November 26, 2008
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 2822T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
By regular mail and electronically to [email protected]
Re:
Comments of the American Forest & Paper Association on the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act;
Docket ID No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
To Whom It May Concern:
The American Forest & Paper Association (“AF&PA”) appreciates the opportunity to
submit comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act (“ANPR”). 73 Fed Reg. 44354 (July
30, 2008). AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp, paper, paperboard,
and wood products industry. The U.S. forest products industry accounts for approximately
6 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing, placing it roughly on par with the automotive and
plastics industries. The forest products industry generates over $200 billion a year in sales
and employs more than one million people earning $54 billion in annual payroll. The
industry is among the top ten manufacturing sector employers in 48 states. We support
policy efforts to increase our nation’s energy security, and our member companies are
leading the effort to achieve this objective by combining advanced technology and
innovative manufacturing practices with responsible stewardship of our nation’s natural
resources.
I.
Executive Summary
AF&PA members recognize climate change is an issue of significant global
concern. AF&PA advocates environmentally responsible, science-based policies that
appropriately balance the environmental, societal, and economic elements. We promote
climate change policies that:
1. Recognize the forest products industry’s important role in reducing greenhouse
gases.
•
•
Recognize the contributions of sustainably managed forests and wood and
paper products to sequester and store carbon and reduce greenhouse gases.
Recognize the contributions of recycling to reduce greenhouse gases.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 2
•
•
•
Credit early action and incentivize continued progress in emissions reduction.
Retain the internationally recognized principle of carbon neutrality of biomass
fuels.
Ensure that policies promote sound forest management practices.
2. Strengthen, rather than hinder, the competitiveness of the forest products industry
and the U.S. economy.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Achieve global reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at
the lowest possible cost.
Promote parallel actions by high-emitting competitor nations.
Mitigate increases in energy and other operating costs for industrial consumers.
Ensure a diverse, stable and affordable energy supply.
Be flexible, cost-effective, and economy-wide.
Not disrupt existing markets and local economies, nor hinder development of
new markets.
Encourage long-term, high impact solutions by aligning targets with capital
investment cycles.
Establish a single national program rather than be subject to varying
requirements across jurisdictions.
3. Support research and development of technologies to capture or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
•
•
Create program certainty to encourage necessary research, capital investment,
and technology deployment.
Advance existing and breakthrough low-carbon technologies for energy
production and use.
4. Include measuring and reporting methods that are simple, credible, transparent, and
cost-effective.
With these principles in mind, our comments focus on two key aspects of the ANPR
– the possible mechanisms for regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources and the
key legal issues that must be addressed as EPA considers making “endangerment”
findings related to GHG emissions from stationary sources. We also include case studies
to illustrate the unique effects of Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation on the manufacturing side
of our industry and the particular problems that would be created. We also briefly address
the role of the forestry sector under a possible GHG regulatory scheme.
The beginning and the end of our analysis is that the CAA stationary source
provisions discussed in the ANPR cannot easily or effectively be employed to regulate
GHG emissions for their potential effect on climate change.1 Our overarching view is that
1
Note that the ANPR is focused on GHG emissions for their potential effect on climate change. However,
emissions of certain GHGs can cause other types of adverse effects on health or the environment that are
now (and might be in the future) appropriately addressed through CAA stationary source programs. For
example, certain chlorofluorocarbons are GHGs, but also are stratospheric ozone depleting substances that
are regulated as such under Title VI. For ease of reference, when we refer to “GHG emissions” in these
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 3
the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) is poorly-suited to the effective, efficient, and well-balanced
regulation of GHG emissions. Given that GHG emissions are an international issue, there
is simply no clear way to apply the CAA to stationary source GHG emissions to predictably
obtain the desired results. In short, the CAA is the wrong tool for the job. Generally
speaking, our concerns with each of the specific substantive programs flow from a
common set of basic problems:
First, the interconnections among CAA programs likely would prevent
targeted action through a single provision: For example, as much as it might
make sense to establish a multi-sector market based cap and trade program under
§ 111, such a rule would automatically cause the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (“PSD”) permitting program to apply to GHGs. Thus, much of the
value of such a cap and trade scheme would be lost due to the application of the
source-specific, inflexible, and procedurally cumbersome PSD program. These
requirements, in turn, likely would cause the Title V permitting program to become
applicable to the vast number of GHG “major sources.” On top of that, regulation
under § 111 would not preclude parallel regulation under other substantive
programs, such as the ambient air quality program. This example illustrates the
regulatory “snowballing” that inevitably would occur once action is taken under any
single stationary source provision causing duplicative programs and increased cost.
Second, CAA stationary source programs regulate in ways that have little or
no meaning in the context of GHGs and climate change: CAA stationary source
programs were designed for, and to date have been applied only to, pollution
problems that are local or regional in nature. The only notable exception is the Title
VI stratospheric ozone program, which is a product of the Montreal Protocol and
required new legislation to accomplish. Moreover, CAA stationary source programs
are largely technology driven, with the installation of best prevailing controls
generally seen as a suitable regulatory endpoint. Lastly, CAA stationary source
programs require action typically over relatively short periods of years – not
decades or centuries. Each of these elements runs counter to the fundamental
characteristics of climate change, which is a global phenomenon for which
stationary source technology-based controls are not readily available (and will not
be readily available for many years to come). Any potential anthropogenic influence
on climate was hundreds of years in the making and will take at least decades to
effectively address. In short, the CAA stationary source programs simply were not
designed with GHG emissions and climate change in mind.
Third, CAA stationary source programs generally would be a highly inefficient
and inflexible means of regulating GHGs: EPA, state regulators, and regulated
entities would be overwhelmed by mandatory program elements that clearly are not
well tailored for GHG emissions. For example, the various major source thresholds
(e.g., under the ambient air quality program, the hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
comments, we mean GHG emissions for their potential effect on climate change, and are not offering
comment on the need or advisability of regulating GHGs for other potential health or environmental effects.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 4
program, Title V, PSD, etc.) are fixed by statute and are so low that countless
thousands of new sources and activities would get drawn into any CAA regulatory
scheme for GHGs. Similarly, under the § 112 HAPs program, EPA would be
required to develop and implement technology-based maximum achievable control
technology (“MACT”) standards applicable to all types of major-emitting sources
using a highly constrained regulatory process (with which the DC Circuit, in cases
such as the “Brick MACT” case, has forced EPA to strictly adhere) and would be
faced with the prospect of endlessly reviewing and revising the standards under a
mandatory eight year review cycle. The result would be an overwhelming
regulatory bureaucracy that extends far beyond the current bounds of existing CAA
programs and imposes inflexible requirements that would be the antithesis of the
flexible, long-term programs needed to appropriately address climate change.
Fourth, CAA stationary source programs will not effectively address climate
change: Lastly and perhaps most important, the CAA stationary source programs
will not as effectively address GHG reductions or mitigation compared to possible
new legislation. Ironically, it could make the global problem worse by encouraging
“leakage” of high-emitting activities to unregulated countries (which is a problem
that self-perpetuates because the desire to protect the jobs and other economic
benefits of the “leaked” manufacturing activity would give those countries that much
more reason to resist action against GHG emissions).
With regard to the possibility of an “endangerment” finding under § 202 or other
similarly-worded CAA provisions, the fundamental differences between GHG emissions
and climate change as compared to the pollutants regulated to date under the CAA will
require the Agency to take a new look at what constitutes endangerment. At a minimum,
this will require additional work and thought by the Agency if it considers making an
endangerment finding for GHGs (e.g., EPA would have to consider whether and how
international emissions and effects should be factored into any endangerment finding).
More importantly, this may give EPA newfound discretion and some degree of flexibility as
to how GHGs can or should be addressed under the CAA.
To be sure, EPA has been placed into the position of needing to analyze and test
how the CAA might be utilized to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
In our view, the best way to arrive at the right solution for our nation is to develop a single
national program purposefully designed to deal with the issue of climate change,
considering the interconnectedness of energy policy. Even more compelling, however, is
the critical need for coordinating national energy security, environmental and economic
policies in ensuring the health and welfare of American citizens. Government policies
currently under development will drive decades of economic transformation and success
will only be possible with a strong and vibrant economy.
We believe this is best accomplished through the careful development of a new
national law, separate and distinct from the CAA. We realize that the Supreme Court’s
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA has required EPA to consider regulation under the CAA
and that it may be forced to proceed prior to the implementation of new federal legislation.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 5
Nevertheless, we strongly urge the Agency to indefinitely defer any action under the CAA
with regard to climate change to allow the ongoing and vigorous federal legislative process
to play out.
GHG regulation under the CAA would be contingent upon EPA finding that carbon
dioxide or GHGs generally endanger public health and welfare. Even so, EPA may be
forced to proceed with GHG regulations under the Clean Air Act prior to the
implementation of new federal legislation. If that occurs, the challenge would be bringing
only helpful GHG regulation forward that strikes the needed balance among energy,
economic and environmental objectives.
As explained above, most sections of the Clean Air Act are ill-suited to regulating
GHGs and will be hard to avoid, likely resulting in the imposition of infeasible obligations
on many sources and potentially creating permitting gridlock without any significant climate
benefits. On the other hand, there are some sections of the CAA that are more flexible. If
EPA decides it must regulate GHGs under the CAA in response to the Supreme Court
decision, EPA would need to consider if those provisions could be implemented in a
targeted way without spillover to other CAA provisions, and therefore they could be used to
incentivize near term least cost reductions prior to the implementation of comprehensive
legislation.
In these circumstances and as an interim measure, if EPA decides it must move
forward with a regulatory program, we urge EPA to design a regulatory program that
eliminates or minimizes the use of the unworkable provisions of the CAA (and the
inadvertent negative economic effects of those provisions) and strikes the right balance
using those provisions that could be applied in a reasonable, cost effective manner. For
example, the NAAQS or Air Toxics programs – even if they could be implemented without
the possibility of triggering other CAA requirements – would not work for GHGs, as GHGs
are global in nature and do not cause immediate human health effects while the regulatory
outcomes would lead to severe hardship for the forest products industry. On the other
hand, setting aside possible spillover effects, Title II for mobile sources, New Source
Performance Standards for stationary sources, or possibly Section 115 provisions may
offer the flexibility to design targeted programs that take into account a source’s energy
and emission profile.
For example, under the NSPS provisions, EPA could focus first on the largest
emitters of GHGs and design balanced energy and emission reduction strategies under
best demonstrated technology (BDT) that are cost-effective and recognize current
technological limitations. The implementation of a cap and trade program under the CAA
without cumbersome and expensive auction requirements for industry is also worth
exploring as it is well suited to addressing a global pollutant and could, if appropriately
designed, offer flexibility to meet reduction obligations for CO2, a pollutant that is tied to
production levels and for which no end of pipe control technologies currently exist. Under
any cap and trade program, auctioning of allowances should be avoided as it would have
devastating effects on the forest products sector potentially consuming the large majority
of annual profits and the capital that will be necessary for the industry to meaningfully
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 6
reduce GHG emissions. In addition, AF&PA believes EPA should thoughtfully consider
how carbon offset credits generated by sources not regulated under the CAA could be
utilized in the cap-and-trade program to provide cost mitigation. It is important to
remember, however, that under such targeted approaches, EPA will need to avoid
triggering the PSD permitting program for GHGs, which would undercut the benefit of the
targeted, thoughtful, incremental approach. Finally, any legislation that is considered
should clearly supplant any interim regulations adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act
while providing credit for reductions achieved under these programs.
