions from pulp and paper mills. SO2 is a PM precursor.
Background: EPA adopted work practices for most boilers at small mills and gas fired units and proposed them for dioxin which previously were unachievableBackground: AF&PA provided additional test data showing emission differences even for the best performing boilers that EPA must use to set the MACT limits. Also persuaded EPA to acknowledge that levels of contaminants in coal such as mercury and chlorides vary and need to be factored into limits.Background: In the related Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rule EPA has identified resinated wood and tire derived fuel as boiler fuels and seriously considering listing others like pulping sludges and recycling residuals. If a combustion unit burns a waste, it get regulated as an incinerator which has even more stringent limits and a bad stigma.Background: By creating more subcategories of boilers then limits are less stringent because they are not driven downward by unrelated boilers that use fuels that are cleaner for certain pollutants (like lack of mercury in biomass makes it very hard for coal boilers to meet)The EPA subsequently issued re-proposed Boiler MACT rules in December 2011. Changes included generally less stringent emissions limits, work practices standards in place of unachievable emission limits for some HAPs, and new groupings to put like boilers together
EPA’s June 2010 $9.5 B is Boiler MACT capital plus $1.0 B for GACT annualized and $574 B in capital for CISWI.EPA’s March 2011 is $6.3 B is $535 in annualized cost from GACT (couldn’t find capital costs), $5.1 B in capital from Boiler MACT (both new and existing sources) and $652 M in capital from CISWI.EPA December 2011 is for Boiler MACT only since EPA did not estimate costs for GACT or CISWI changes
Background: environmental groups may challenge the Paper RTR because it is not stringent enough or fails to set limits for more pollutants from more pieces of equipment. However, AF&PA also will challenge since rule eliminates separate start-up, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions which we can live with but sets a bad legal precedent for future rulemakings.Background: venting allowances exist so equipment doesn’t blow-up and hurt people or protect the investments.
[Hunt]EPA set new NOx and SO2 limits in 2010, and they are starting to negatively influence projects at mills because they can’t model compliance. If the assumptions aren’t dramatically changed, permitting gridlock will occur.Under pressure from environmental groups, EPA has committed to decide by June whether it will propose to tighten the 2006 particulate matter (PM) NAAQS. Indications are a significant tightening that could cost several billion dollars for our industry alone.Given scientific uncertainties and ongoing research on which part of the PM emitted is harmful, AF&PA will advocate with its coalition partners for retention of the current limits.
The principle of “carbon neutrality” differentiates between biomass-derived carbon from fossil-fuel carbon – highlights role in the global carbon cycle.Biogenic carbon is part of a relatively rapid natural cycle that neither adds nor subtracts carbon to/from the atmosphere when in balance. In contrast, fossil fuel combustion transfer geologic carbon into the atmosphere. It is a one-way process. The carbon dioxide (CO2) removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is converted into organic carbon and stored in biomass, such as trees and crops. When harvested and combusted, or during decay, the carbon in the biomass is released as CO2, thus completing the carbon cycle.This longstanding principle has been challenged.
Forest stocks in all regions of the US are in balanceGrowth/drain ratios >1
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the largest stationary sources have, been covered by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit Programs since January 2, 2011. These permitting programs fall under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule, issued in May 2010, established thresholds for the permitting of GHG emissions under PSD and Title V. The EPA issued a three year deferral for biogenic GHGs in January 2011 to give the Agency time to study the matter.
Existing regulations are hurting the economic competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector.
Cumulative Air Regulatory Burden- As things now stand, the cumulative air regulatory burden could well be unsustainable for many manufacturing facilities. Boiler MACT- Tens of $ billions will translate into tens and probably hundreds of thousands of jobs – directly and indirectly, facility closures, family impacts- Unachievable controls on wide swath of industries – harm competitiveness and ability to export products- Harm new enterprises that make traditional boilers even with good or best controls or biofuels- Pushes energy policy towards natural gas, which will drive up prices for everyoneAlternative rule could reduce costs by more than half Now more than ever, we need the best thinking brought to bear to develop smarter, more cost-effective regulatory approaches.