II.
Background on Forest Products Industry
A. Greenhouse Gas Reductions
The American forest products industry plays an increasingly important role in
reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Anthropogenic GHG emissions primarily
come from the burning of fossil fuels used to make the products and provide the services
we all use everyday. The forest products industry is doing its part to reduce GHG
emissions by minimizing fossil fuel use. Since 1972, the industry has reduced its fossil fuel
and purchased energy consumption by nearly 50 percent. From 2004 to 2006 alone,
AF&PA members reduced the use of fossil fuels and purchased energy per ton of
production by 9%. The industry's average total energy use per ton of pulp and paper has
decreased by nearly 25 percent since 1972. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity (direct
plus indirect emissions) per ton of production decreased 14 percent from 2000 to 2006.
Combined direct and indirect absolute emissions decreased 24.6 percent – falling from
88.0 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents to 66.3 million metric tons. Approximately half
of this reduction can be attributed to improvements in GHG emissions, such as efficiency
improvements or reduced fossil fuel use, and half can be attributed to decreases in
production and changes in baseline, such as AF&PA membership, from the year 2000.
This is accomplished while adhering to internationally recognized standards of
forestry sustainability, third-party certified, that ensures the wood fiber we use is grown in a
sustainable manner. Our success in reducing fossil fuel use stems largely from our
leadership in the generation and use of renewable energy. Biomass fuels come from the
wood residuals, bark, saw dust and pulping liquors that are recovered from the
manufacturing and harvesting processes. In 2006, AF&PA member pulp and paper mills
generated 64% of the energy they used from biomass. Members’ wood products facilities
generated 74% of their energy from biomass. Currently, our industry is a leader in the use
of energy efficient combined heat and power (“CHP”) systems (29 percent of all U.S. cogenerated electricity is produced by pulp and paper mills). The industry produces about 89
percent of the bio-based fuel generated by industrial sectors.
Adhering to disciplined market-based standards of accountability ensures the wood
fiber we use is grown in a sustainable manner. As importantly, forests have a unique
ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Also, the wood and paper products
that come from forests, and ultimately through our manufacturing processes, store carbon
dioxide and keep it out of the atmosphere. More than half the forestland in the United
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 7
States is privately owned – roughly 424 million acres. Of that, 354 million acres are
actively managed for timber. Private landowners in the U.S. plant an average of 4 million
trees each day.2 EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (19902006) estimates that the amount of carbon stored annually in forest products in the U.S. is
equivalent to removing more than 100 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year.
The carbon that U.S. forests and our forest products currently store each year is enough to
offset approximately 10 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions.
Paper recycling reuses a renewable resource that sequesters carbon and helps
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GHG reductions result from avoided methane
emissions and reduced energy required for a number of paper products. In addition,
recovering paper extends the fiber supply. In 2006, AF&PA member companies avoided
21.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMCO2e) of methane through their
use of recovered fiber that would have otherwise decayed in a landfill.
B. Other Sustainability Accomplishments
Our greenhouse gas reductions, generation and use of renewable energy, and
carbon sequestration and storage in forests and forests products is only part of the
sustainable nature of the forest products industry. We also sustainably use renewable
resources, lead the way in recycling, and have dramatically reduced our environmental
footprint.
Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources
We sustainably manage and rely on forests that continue to grow more trees than
are harvested. The area of U.S. forests has significantly increased over the past 50 years,
and there are 12 million more acres of forestland today than there were 20 years ago. We
promote sustainable forest management, and have made it a condition of AF&PA
membership for the 80% of our members that own forest land or purchase fiber directly
from the forests. AF&PA members participate in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI)
program, among others, and most have been independently certified to this internationally
recognized standard. In 2006, the SFI® program participants reforested 1.2 million acres
of forestland through planting or natural regeneration, and over 7,000 loggers completed
SFI-supported training on best forest management practices.
Leading The Way In Recycling
The forest products industry is a leader in paper recycling. Today, more paper is
reused in new products than is sent to landfills. For example, in 2007, a record 56% of
paper consumed in the U.S. was recovered for recycling, more than any other commodity.
The industry has committed to recover 60% of paper consumed in the U.S. by 2012
2
Forest Resources of the United States, 2007; Draft RPA Review Tables: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/documents/pdfs/2007_RPA_REVIEW_TABLESv2c.pdf; Tree planting in the United
States - 1999; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 8
through public-private partnerships. Each percentage point increase means recovery of an
additional one million tons of paper – enough to fill more than 14,000 railroad cars.
Moreover, in 2007, recycled fiber constituted 37% of the total fiber use in U.S. paper and
paperboard manufacture, compared to 27% in 1990.
Reducing Our Environmental Footprint
Over several decades, we have dramatically improved our environmental
performance. For example, between 1975 and 2006, AF&PA member pulp and paper
facilities decreased the volume of discharged water per ton of production by 53%, total
suspended solids (TSS) discharges have been reduced by 80.1% and BOD discharges
have been reduced by 87.3 %. Members’ mill reductions in air emission rates between
baseline year 1980 and 2006 were 71.9% for SO2, 42.9% for NOx, and 83.9 % for total
reduced sulfur (TRS). Finally, since 1995, member pulp and paper mills reduced their
waste generation by 21%.
III.
Possible Stationary Source Regulatory Programs
This section includes our comments on each of the stationary source programs
identified and assessed by EPA in the ANPR. As explained above, our general view is
that it would be difficult at best to develop efficient and effective CAA stationary source
requirements applicable to GHG emissions. This section explains in more detail for each
of the programs why this is the case.
A.
Regulating GHGs through the Title I ambient air quality program.
The Title I ambient air quality program is particularly ill-suited as an efficient and
effective mechanism for addressing GHG emissions and climate change. The National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) provisions clearly were drafted with the
expectation that ambient air quality problems in the United States are largely a product of
emissions within the United States. The Act plainly contemplates that an individual state
or groups of states can adopt measures that will be effective in reducing emissions to the
point that nonattainment problems are remedied and attaining areas will continue to have
good air quality. These fundamental assumptions underlying the NAAQS program simply
do not apply to GHG emissions and the issue of global climate change.
GHG emissions become well-mixed in the atmosphere, resulting in essentially
homogeneous concentrations throughout the world. And, while sources in the United
States represent a sizable fraction of global GHG emissions, more than three-fourths of
global GHG emissions come from non-U.S. sources and nonanthropogenic sources.
Thus, the problem of climate change and any effective solution require concerted
international action. In and of itself, even aggressive action to reduce GHG emissions in
the United States would not significantly affect global atmospheric concentrations of
GHGs.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 9
The following illustrates the key problems and challenges of regulating GHGs under
the Title I ambient air quality program:
Every area of the country would constitute a single, monolithic attainment or
nonattainment area: Because ambient GHG concentrations are essentially homogenous
throughout the country (and the world, for that matter), the entire country would share the
same designation status under a GHG NAAQS – attainment if the level is below the
established standard and nonattainment if above the established ambient standard. As
described above, the NAAQS program clearly was crafted with the expectation that EPA
and states have the authority and the ability to adopt control measures that would be
needed to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. When the CAA was adopted
and subsequently amended, Congress knew that air quality was good in some areas and
bad in others. The CAA was expressly designed to allow (and require) a tailored approach
to air quality management that focused the greatest burdens on the limited areas with bad
air quality. A unitary national designation status would cause this tailored approach to be
replaced with a “one size fits all” obligation that – regardless of attainment status – would
cause entire provisions of the CAA NAAQS program to be superfluous with regard to
GHGs. This outcome is incompatible with the structure and design of the Act. Of course,
these problems would be exacerbated by the threshold difficulties EPA would encounter in
setting a NAAQS in the first instance (e.g., determining what level is “requisite” to protect
public health or welfare, given the attenuated chain of causation between emissions and
effects and the long time frames required for many climate effects to be evidenced).
If the entire country were designated as being in nonattainment with a primary
NAAQS for GHGs, no state would be able to develop an approvable implementation
plan. As a result, onerous sanctions would have to be imposed and the entire
country would be directly regulated by EPA: The general nonattainment provisions of
the CAA establish a fixed attainment deadline for primary standards of no more than ten
years from the time of designation. Because no single state or group of states would be
able to demonstrate to EPA that they can compel the GHG emissions reductions that
would be needed to assure attainment within ten years, EPA would be required to reject all
state implementation plans. Among other things, this would require EPA to apply
sanctions to all states (including enhanced offset requirements and loss of federal highway
funds) and would require EPA eventually to assume responsibility for establishing and
implementing the nonattainment program across the country. The sequence of events
would be unavoidable under the Act as it stands, and patently demonstrates that the
nonattainment provisions are guaranteed to fail if a primary standard were set for GHGs.
Note that EPA asks for comment on the possibility that this outcome could be
avoided by invoking § 179B, which allows EPA to approve an otherwise deficient
nonattainment SIP if the Administrator concludes that the SIP would be adequate but for
pollution emitted outside the United States. This is not a workable solution for at least two
reasons. First, the title of § 179B is “International Border Areas.” While the text of the
provision does not specify that it applies only to emissions from border countries, the title
could be construed as limiting § 179B only to emissions from border countries. Second,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 10
and more importantly, § 179B may be invoked only if the SIP is otherwise approvable. No
jurisdiction could meet even this more limited requirement.
Even if a way could be found to approve state nonattainment SIPs, additional
insurmountable obstacles would follow. The most important would be the nonattainment
new source review (“NNSR”) program. The major source threshold for nonattainment
pollutants under the general nonattainment provisions of the Act is 100 tpy – an
exceedingly low level when applied to GHG sources (particularly CO2 sources). An NNSR
permit must require the new source or modification to meet the “lowest achievable
emissions rate” (“LAER”), which is the best level of control that can be applied to the
particular type of source – without regard to cost. The permittee also must assure that
aggregate emissions of the nonattainment pollutant will not increase as a result of the new
source or modification, which requires the source to obtain offsets.
Consequently, NNSR requirements would apply to a vastly greater range of sources
than ever before and to countless types of sources and facilities never before covered by
CAA major source programs (e.g., hospitals, small apartment buildings, sawmills, box
plants). The transactional costs (e.g., administrative costs, time required for permitting,
cost of preparing applications) alone would engulf permitting authorities and permittees.
But, above all that, the requirement to achieve LAER would drive the widespread
implementation of exceedingly costly controls and control measures that ultimately would
have essentially no effect on local, regional, or global GHG ambient concentrations. In
other words, the implicit assumption in the Act that NNSR will be a tool for helping achieve
attainment of the NAAQS would be inherently untrue for GHGs.
If the entire country were designated as being in attainment, the CAA still
would require the imposition of onerous, if not impossible, obligations on states
and sources3: While the Act does not specify strict control measures and other related
requirements for attainment areas as it does for nonattainment areas, a significant
obligation nevertheless remains – the obligations to prevent significant deterioration. In
other words, the primary obligation in attainment areas is to make sure good air quality
remains good. In reality, of course, no individual state or local jurisdiction has power or
authority over enough GHG emissions sources to effectively manage GHG ambient
concentrations within its jurisdiction. Thus, if worldwide GHG emissions and ambient GHG
concentrations continue to rise, each attainment area in the United States would eventually
fail to meet its obligation to prevent significant deterioration. Given that worldwide GHG
emissions and ambient concentrations are, in fact, projected to continue to rise for the
foreseeable future – even in a future where the international community is committed to
significant action to reduce GHG emissions – an attainment strategy under an EPAimplemented NAAQS program would fail.
3
Although EPA proposes this attainment scenario in the ANPR, it is not clear that anything but a nonattainment designation scenario would be the logical outcome of regulating GHGs under the NAAQS given
the climate impacts already being claimed in Alaska and other areas of the World.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 11
In addition, regulating GHGs under an attainment program requires that GHGs be
subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) new source review permitting
program. As described above for the NNSR program, this creates intractable problems.
For example, the PSD major source threshold is either 100 or 250 tpy, depending on the
source type. EPA is authorized to establish “significant thresholds,” which define how
large an emissions increase must be at an existing major source to trigger PSD
requirements. If EPA does not establish a significant threshold for a given pollutant, the
threshold by law is zero. A PSD permit must require the new source or modification to
meet an emissions limitation representing “best available control technology” (“BACT”).
PSD permits also must assure that the new source or modification will not cause a NAAQS
to be violated or cause unacceptable deterioration of existing air quality. While not quite
as broadly applicable or stringent as the parallel NNSR provisions, the outcome would
nevertheless be the same – i.e., exceedingly broad applicability, enormous transaction
costs, and substantial control costs that will have no discernable impact on global ambient
air quality.
Establishing only a secondary standard would provide greater
implementation flexibility, but would still pose great challenges. Implementing a
NAAQS program under a secondary standard offers one significant advantage over a
program designed to implement a primary standard – there is no fixed attainment deadline
specified for secondary standards. Instead, nonattainment areas must attain the standard
“as soon as practicable.” The lack of a fixed deadline conceivably gives EPA the authority
to allow implementation programs to span many years, if not decades. EPA explains in
the ANPR the possibility of adopting an approach like that used under the regional haze
program, where the goal of attaining no manmade visibility impairment is set at the year
2064. Under this program, states are required to adopt a new implementation plan every
decade, with progress to the goal being demonstrated incrementally over the several
planning periods.
This is a possibility that should be explored if EPA decides that it must consider
establishing GHG requirements under the CAA for stationary sources. We caution,
however, that this approach has its pitfalls. For example, it is uncertain that EPA could
defend a decision to set only a secondary standard. Regulatory proponents might argue
that, given the available scientific evidence related to potential impacts of GHG emissions
and climate change on the public health, EPA would be unlawfully arbitrary in choosing not
to set a primary standard. Similarly, there likely would be significant debate (if not
litigation) over how long the “glidepath” should be for reducing GHG emissions. Such
problems reduce the certainty that might otherwise come from an Agency decision to
pursue this path.
B.
Additional issues related to regulating GHGs under the New
Source Review Program.
The new source review (“NSR”) permitting program generally requires that a permit
to be obtained prior to construction or modification of a major source or regulated air
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 12
pollutants. As explained above, the NSR program consists of two primary pieces – the
PSD program and the NNSR program.
The NSR program is fraught with ambiguity, complexity, and difficulty – even before
considering the possibility of applying it to GHGs. Determining whether an NSR permit
must be obtained can be extremely difficult, particularly for existing complex sources, such
as refineries, utilities, portland cement plants and pulp and paper mills. In some cases
where applicability of the program is unclear, it can take many months to obtain a
determination from a state and/or EPA as to whether NSR permitting applies for a given
modification. Because it is a one-size-fits-all program that applies to all source types that
exceed the specified emissions thresholds, countless source-specific determinations have
been made over the life of the program, resulting in a program with requirements being
dictated more by guidance documents than regulation or statute.
Moreover, if a project does, in fact, trigger the need for an NSR permit, preparing
the application and support materials can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars
and it is not unusual for it to take a year to eighteen months for the permit to be issued.
Thus, even without considering the cost and burden of installing, operating, and
maintaining any required air pollution controls (which often are sizable), the costs and
delay of NSR permitting place a tremendous burden on industrial facilities. Not
surprisingly, this creates strong incentives for sources to avoid the program by forgoing
improvement projects or accepting limitations that can significantly degrade facility
capacity, efficiency, or flexibility, putting U.S. facilities that compete in a global economy at
a severe economic advantage.
Subjecting GHGs to NSR will add significantly to these existing problems.
Facilities that already deal with NSR will have substantially greater
obligations: The major source thresholds under both PSD and NNSR are aggressive
even as they apply to the existing population of CAA-regulated pollutants, such as nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxide. Given that GHGs (particularly CO2) typically are emitted in far
greater quantities than other regulated pollutants, the effect will be that NSR will apply as a
practical matter in a proportionally much more stringent fashion. For example, installation
of a typical small combustion source (such as an emergency generator or HVAC unit)
generally would not trigger the need for an NSR permit for the currently regulated
pollutants. Such a unit would emit small amounts of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and perhaps sulfur dioxide, but the potential to emit of these compounds
from such a small source would not come close to exceeding major source or significant
thresholds.
In contrast, such a small combustion source easily could have the potential to emit
CO2 well in excess of the applicability thresholds. As a result, even at existing facilities
that have knowledge and experience with the NSR program, the program would become a
significantly greater burden and impose correspondingly greater impediments on safe,
efficient, and reliable operations. For example, keeping up with the tracking and
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 13
recordkeeping associated with EPA’s new “reasonable possibility” rule would, in and of
itself, be a huge additional burden when applied to CO2 sources.
A substantial number of new sources and source types would get drawn into
the program: EPA’s NSR Technical Support Document (“TSD”) provides a good
representative view of the vast expansion of the NSR program that would occur if GHGs
become subject to the program. Countless types of facilities not previously subject to the
program would now have to grapple with one of the most complex and arcane provisions
under the CAA – including bakeries, dry cleaners, hospitals, small apartment buildings,
and all manner of businesses with even small buildings or offices. Within our industry,
newly regulated facilities might include box plants and other converting operations, small
lumber and wood products mills, and other similar low-emitting sources. The TSD predicts
that tens of thousands of such facilities would become newly subject to the program.
The adverse results are difficult to overestimate. Regulators would see their
workload grow by orders of magnitude. Countless business owners would have new and
complex requirements to understand – requirements that rival the tax code in their burden
and complexity. Implementation surely would be highly uneven and widespread
noncompliance (with the attendant legal risks) would become a certainty. Worst of all, the
result would be essentially no progress for the foreseeable future in reducing GHG
emissions or addressing climate change because, as noted elsewhere in these comments,
there are no add-on control technologies for reducing CO2 emissions and management
practices, such as efficiency improvements, can produce only marginal improvements.
EPA’s innovative ideas likely are not supportable under the law: In the GHG
ANPR, EPA suggests that an NSR program for GHGs could be made more manageable if
the major source thresholds could be adjusted to account for the proportionally greater
amount of GHG emissions as compared to the “traditional” pollutants for which the
thresholds were established. The Agency suggests a “scaling” approach based on the
“global warming potential” of the various GHGs. Similarly, EPA asks for comment on the
possibility of redefining the term “major stationary source” to help manage program
applicability for GHGs. EPA also suggests that the de minimis authority used to set the
existing significant thresholds might allow far higher thresholds to be established for
GHGs. The agency also offers programmatic suggestions, such as the widespread use of
general permits. See 73 Fed. Reg. 44504 et seq.
While some of these ideas might have value if GHGs become regulated under the
NSR program, they all share a common flaw – these ideas run counter either to the plain
text of the CAA (e.g., the statutory major source thresholds) or to well established EPA
regulations and policies. As a result, new GHG-specific NSR provisions would be
vulnerable, if not extremely vulnerable, to legal challenge. While the likelihood of success
of such challenges is impossible to gauge at this point, EPA should not make the
momentous decision to regulate GHGs under the NSR program on the assumption that
novel rules will be sustained and, therefore, will be available to manage the program and
mitigate the otherwise enormously bad consequences of applying the program to GHGs. In
addition, even if the Agency were able to adopt and defend GHG-specific applicability
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 14
provisions, the time required for states to amend their programs and have the
amendments SIP-approved would substantially delay any meaningful relief.
C.
Regulating under the § 111 “New Source Performance Standard”
Program.
Section 111 of the CAA provides for two distinctly different types of regulatory
programs. First, § 111(b) calls for the development of standards for newly constructed,
reconstructed, or modified sources. These standards are developed by U.S. EPA and
implemented directly as federal requirements. Second, § 111(d) requires the
implementation of standards for existing sources that are not undergoing reconstruction or
modification. These standards are administered in a “SIP-like” manner, such that EPA
sets the performance standard and states are required to adopt regulations that meet or
exceed the federal obligation. Section 111(d) does not apply to criteria pollutants and
HAPs.
Regulating GHGs under § 111 offers two advantages not shared by all other CAA
stationary source programs. First, cost is a factor that must be considered in establishing
emissions standards under § 111. This means that no standard should be set for GHGs
unless EPA can show that the costs are justified (presumably in light of some quantifiable
benefit associated with the resulting GHG emissions reductions). Second, there is at least
a possibility of implementing § 111 standards through a market-based cap-and-trade
program, such as EPA attempted to establish through the Clean Air Mercury Rule. In the
case of GHGs, it would ideally be implemented on a multi-sector basis and would allow for
early action credit and the generation of offsets from unregulated entities (such as forests).
As we have noted throughout these comments, no pollution control technology currently
exists for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion sources (which constitute the vast
majority of the GHG emissions in the United States). Without available add-on controls, all
that remains is efficiency improvements. A cap and trade program would allow sources to
make cost effect efficiency improvements and purchase any additional allowances
necessary to meet compliance obligations.
While much of this might possibly be accomplished under § 111, we note that the
need for these important program elements highlights the value of new legislation, where
such elements could be expressly provided. We also note that, under any cap-and-trade
program for GHGs that EPA might establish under the CAA, EPA would have no clear
authority to auction allowances. Requiring regulated entities to purchase emission
allowances at auction would add exponentially to regulatory compliance costs of the
program and severely affect our global competitiveness. Such an approach is simply not
authorized under the CAA, is not authorized by any other law or authority available to EPA,
and, in any event, likely would be prohibited by the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, 31 U.S.C.
3302.
These potential advantages are offset by a number of problems that make
regulation of GHGs under § 111 potentially problematic.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 15
EPA’s “traditional” method of administering § 111 would impose great
burdens on the Agency and regulated entities: To date, NSPS requirements have
been developed on a sector-specific, equipment-specific, and activity-specific basis. The
result is that dozens of NSPS have been promulgated over the years which parse the
regulated community into relatively small pieces. The Agency suggests in the ANPR that
this approach might be avoided in the case of GHGs by the development of “super
categories” of sources, given that there potentially are fewer distinctions among GHG
emitters that might necessitate more specific source categories. Such an effort might be
aided by data collected through a possible future GHG inventory or registry program.
In our view, the use of “super categories” likely would result in highly inefficient
“one-size-fits-all” requirements. Having said that, parsing more finely would multiply the
regulatory burden on EPA, surely resulting in a slow and incremental program. And, under
either approach, the Agency would be required to conduct time and data intensive
investigations of each category in order to make the “endangerment” finding needed to
authorize regulation.
Also, standards under either approach would share some of the same fundamental
flaws as standards under other CAA stationary source programs. For example, NSPSs
must be based on the “best demonstrated technology.” For the foreseeable future, there is
no technology that would be more than marginally effective in reducing GHGs and, in any
event, no “add-on” technology is currently available for any significant source type. In
addition, any GHG reductions achieved under such a program would have no discernable
effect on ambient GHG levels and, therefore, would not be expected to have any
discernable effect on global climate change.
Categorical NSPSs also would have to be reviewed and, as necessary, revised at
least every 8 years. For a long-term problem like climate change, this would make the
program particularly burdensome because the prospect of incremental changes in
regulatory requirements on a relatively frequent schedule would frustrate or make
impossible the long-term planning needed to efficiently and effectively manage major
capital assets and investments.
Regulating GHGs under § 111 also would unavoidably cause GHGs to become
subject to the PSD permitting program and would not preclude regulation under
other CAA stationary source programs: Even if not triggered as described above by
the imposition of a NAAQS-driven attainment program, the PSD permitting program
applies to any pollutant “subject to regulation” under the CAA. Thus, establishing GHG
standards under § 111 would trigger the PSD permitting program for GHGs – with all of the
attendant problems described previously. The result is that even a hypothetically more
rational and efficient NSPS regulatory scheme would be undermined (perhaps fatally) by a
costly, time-consuming, and inflexible permitting regime.
Second, even if EPA tried to limit its GHG regulatory program to § 111 (and PSD), it
is unlikely that EPA could avoid regulating GHG emissions under other stationary source
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 16
programs. There is no provision in the CAA that prevents regulation under other programs
if NSPS requirements are established for a given pollutant. Moreover, as discussed
elsewhere in these comments, the threshold determinations that authorize regulation
under other programs (such as the three criteria described above for designating new
NAAQS pollutants) likely would be unavoidably triggered by the determinations EPA would
have to make to authorize regulation under § 111, § 202, or other programs that EPA may
initially decide to pursue. As a result, regulation under § 111 almost certainly could not be
defended as an exclusive mechanism for regulating GHG emissions under the CAA
stationary source programs.
EPA has no authority to regulate forests under § 111: AF&PA disagrees with
EPA’s consideration of possibly regulating the forestry sector under § 111.4 AF&PA
believes forests/forest management is a sector that has a significant role to play in helping
build low cost solutions to GHG reductions. The nation’s forests, recognized as the most
significant and renewable U.S. carbon sink, can help the nation as a whole achieve GHG
reductions through carbon capture and storage, providing renewable biomass energy and
cellulosic biofuel feedstock, and generating reductions that offset and provide greater
flexibility to GHG emitting industries. However, AF&PA does not believe force-fitting
forests and forest management within the CAA regulated program as a stationary source is
a useful approach nor supported under CAA authority. Specifically, efforts to manage
forests responsibly to achieve and enhance carbon capture and storage opportunities must
be collaborative and voluntary, and the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to regulate
private forests. The Forestry Sector is not a stationary source under the CAA. EPA would
trigger many troubling questions and impractical outcomes for forest management if it tried
to mandate forest management practices through the CAA. And not the least, responsibly
managed forests serve as the nation’s most significant net carbon sink and therefore do
not “endanger” public health or welfare. Thus there is no basis for a GHG New Source
Performance Standard for the forestry sector. The National Association of Forest Owners
(NAFO) comments also address this issue. AF&PA urges EPA to abandon further
evaluation of this approach.
D.
Regulating GHG emissions under the § 112 hazardous air
pollutant program.
The requirements of § 112 generally apply only to emissions of listed hazardous air
pollutants (“HAPs”). Emissions standards for “major sources” and certain other sources
must be implemented through a two step process. The first step involves setting
technology-based standards that must reflect the emissions reductions achieved by the
better performing sources in the given source category. The second step requires a
determination of whether unacceptable risk remains after the implementation of the
technology-based standards. Additional reductions might be required under the second
step if needed to abate unacceptable “residual risk.”
4
EPA in the Technical Support Document on Stationary Sources at 36 considers regulating agriculture and
forestry under § 111, and similarly, in the ANPR preamble suggests requiring “mitigation technologies” for
the forest industry. 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44405-06 (July 30, 2008)
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 17
The requirements of § 112 are particularly poorly suited for controlling GHG
emissions and addressing climate change.
Most fundamentally, GHGs are not hazardous air pollutants. There is no doubt
that § 112 was designed to address a particular type of pollution – emissions from discrete
sources that have direct adverse impacts on human health or the environment. The
ambient air quality program and the § 112 air toxics program are bookends in that the
former deals with ubiquitous pollution generated by numerous and diverse sources, while
the latter deals with pollution from discrete sources having adverse effects on particular
populations or in particular areas. Moreover, the existing hazardous air pollutants all share
common traits. They can cause direct adverse impacts on human health or the
environment. In other words, breathing too much of any given HAP will harm people and
emitting too much of certain HAPs into the environment will cause direct, ascertainable,
and adverse environmental effects.
While there are facially broad criteria for listing a new HAP, these criteria must be
interpreted in the context of the § 112 program and the type of pollution that it is designed
to address. From this perspective, there is no basis for listing GHGs as HAPs for their
effect on climate change. GHGs are ubiquitous in the atmosphere, are emitted from a vast
number and variety of sources, and the potential effects on health or the environment are
secondary, at best (i.e., breathing CO2 at levels anywhere close to atmospheric levels
presents no threat whatsoever to human health). In short, GHGs are not “hazardous air
pollutants” as that term applies under § 112 and, therefore, there is no basis for listing and
regulating GHGs under § 112.5
Technology based standards under § 112 would not be an efficient or
effective means of reducing GHG emissions. No pollution control technology currently
exists for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion sources (which constitute the vast
majority of the GHG emissions in the United States). Without available add-on controls, all
that remains is efficiency improvements. However, “MACT” standards must nominally be
established without consideration of cost. They must require all sources in the category to
at least meet the level of emissions control achieved by the better-performing sources in
the category. Thus, efficiency measures that might make sense for a subset of sources in
a given category might be required for a larger group of sources for which such measures
make no practical sense.
Moreover, EPA is being held by the D.C. Circuit to an ever more constrained and
inflexible interpretation of § 112. This means that EPA should have no realistic
expectation of developing innovative interpretations – such as a § 112-based cap-andtrade program – that might facilitate implementation of GHG requirements. Perhaps most
troubling is the notion most recently suggested by the Court in the “Brick MACT” decision
that standards must be developed and implemented even when there is no discernable
5
The only slight benefit of regulating GHGs under section 112 is that it could avoid regulation under the PSD
program.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 18
technology or other control measure that can be employed. Thus, the mere happenstance
of a group of better performing sources could result in draconian requirements for all other
similar sources.
Added to all of these problems is the requirement for EPA to review and, as
appropriate, revise § 112 “MACT” standards at least every 8 years. As with the § 111
program addressed above, this requirement would make any § 112 program particularly
burdensome because the prospect of incremental changes in regulatory requirements on a
relatively frequent schedule would frustrate or make impossible the long-term planning
needed to efficiently and effectively manage major capital assets and investments.
The § 112(f) “residual risk” provisions could significantly magnify the basic
problems created by the technology-based standards. If determined to be applicable
to GHG (more on applicability below), the “residual risk” provisions of § 112 could make a
bad situation substantially worse. If EPA were to find that unacceptable risk remains after
imposition of any MACT standard for GHGs, it would be required under the Act to impose
further restrictions on emissions as necessary to eliminate the unacceptable remaining
risk. This, or course, could create the requirement for the Agency to impose draconian
control requirements for GHGs according to an impossible timetable. Even the mere
possibility of such an outcome justifies a decision not to regulate GHGs under § 112.
Having said that, there is good reason to believe that these residual risk provisions
simply have no meaning as applied to GHGs. Section 112(f) and EPA’s now wellestablished process for implementing this provision call for a determination as to whether
emissions from the given source category present an unacceptable risk to the most
exposed individual. Two methods are applied to make this determination. First, for nonthreshold pollutants (i.e., carcinogens), EPA determines whether the hypothetically most
exposed individual would have an increased risk of more than one-in-a-million. If so,
additional control measures might need to be adopted. This analysis has no meaning for
GHGs as they affect climate change because human exposure to GHGs is not the effect of
concern. Furthermore, looking at just U.S. sources of GHGs and their residual risk does
not really address a global issue.
EPA also determines whether emissions of “threshold pollutants” (i.e., those that
have adverse human health effects above a certain level of exposure) might exceed the
established threshold. If the threshold is predicted to be exceeded for the most exposed
individual, then additional control measures may be prescribed. This analysis too has no
meaning for GHGs as they effect climate change because human exposure to GHGs is not
the effect of concern. The sum of this analysis is that § 112(f), and by extension § 112 as
a whole, are simply inapplicable to GHGs.
The problems associated with applying § 112 to GHGs would not necessarily
be limited to “major sources.” EPA must nominally regulate all “major sources” of listed
HAPs. A source is a “major source” under § 112 if it is located at a facility where site-wide
potential HAP emissions exceed 10 tons for any individual HAP or 25 tons for total HAPs.
EPA’s NSR TSD provides an analysis of the type and number of additional sources that
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 19
would be drawn into the NSR program if GHGs become subject to that program. Not
surprisingly, the TSD shows that a wide variety of new source types would be drawn into
the program (e.g., apartment buildings, commercial buildings, very large homes, bakeries)
and tens of thousands of sources would become newly regulated. The analysis in the
NSR TSD is based on the NSR applicability thresholds – 100 and 250 tons per year (“tpy”).
These results likely would be multiplied by orders of magnitude if the same analysis
were conducted for the possibility of regulating GHGs under § 112. This would be due, of
course, to the much lower applicability thresholds under § 112 – 10 and 25 tpy vs. 100 and
250 tpy. The virtually unlimited breadth of a § 112 major-source program would render
such a program simply unworkable as a practical matter. It would be extremely hard for
EPA to devise the required regulations; countless regulated entities would not know they
were covered, would not know how to comply, or would not have the know-how or
resources to comply; and compliance and enforcement programs would be overwhelmed.
In reality, the effect could be much worse. The reason is that the § 112 program is
not limited to major sources. EPA is authorized, and may be obligated, also to regulate
“area sources” (i.e., non-major HAP sources). While further analysis would be needed to
determine if GHG emissions for their effect on climate change would trigger the specified
criteria, the very possibility should cause EPA to set aside the option of regulating GHGs
for their effect on climate under § 112.
E.
Regulating GHGs under the Title VI Ozone Depleting Substances
Program.
Congress enacted Title VI of the CAA specifically to address a global atmospheric
phenomenon with international ramifications: depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. It
did so by drafting provisions tailored expressly to address that problem in fulfillment of U.S.
obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In
creating Title VI, Congress demonstrated the CAA could not be used to address global
atmospheric issues and that the issue demanded an entirely new and different statutory
structure. GHG emissions and their potential impact on climate change are clearly outside
the scope of both the Montreal Protocol and the domestic U.S. legislation enacted to
implement the Protocol. Any suggestion by EPA that the “general authority” under § 615
of the CAA could be used to limit GHG emissions on the theory that they might impact the
stratosphere, is misplaced and would constitute a misapplication of the title.
F.
Regulating GHGs under the Title V Operating Permit Program.
The Title V permit program should not be a mechanism for substantively regulating
GHGs given that the primary purpose of Title V permits is to list applicable requirements
derived from other parts of the CAA. Having said that, the potential implications under
Title V of regulating GHGs under the CAA are substantial.
Title V applicability generally is tied to whether a given source is a CAA major
source or, in any event, whether source emissions of regulated pollutants exceed 100 tpy.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 20
This, of course, means that regulating GHGs under other sections of the CAA will result in
a vast expansion of the Title V program. Today, on the order of 15,000 sources
nationwide are subject to the program. Regulating GHGs would certainly cause this
number to balloon by at least an order of magnitude.
As with the PSD program discussed above, this expansion would cause problems
for regulators because the time and resources needed to issue tens of thousands of more
permits would place a heavy burden on the existing administrative infrastructure. Of
course, the Title V program is designed to be self-funding through a mandatory emissionsbased fee system. This would make financial resources available to permitting authorities,
but would not lessen the great burden of expanding and managing existing permitting
departments. But, more importantly, the population of regulated sources would expand to
include countless small business and other entities with little or no expertise in
environmental regulation and, often, few available resources to understand the program
and take the steps necessary to comply. The mandatory fees would exacerbate the
program’s impact on these sources.
Again as with the NSR program, EPA suggests that there may be ways to reduce
the potential burden – such as widespread use of general permits. It is highly unlikely that
even aggressive use of such mechanisms would prevent Title V from becoming an
enormous procedural and practical roadblock. This is particularly problematic given that
the application of Title V to so many facilities would promote no particular regulatory
purpose with regard to GHGs or climate change because Title V permits merely list
applicable requirements and do not serve as a mechanism for creating new substantive
obligations. Moreover, application of Title V would have an impact that is quite the
opposite from its original purpose, when it was incorporated into the CAA, which was to
simplify the regulatory regime.
G.
Regulating GHGs under § 115.
Under § 115, whenever EPA receives reports, surveys or studies from an
international agency that gives it reason to believe that any air pollutant emitted in the U.S.
causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare in a foreign country, or EPA receives a request to act with respect
to such pollution from the State Department, EPA must take action under § 110 and
require states to revise their SIPs to prevent or eliminate the endangerment. Action under
§ 115 is authorized, however, only if the foreign country gives to U.S. citizens “essentially”
the same rights with respect to prevention or control of air pollution as are provided to that
country under § 115.
Regulating GHGs under § 115 offers certain potential advantages as compared to
other CAA programs – such as the need to find “reciprocity” before being authorized to
regulate, which might help avoid the pitfalls of unilateral U.S. action under the CAA.
Similarly, requiring any needed reductions to be accomplished through state SIPs opens
the possibility of a widely applicable, market based cap and trade scheme (like the Clean
Air Interstate Rule).
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 21
Having said that, EPA would have five hurdles to overcome in order to invoke § 115
to apply to GHG emissions. First, reciprocity has never been found to exist for purposes of
§ 115 and likely does not exist anywhere in the world today. Second, courts interpreting §
115 have held that EPA need not set into motion the procedures otherwise dictated by §
115 until the Agency is able to identify the specific sources in the United States of
pollutants that could cause harm in the foreign country Her Majesty the Queen in Right of
Ontario v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 912 F.2d 1525 (DC Cir 1990). In the
case of CO2, § 115 would be an “all or nothing proposition” – i.e., given the ubiquitous
nature of GHG emissions, a finding that § 115 must be invoked would cause every
Governor to be notified and every SIP revised. But no amount of control in all of the States
combined could have any appreciable effect in the foreign country concerned in the
absence of a concerted, comparable international effort.
Third, the ANPR suggests that if any single country in the world were to grant
reciprocity to the United States, this would authorize the Administrator to invoke § 115.
Given the homogenous global concentration of GHGs and the global nature of climate
change, this would seem to mean that the finding for one country would require domestic
reductions as needed to solve the problem not just for that country, but unavoidably for all
countries. This is not a rational interpretation of § 115. Fourth, Title I of the Act makes
clear that states are authorized to regulate only NAAQS pollutants under SIPs. So, unless
EPA determines that GHGs are NAAQS pollutants, § 115 has no application. Lastly,
regulation under § 115 likely would initiate regulatory “snowballing” under the CAA, such
as the application of PSD to GHGs.
IV.
Carbon Neutrality of Biomass Combustion
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the European Commission, and other internationally recognized
climate policy groups have concluded that the combustion of biomass causes no net
addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. As a result, the emissions of CO2 associated with the
combustion of biomass are not included in greenhouse gas emissions totals. Reliance on
biomass-based fuels is a key component of U.S. national strategy to reduce greenhouse
gases. Nationwide, biomass comprises approximately 64% of the fuel used by AF&PA
members’ pulp and paper mills and 74% of the fuel used by wood products mills.
Consequently, any GHG stationary source regulatory program that EPA decides to
adopt must recognize the carbon neutrality of biomass combustion and include provisions
preventing the treatment of biomass combustion sources as regulated entities under such
programs. We can conceive of ways that this might be justified under the various CAA
stationary source provisions (e.g., determine under the NSPS program that biomass
combustion does not contribute to “endangerment” from any given source category and,
thus, should not be regulated). Unfortunately, such ideas could be seen as running
counter to the plain meaning of the CAA and, thus, any attempt by the Agency would be
legally vulnerable.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 22
This highlights the shortcomings of the CAA as it relates to the adoption of sensible
GHG regulations. Having said that, we urge EPA to treat biomass combustion as carbon
neutral in any CAA regulatory program the Agency decides to adopt.
V.
Sequestration in Forests and Forest Products
EPA’s ANPR TSD recognizes that forests in the U.S. are a net carbon sink for
greenhouse gases, rather than a net source. Accordingly, emissions related to managed
forests and land management should not be regulated, nor included under any cap in a
cap and trade system that might be adopted. Instead, forestry practices should be eligible
to participate voluntarily in offset programs on a project basis. All existing GHG
international protocols treat forestry in this manner
It is imperative that carbon sequestration in managed forests and forest products be
eligible as voluntary offsets. Over time, sustainable forest resources store additional
carbon. Much of this sequestered atmospheric carbon is transferred into long-lived forest
products. The climate benefits of this process are significant. In the U.S., carbon
sequestered by forests and products each year is enough to offset approximately 10
percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.6 Forests and forest products also help offset
fossil fuel emissions through the use of biomass energy and the low manufacturing energy
requirements of wood products.7 More than half the forestland in the United States is
privately owned – roughly 424 million acres. Of that, 354 million acres are actively
managed for timber.
As stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment
(IPCC) Report, Mitigation:
In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at
maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual
sustained yield of timber, fiber or energy from the forest, will generate the
largest sustained mitigation benefit.8
For these reasons, it is essential to ensure that emerging climate change policy and
programs to reduce GHGs recognize and value the carbon sink benefit of forests and
forest products. Doing so will help the realization of climate change program objectives,
help address costs concerns of such programs, and create economic incentives to forest
land owners to maintain their property as sustainable forested land. Much of the technical
and analytical methodology to support this approach has been developed over the past
several years and is continuing to be refined.
6
The State of America’s Forests SAF 2007
(http://www.safnet.org/aboutforestry/StateOfAmericasForests.pdf).
7
Framing a home with wood instead of steel or concrete can save 26% to 31% greenhouse gas emissions
over the life of the home (www.corrim.org).
8
(Source: IPCC. 2007. Mitigation, Fourth Assessment Report).
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 23
AF&PA is currently participating in a broad stakeholder effort with U.S. and
Canadian forestry and environmental groups to develop North American consensus
around forest carbon measurement standards. The goal of these new consensus
standards, developed under a process accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), is to bring together existing and emerging forest carbon measurement
protocols from state, provincial, regional, and national climate policies and programs. The
resulting bi-national consensus standards will establish uniform policies across North
America to provide a broadly-supported basis for forest carbon protocols in both countries.
VI.
International Trade
In the ANPR, EPA solicits comments on “trade related policies” such as import
tariffs on carbon or energy content, export subsidies, or requirements for importers to
submit allowances to cover the carbon content of certain products.” These policies have
been proposed in recent legislation as a means of combating potential emissions leakage
and the relocation of certain industries to countries without GHG regulations. We
recognize the potential competitiveness and emissions leakage impacts of domestic
climate change regulations, but agree with the EPA’s concerns about some of the
proposed trade measures that have been proposed. Our position is outlined in the
following paragraphs.
Despite facing increasing domestic and international challenges, AF&PA supports
free but fair trade. We believe that in the long term, free trade is good for our industry and
the U.S. economy and enhances our standard of living. It is also the single most important
policy that the U.S. can pursue to alleviate poverty and stimulate the wealth creation in
developing countries needed to enhance the conservation of natural resources and protect
the environment.
A border tax or other border measures are highly imperfect and will have their own
negative repercussions. With exports representing an important segment of our industry’s
business, we need to maintain and open international markets and not expose our exports
to potential trade retaliation. Instead, the best U.S. climate change policy option for
addressing leakage is to make the domestic program’s costs as low as possible for U.S.
industry and encouraging other countries to impose similar requirements. This means
allocating long-term full allowances for the manufacturing sector, instituting flexible offset
policies, and making emissions cap reductions timed to the availability of new energy
efficient technology.
Background
U.S. forest products manufacturers face mounting competition from global
competitors. U.S. imports of forest products for the most part have grown at a faster rate
than American exports, resulting in a wide trade deficit in the sector. In 2007, the U.S.
trade deficit in forest products stood at $13.2 billion. Since early 1997, more than 160 pulp
and paper mills have closed in the U.S., contributing to a loss of 92,000 jobs, or 43 percent
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 24
of our workforce. An additional 80,000 jobs have been lost in the wood products industry
since 1997. Many of these jobs were in rural areas and were the major source of
employment for the locale. The recent downturn in the nation’s economy, especially the
housing market, has only compounded these challenges.
The U.S. is essentially an open market with respect to forest products, with imports
accounting for significant shares of the domestic market. For instance, imports of paper
and paperboard currently account for about 20 percent of U.S. consumption, up from 16
percent a decade ago. Moreover, imports exceeded exports by a margin of about 60
percent in the period from 2000 through 2007. Imports also accounted for 36 percent of
U.S. lumber consumption and 20 percent of oriented strand board (OSB) consumption in
2007. The U.S. forest products industry makes products – paper, paperboard, pulp,
lumber, and panels – that are primarily sold on the basis of price. There is little in the way
of proprietary technologies or unique product designs to provide the domestic industry with
a competitive advantage. To the contrary, producers in countries such as Brazil, China,
Indonesia, and Russia often benefit from low wood fiber costs and/or lower wage costs,
plus access to the latest technology. Some emerging competitors have also benefited
from financial and other forms of government aid.
If a border tax is levied on imports, it is likely that developing countries will find a
way to protect their industries. Experience teaches us that even if we secured a favorable
World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on a border tax, there are many ways for
governments and companies to work around it to protect their jobs and maintain their
export industries. Governments with large publicly-owned forest estates can reduce the
price of wood fiber concessions to their forest products companies. Other WTO-legal
subsidies exist that countries could use to offset the cost of a U.S. border tax.
It is equally possible that other major emitting countries will consider such U.S.
actions as a unilateral protectionist act and an attack on their economic development.
Challenging U.S. border measures as a violation of WTO rules would be an almost
automatic response. However, even if U.S. action is found to be in compliance with WTO
rules, the potential fall out is likely to lead to a major economic and political collision with
U.S. trading partners. Another possibility is that U.S. exports would be subject to similar
border restrictions by countries that maintain more strict GHG emission controls than our
own. For example, there have been calls in the European Union for imposing border
restrictions on imports from countries that are not parties to the Kyoto Protocol (i.e., the
U.S.).
Trade measures are problematic with uncertain outcomes. While a post-2012
agreement with GHG mitigation commitments signed by all major countries, both
developed and developing, would be more favorable, it will not necessarily solve
competitiveness issues. The agreement that China and India agree to and sign will likely
be less stringent than what the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and other developed
countries would commit to. As a multilateral environmental agreement, a post-2012
agreement would be enforceable among the parties without violating WTO rules.
Therefore, as stated earlier, the best U.S. climate change policy option for addressing
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 25
competitiveness concerns is to make the program costs as low as possible for U.S.
industry.
VII.
EPA Must Take A New Look At What “Endangerment” Means In The
Context Of GHG Emissions and Climate Change
Throughout these comments, we have pointed out that emissions of GHGs are
fundamentally different than the air pollutants currently regulated under the CAA. And
climate change is an effect that is unlike anything else addressed by the Act (the closest
analogue being ozone depleting compounds, which required an entirely new title under the
Act to properly and effectively address). For example, GHGs come from many sources
and many types of sources. GHG emissions certainly are not limited to the United States
and natural sources are, by far, the greatest contributors to ambient concentrations. In
fact, U.S. anthropogenic sources today constitute just over 20% of worldwide emissions
and are declining as a percentage of the total.
GHGs remain in the atmosphere for relatively long periods of time, which causes
global GHG concentrations to be generally homogenous. Climate change is an effect that
is only slowly evidenced over extended periods of time. So, instead of having the potential
for an immediate or near immediate effect on human health or the environment, as most
currently regulated pollutants do, climate change plays out over tens or hundreds of years.
Nobody is threatened by breathing or contacting GHGs at levels anywhere near
atmospheric concentrations. The same is true for direct effects on welfare. The potential
adverse effects of climate change are consequences that are several degrees removed
causally from the point of emission.
All of this justifies and requires that EPA must carefully reconsider the meaning of
the term “endangerment” under the CAA as that term has been understood in the past. It
also provides potential flexibility as to the manner and timing of potential action to regulate
GHGs under the CAA.
A.
Can the indirect effects of GHG emissions constitute
endangerment?”
EPA has made a number of endangerment findings over the years in support of
various regulatory programs. However, each of these prior determinations was focused on
the direct effects on human health or the environment caused by emissions of the given
pollutant. In other words, EPA focused on the questions of whether breathing too much of
the pollutant would be harmful to people or whether emissions resulted in direct welfare
effects (e.g., acid rain from SO2 emissions). It is true that in some of these cases the
effect of concern is a step away from a causation standpoint – for example, VOC and NOx
emissions react in the atmosphere to produce ozone and, similarly, SO2 reacts in the
atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid that contributes to downwind acidification. However,
in all cases, the cause and effect relationship between emissions of the pollutant and the
adverse health or environmental effect has been directly attributable to the direct effects of
the pollutant or its atmospheric reaction products.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 26
GHGs have a far different potential effect on health and the environment. Of
course, nobody is concerned about any potentially harmful effects of breathing CO2 and
other GHGs at typical atmospheric concentrations. For example, CO2 can cause death by
asphyxiation, but would have to be present is large enough quantities that it would displace
the air that we would otherwise breathe. Similarly, CO2 is actually necessary for plant
growth and other natural processes at typical atmospheric concentrations. Moreover,
there are no atmospheric transformations of CO2 that produce direct deleterious effects.
Lastly, unlike most other pollutants regulated under the Act, there are numerous natural
sources of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Untangling effects associated with
anthropogenic emissions versus those associated with natural sources would be an
insurmountable challenge for the Agency.
The potential “endangerment” associated with GHG emissions, of course, is
associated with the potential effect increased atmospheric concentrations have on global
temperature and climate. Increases in global mean temperature, in turn, potentially
produce a range of incremental changes that could affect health or welfare, such as sea
level rise. While there may be a cause and effect relationship, that relationship is far more
attenuated and complex with regard to GHG emissions than with any other pollutant
currently regulated under the CAA.
In addition, even assuming universal agreement over the impacts and effects of
climate change and the likely time frame within which the globe is projected to experience
these, the general consensus is that with respect to virtually all parts of the globe,
significant sea level rise or other potentially adverse impacts on public health or the
environment are unlikely to occur for decades. This long “latency period” is an aspect of
the environmental challenge posed by climate change that is markedly different from those
posed by the pollutants traditionally regulated under the CAA.
All of these fundamental differences could support a decision by the Administrator
that GHG emissions do not constitute air pollution that reasonably endangers health or
welfare at all as compared to other regulated pollutants or, at least, does not reasonably
cause endangerment at this time.
B.
The Act requires EPA to err on the side of caution when
assessing endangerment; however, EPA must be guided by a
rule of reason.
Authority to regulate under § 202(a)(1) is based on a determination that pollution is
“reasonably anticipated” to cause endangerment. EPA points out in the GHG ANPR that
this language (in conjunction with the word “endangerment” itself, which relates not only to
actual harm but to the threat of harm) is precautionary in nature. However, this was never
intended to mean that only a complete and irrefutable knowledge that no environmental
harm will occur now or in the future could preclude a GHG regulatory program from being
adopted under the CAA. The word “reasonable” should also be construed to require EPA
to act with reason. This concept supports balanced decision making and the need for the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 27
Administrator to act with deliberation rather than proceeding on the basis of worst case
assumptions. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA expressly left EPA with the
option of “deciding not to decide” at this time. Such a course would be prudent at least for
the short term to allow time for the country to develop a more comprehensive and
measured strategy for dealing with climate change (for example, one that expressly
accommodate leakage, international competitiveness ramifications, and cost mitigation
measures, such as forest-generated offset credits) that can work in concert with steps the
international community may take.
C.
EPA should carefully consider whether any of the various
sources of GHG emissions that might be regulated under the
CAA sufficiently “contribute” to air pollution that might be found
to cause endangerment.
The United States is today responsible for a large but diminishing amount of total,
world-wide GHG emissions. For example, total GHG emissions from § 202 source
categories constitute only 4.3% of global GHG emissions. Addressing these – and, for that
matter, all other GHG emissions in the U.S. (which are now just over 20% of global
emissions) – cannot significantly mitigate global climate change if major developing
country emitters do not also follow suit. This situation is vastly different than with respect
to the pollutants currently regulated under the CAA where domestic emissions of the
pollutant are the direct and predominant cause.
EPA raises the meaning of “contribution” in the GHG ANPR, noting that in the past
EPA has declined to infer a requirement that “contribution” should be interpreted to include
any measure of significance. However, again given the unique circumstances attendant to
GHGs and climate change – particularly the facts presented above – EPA must not
assume that any nominal level of emissions from the various source types that might be
regulated should be seen as rising to the level of “contributing” to the problem.
This is particularly important given the understanding and inference under the CAA
that the endangerment found would be mitigated effectively through domestic action. With
respect to CO2 and other GHGs, domestic action alone without similar steps undertaken
by other major emitter nations (including many that thus far have refused to take them),
render mitigation of the endangerment by unilateral U.S. action impossible. These facts
must be factored into any decision about whether and how the CAA might be applied to
GHGs.
VIII.
Technical evaluation and impact of Regulating GHG Emissions under
the CAA
The following sections discuss the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources for
various types of forest products sectors and the effects of regulating GHG emissions under
the Clean Air Act on each type of facility.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 28
A.
Pulp and Paper Mills
Pulp and paper mills are complex manufacturing facilities that are already subject to
many environmental regulations, including 40 CFR Part 70 (Title V), 40 CFR Part 51 and
52 (New Source Review), 40 CFR Part 60 (NSPS), 40 CFR Part 61 (NESHAP), 40 CFR
Part 63 (MACT) ), and 40 CFR Part 82 (ozone depleting substances). Because these
facilities are already subject to extensive regulatory requirements, the primary concern is
not that regulating GHG emissions would cause these facilities to be major sources under
the CAA, but that regulating GHG emissions would increase the requirements and amount
of time necessary to permit many smaller new and modified emission units. The following
discussion and examples demonstrate that new and modified emission units that would
otherwise be straightforward to permit under the CAA would become more complicated to
permit or even be cancelled by the facility in order to avoid such complications. This would
include new or modified emission unit projects that have significant energy reduction and
environmental benefits.
Major Emission Sources
The major emission units at a pulp and paper mill that emit GHGs include, but are
not limited to, the following:
•
Industrial Boilers: These boilers typically fire various fuels, and vary in size and type
among mills. Types of fuels fired include natural gas, propane, fuel oil, used oil,
rectified methanol, bark, sawdust, wood residuals, agricultural residues, wastewater
treatment plant residuals (sludge), petroleum coke, tire derived fuel, chipped creosotetreated wood, paper/cardboard residuals, coal, and others. These boilers may also
serve as control devices for pulp mill gases that are regulated by existing MACT and
NSPS standards. The boilers may be uncontrolled, or may be equipped with control
devices installed to limit emissions of one or more of particulate matter (PM), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4 mist), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These
boilers often produce both steam and power to the mill, but are much smaller than
boilers found at electric utilities.
•
Recovery Furnaces: Recovery furnaces are an integral part of the Kraft pulping
process and are used to recover inorganic pulping chemicals. They also fire various
types of auxiliary/startup fuels, including natural gas, propane, and fuel oil. GHGs are
emitted from the combustion of both the auxiliary fuels and black liquor solids.
Recovery furnaces are typically equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) for
PM control and may also serve as control devices for pulp mill total reduced sulfur
(TRS) gases.
•
Lime Kilns: Lime kilns are used to calcine lime mud (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO).
During this reaction, CO2 is emitted. GHGs are also emitted from the combustion of
fossil fuels to heat the lime kiln, such as natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or petroleum
coke. At some mills, the CO2 in the lime kiln exhaust is used by an onsite precipitated
calcium carbonate (PCC) plant. Lime kilns are typically equipped with an ESP and/or
a wet scrubber for PM and sometimes SO2 emissions control.
•
Other Sources: Other GHG emission sources at pulp and paper mills would include
units such as paper machines, thermal oxidizers, stationary engines (e.g. firewater
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 29
pumps, emergency generators, etc.), on-site landfills, black liquor ponds, and
wastewater treatment ponds.
Typical Facility Emissions
The table below represents typical GHG emissions from an Integrated Kraft Pulp
and Paper Mill that produces 2,200 air dried tons of pulp per day and includes the following
units that emit GHG:
•
Two Recovery Furnaces combusting black liquor solids and No. 6 fuel oil;
•
Two Power Boilers combusting No. 6 fuel oil and natural gas;
•
Two Power Boilers combusting bark, coal, primary clarifier sludge, and No. 6 fuel
oil;
•
Two Lime Kilns combusting No. 6 fuel oil; and
•
Five Generators combusting No. 2 fuel oil.
The emissions provided are direct emissions and include both biomass and fossil
fuel sources. Indirect emissions and mobile source emissions are not accounted for in this
calculation.
Table 1
Example Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a 2,200 ADTP/day Pulp and Paper Mill
Compound
Emissions
Units
Total GHG (CO2 Equivalent)
2,709,218
tons/yr
CO2
2,689,527
tons/yr
CH4
111
tons/yr
N2O
56
tons/yr
Emissions based on NCASI, Calculation Tools for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pulp
and Paper Mills.
Version 1.1, 7/8/2005.
The GHG constituents included in the summary above and the forthcoming examples are
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). We have not quantified
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) for these examples.
Although the conventional term (unit) for reporting GHG emissions is metric tonnes
of CO2 equivalents (see equation below), for the purpose of our examples we have
retained short tons for comparison to the CAA regulatory programs.
CO 2 equivalents, tonnes =
# GHG Species
∑ (tonnes
i
× GWPi )
i
The global warming potentials (GWPs) used to estimate GHG emissions on a CO2
equivalent basis are shown in the following table.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 30
Table 2
Gas
CO2
CH4
N2O
UNFCCC Recommended GWP9
applicable through 2012
1
21
310
IPCC Revised GWP10
applicable after 2012
1
25
298
Energy Savings Projects
The highest production-related cost at an integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill is the
energy required to produce the pulp and paper. Therefore, mills are continuously looking
at ways to reduce energy costs and burn lower cost fuels. Typical fuel-related projects at
these facilities might include the following:
•
Burning fuels that might otherwise go under-utilized or unutilized, such as tire
derived fuel, primary clarifier sludge, old corrugated container (OCC) rejects, paper
residuals, digester knots, chipped creosote treated wood, and construction and
demolition debris;
•
Burning petroleum coke as a low-cost alternative to fuel oil; and
•
Burning wood, wood residuals, or other biofuels instead of fossil fuel.
Replacing coal with any of these fuels would likely result in a decrease in CO2
emissions. In many cases, however, it is more likely for mills to replace fuel oil or
supplement purchased wood with the other alternative fuels listed above. These fuel
switching projects typically result in significant energy costs reductions. However, if CO2 is
regulated under the CAA these projects would likely require PSD review and the facility
may opt to not move forward with these types of projects.
Converting a fossil fuel-fired boiler to a biomass fuel-fired boiler would result in
higher CO2 emissions to the atmosphere (e.g., CO2 emission factor for fuel oil of 178
lb/MMBtu versus CO2 emission factor for wood of 388 lb/MMBtu). However, we believe
that since these emissions are carbon neutral they should not be included as an emission
increase for PSD applicability calculation purposes since conversion from fossil fuels to
9
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Report of the Conference of the
Parties on its eighth session, held at New Delhi from 23 October to 1 November 2002, Guidelines for the
preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, part I: UNFCCC
reporting guidelines on annual inventories, Decision /CP.8, 2002.
http://unfccc.int/cop8/latest/5_sbstal5add1.pdf
10
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, M.M.B. Tignor, H.L.R.
Miller, Jr., Z. Chen]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA,
2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 31
biomass fuels reduces the lifecycle GHG footprint, as discussed in the ANPR. Therefore,
the forest products industry would be in favor of an alternative type of analysis (other than
a direct emissions comparison) for projects that involve biomass fuels. However, in our
forthcoming examples that include biomass, we have assumed that these CO2 emissions
would be accounted for in the increase calculations in order to demonstrate how these
projects could require PSD permitting in the future if biomass emissions are not considered
carbon neutral for PSD applicability purposes.
New Source Review, Comparison of PSD Emission Evaluation for CO2, NOx
and SO2
The purpose of the following discussion is to show what the corresponding emission
increase for CO2 would be for typical pulp and paper mill emission units as compared to
the same emission unit that has emission increases of NOx and SO2 equal to the PSD
Significant Emission Rate of 40 tons per year.
Boiler Modification or Steam Increase (40 TPY NOx Increase Comparison)
As previously mentioned, boilers in the forest products industry fire many different
types of fuels and come in many types and sizes. Many times, whether or not a boiler
needs a PSD permit is driven by NOx emissions. The table below illustrates the CO2
emission increases that correspond to a 40 ton per year NOx increase for various fuels.
Table 3
Fuel
Natural Gas - lg
boiler/ low-NOx
burners
Bituminous Coal spreader stoker
No. 6 Oil - large
boiler/ low NOx
burners
Wood residue
NOx
AP-42 Emission Factors
CO2
CH4
N2O
Units
Emissions equivalent to 40 TPY
NOx
CO2
CH4
N2O
Units
140
120,000
2.3
0.64
lb/10^6 scf
34,286
0.66
0.18
TPY
11
6,040
0.06
0.04
lb/ton
21,964
0.22
0.15
TPY
40
0.22
24,400
195
1
0.021
0.11
0.013
lb/10^3 gal
lb/MMBtu
24,400
35,455
1.00
3.82
0.11
2.36
TPY
TPY
This table demonstrates that for any fuel type, even if a boiler emission increase is
equal to or less than 40 tpy of NOx, CO2 emissions will be greater than 20,000 tons, which
would not only be above any existing PSD pollutant emissions increase trigger but also
above the PSD major source threshold of 100 tons per year for a Kraft pulp and paper mill.
Therefore, almost any boiler project or project within the mill that would necessitate
additional steam production from a boiler could require PSD permitting, including a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation and air quality impact evaluations, if CO2
were regulated under the PSD program. Note that if biomass emissions are considered
carbon neutral and excluded from the PSD applicability calculations, PSD review for CO2
would not be triggered for biomass-fired boilers for a project that resulted in small
emissions increases of the currently regulated PSD compounds. If regulated under the
CAA, it is clear that the PSD major source threshold and Significant Emission Rate for CO2
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 32
would need to be added to the regulations to reflect more reasonable values, such as
greater than 20,000 tons per year, in order to minimize the number of sources in the US
subject to PSD.
TRS Control (40 TPY SO2 Increase Comparison)
Since the Pollution Control Project exemption has been removed from the New
Source Review rule, a pollution control project that results in collateral increases of other
compounds above the PSD significant emission rates would be required to obtain a PSD
permit. At pulp and paper mills, projects are often performed to control emissions from
emission units with exhaust gases containing reduced sulfur compounds. If these gases
are sent to a combustion source, the sulfur compounds are oxidized resulting in SO2
emissions. If the exhaust gases from the source to be controlled in a combustion device
contain ammonia, then increased NOx emissions can result as well. In addition, the control
of process gases in these units sometimes requires an increase in fuel firing. Depending
on the emission unit to be controlled, emissions increases of SO2 and NOx are often close
to the 40 tpy PSD Significant Emission Rate. These types of projects that would not have
required PSD review for SO2 and NOx may be subject to PSD review for CO2 if regulated
under the CAA.
Table 3 above presents CO2 emissions levels from combustion of various fuels that
correspond to a 40 tpy increase in NOx. Table 4 below shows the CO2 emissions from
combustion of various fossil fuels that correspond to a 40 tpy increase in SO2 emissions.
Table 4
Fuel
Bituminous Coal,
1.8%S
SO2
AP-42 Emission Factors
CO2
CH4
N2O Units
68.4
6,040
0.06
0.04
No. 6 Oil, 2.1%S
329.7
24,400
1
0.11
No. 2 Oil, 0.5% S
78.5
22,300
0.052
0.11
lb/ton
lb/10^3
gal
lb/10^3
gal
Emissions equivalent to 40
TPY SO2
CO2
CH4 N2O Units
3,532
0.04
0.02
TPY
2,960
0.12
0.01
TPY
11,363
0.03
0.06
TPY
Table 4 demonstrates that for any fuel type, even if a boiler emission increase is
equal to or less than 40 tpy of SO2, CO2 emissions will be greater than 2,900 tons, which
would be above the PSD 100 tpy increase threshold. Therefore, any pollution control
project within the mill that includes the control of sulfur gas with a combustion unit and
requires additional fossil fuel firing in the unit would require PSD permitting, including a
BACT evaluation and air quality impact evaluations, if CO2 were regulated under the PSD
program. Again, if regulated under the CAA, it is clear that the PSD major source
threshold and Significant Emission Rate for CO2 would need to be added to the regulations
to reflect more reasonable values as discussed above in the NOx example (Boiler
Modification, Table 3) in order to minimize the number of sources in the US subject to
PSD.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 33
Additional Sample Project Emission Calculations and Analysis for Pulp &
Paper Mills
The following are additional examples of projects at integrated pulp and paper mills
that would be negatively impacted by regulating CO2 as a compound under the CAA, such
as the New Source Review, PSD regulations.
Example No. 1: Energy Savings
It is uncertain if the Agency would be able to consider biomass (wood) a carbon
neutral fuel under the Clean Air Act. For the purpose of this example, it was assumed that
biomass is not carbon neutral. Table 5 shows sample calculations for a facility that would
convert their existing uncontrolled power boiler from burning No. 6 fuel oil to burning wood
with PM and NOx emissions control (e.g., ESP and urea injection). This type of project
would contribute to the sustainability of the mill not only from the standpoints of fuel cost
and reduced fossil fuel dependence, but might also allow them to sell electricity generated
by combustion of wood to a public utility.
Table 5
Compound
Fuel Oil
Combustion
Emission
Factors
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
PM10
CO
NOx
SO2
0.16
5
47
309
lb/MM
Btu
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
145.60
32.50
305.50
2,008.50
VOC
Total GHG
(CO2
Equivalent)
1.28
lb/Mgal
8.32
158,958
24,40
CO2
0
lb/Mgal
158,600
CH4
1
lb/Mgal
6.50
N2O
0.11 lb/Mgal
0.72
*(GHG emission factors per AP-42)
Projected
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
Emissions
Increase
(tpy)
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
23.82
643.86
187.79
26.83
-121.78
611.36
-117.71
-1981.67
15
100
40
40
NO
YES
NO
NO
lb/MMBtu
18.24
9.92
40
NO
214,052
55,094
<100
YES
209,254
22.5
14.0
50,654.5
16.0
13.2
<100
<100
<100
YES
MAYBE
MAYBE
Wood
Combustion
Emission
Factor*
0.022
0.6
0.175
0.025
1.70E
-02
195
0.021
0.013
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
Due to the higher CO emission factor for wood than oil, the project would trigger
PSD review for CO, unless the facility could conduct a netting analysis. However, a
project triggering PSD review for only CO is typically fairly straightforward, as there are
usually no modeling issues and BACT is typically good combustion practices and a
vendor-guaranteed CO limit. If CO2 is regulated under the CAA, it is likely that this project
would trigger PSD review for CO2.11 There would be no technically or economically
11
This and other analyses involving increased CO2 emissions from biomass combustion assume for the sake
of presentation that the Clean Air Act does not allow CO2 from carbon-neutral biomass to be excluded from
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 34
feasible CO2 controls for a small wood-fired boiler, no economically viable design
alternatives that might lower CO2 emissions, and, as noted in comments by other groups,
modeling for CO2 emissions from the boiler would be meaningless. It is even possible that
BACT might be conversion back to fossil fuel use since on a straight emission factor basis
and ignoring the carbon neutrality of biomass it might look better on paper. The uncertain
process of conducting a PSD review for CO2 might prolong the permitting process or in
some cases lead to abandonment of the change for what otherwise would be an
environmentally beneficial project, resulting in significant SO2, PM, and NOx reductions,
reductions in the mill’s dependence on fossil fuels, and energy cost reductions.
Example No. 2: Process Equipment Replacement with Improved Pollution Control
Equipment
The lime kiln is a large source of process CO2 emissions as it is used in the
chemical recovery cycle to convert lime mud (CaCO3) to lime product (CaO). Many pulp
and paper mills have more than one lime kiln, and a lime kiln may be oversized for a
particular mill. However, there are mills that actually have lime kilns that are undersized
for their process. The table below shows the effects of replacing an old kiln with a lower
efficiency wet scrubber with a new kiln equipped with a venturi scrubber and ESP and
permitting a 15 percent throughput increase.
Table 6
Compound
Emission Factors,
Kiln to be Shutdown
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
Kiln to be
Shutdown
(tpy)
2.40E02
1.06
lb/TCaO
106.35
SO2
NOx
CO
lb/TCaO
lb/TCaO
lb/TCaO
6.40
115.00
5.50
lb/TCaO
4.49
lb/TCaO
lb/MMBt
u
5.00
17,812
CO2 lime
0.06
1.15
0.055
4.49E02
5.00E02
1.78E+0
2
1.57E+0
3
lb/TCaO
157,143
0.06
1.15
0.055
5.13E02
5.07E02
1.78E+
02
1.57E+
03
CO2 total
-
-
174,955
-
TRS
CO2 oil
Emissions
Increase
(tpy)
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)*
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
lb/TCaO
2.76
-103.59
15
NO
lb/TCaO
lb/TCaO
lb/TCaO
7.36
132.25
6.33
0.96
17.25
0.82
40
40
100
NO
NO
NO
lb/TCaO
5.90
1.41
40
NO
lb/TCaO
5.75
0.83
10
NO
lb/MMBtu
114,715
96,902
<100
YES
lb/TCaO
180,714
23,571
<100
MAYBE
-
295,429
120,474
<100
MAYBE
Emission Factors,
New Kiln
PM10
VOC
Projected
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
*The significant emission rate for Kraft GHGs for pulp and paper mills would be 100 tpy or less based on the current
regulatory requirements for PSD pollutants.
PSD calculations. As stated before, AF&PA believes it is well established by the IPCC that biomass burning
does not contribute to atmospheric loadings of CO2.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 35
This project would be environmentally beneficial as it includes the installation of
more efficient PM controls and a reduction in PM emissions. However, the project does
result in over 120,000 tons of additional CO2 emissions, and might trigger PSD review,
which would increase the cost and length of the permitting process. There would be no
technically or economically feasible technique for reducing CO2 emissions from the kiln, so
the added time, expense and effort of going through PSD review would not result in any
additional environmental benefit.
Example No. 3: Pollution Control Project
As a specific example, a paper mill chose to control emissions from its black liquor
oxidation system in a new regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). As shown in the table
below, this project is environmentally beneficial, and results in large emissions reductions.
However, even though the natural gas burner on the RTO is sized at only 3 MMBtu/hr, the
CO2 emissions are over 1600 tpy and depending on what the PSD significant emission
rate for CO2 would be, may result in this environmentally beneficial pollution control project
triggering PSD review for CO2.
Table 7
Compound
Baseline Actual
Emissions
(uncontrolled), tpy
Projected Actual
Emissions
(controlled, tpy)
Emissions
Increase
(tpy)
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
H2S
0.59
0.01
-0.57
10
NO
SO2
0
21.90
21.90
40
NO
H2SO4
0
4.38
4.38
7
NO
TRS (AS H2S)
VOC
CO
NOx
23.79
329.22
0
0
0.57
7.97
8.76
0.64
-23.22
-321.25
8.76
0.64
10
40
100
40
NO
NO
NO
NO
PM/PM10
0
0.09
0.09
15
NO
Total GHG (CO2 Equivalent)
0
1,549
1,549
<100
YES
CO2
0
1546
1546
<100
YES
CH4
0
0.03
0.03
<100
MAYBE
N2O
0
0.01
0.01
<100
MAYBE
Example No. 4: Pollution Control Project
A pulp and paper mill proposes to install an ESP for particulate matter emissions
control. The mill generates its own electricity. To run the ESP, it must burn additional fuel
oil in an existing power boiler. Although this project would result in a large reduction in PM
emissions from the unit being controlled and small increases in currently regulated
compounds from the boiler generating the electricity, the following table shows that again,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 36
if CO2 were a regulated PSD pollutant, this environmentally beneficial project might require
PSD review for CO2.
Table 8
Compound
Fuel Oil
Combustion
Emission Factors
Emissions
Increase1
(tpy)
PSD
Significant
Emission Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD
Significant
Emission Rate?
PM10
CO
22.73
5
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
1.70
0.37
40
40
NO
NO
NOx
47
lb/Mgal
3.51
100
NO
SO2
VOC
Total GHG (CO2 Equivalent)
CO2
CH4
N2O
309
1.28
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
24,400
1
0.11
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
lb/Mgal
23.09
0.10
1,827
1823
0.07
0.01
40
15
<100
<100
<100
<100
NO
NO
YES
YES
MAYBE
MAYBE
1
Evaluation based on Past Actual to Future Actual Emissions
Example No. 5: Odor Reduction Project
A pulp and paper mill would like to conduct an odor reduction project to collect
additional pulping condensates and send them to a steam stripper instead of sewering
them and sending them in an open channel to the wastewater treatment system. This
project will result in reductions in VOC, HAP, and TRS emissions. In order to
accommodate the additional condensates at the steam stripper, additional steam is
needed from the mill’s boilers. The increases in currently regulated PSD pollutants would
depend on the fuel fired and the air pollution controls currently in place on the boiler.
However, as already indicated, even a small increase in boiler utilization would likely result
in relatively large CO2 emissions increases and may trigger PSD review for a project that is
intended to reduce emissions and odor and improve the mill’s relationship with its
neighbors.
Example No. 6: Closure of Black Liquor Ponds
Some older pulp and paper mills have large black liquor ponds instead of black
liquor storage tanks. Black liquor ponds are much larger emission sources of VOC and
TRS than black liquor tanks and rainwater accumulation in the ponds requires additional
energy at the evaporators to concentrate the black liquor to the target solids content prior
to combustion in the recovery furnace. Therefore, conversion from black liquor ponds to
black liquor tanks results in energy savings and large emissions reductions, as well as
minimizing the risk of groundwater contamination.. However, after the ponds are drained,
the residuals in the bottom of the pond must be removed. One mill mixed the residuals
with bark and landfilled the mixture. Methane emissions from the anaerobic decomposition
of the organic components of this mixture would be expected over time. If GHG emissions
were regulated under PSD, these emissions would have to be evaluated.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 37
Example No. 7: Wastewater Treatment Projects
Pulp mill wastewater treatment processes can produce methane (CH4) emissions if
organic constituents in the wastewater are treated anaerobically. In addition, the sludge
produced from some treatment processes may be further biodegraded under anaerobic
conditions, resulting in methane emissions. Some mills use settling ponds in lieu of
primary clarifiers to remove solids (e.g., fiber) from wastewater prior to treatment.
Although pulp and paper mills attempt to minimize the amount of fiber that reaches the
wastewater treatment ponds, fiber does build up in these ponds over time. Wastewater
ponds must be dredged periodically to remove sludge; this sludge may be dewatered and
burned or it may be sent to an onsite landfill. Other projects that would require evaluation
of GHG emissions at the wastewater treatment plant would include production increases,
product changes, or process changes that would increase loading to the wastewater
treatment plant or alter the characteristics of the wastewater.
Example No. 8: Burning Landfill Gas
A pulp and paper mill would like to install a 30 MMBtu/hr boiler to burn landfill gas in
order to reduce methane emissions from a nearby landfill. Based on available information,
the following table shows the calculated emissions from the proposed boiler.
Table 9
Compound
Potential Emissions
(tpy)
PSD Significant
Emission Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD Significant
Emission Rate?
PM/PM10
2.07
15
NO
SO2
VOC
CO
NOx
Total GHG (CO2
Equivalent)
CO2
1.92
0.72
1.44
8.34
40
40
100
40
NO
NO
NO
NO
16,667
16,652
<100
<100
YES
YES
CH4
0.30
<100
N2O
0.03
<100
* Note: this table does not reflect the methane reductions at the landfill.
MAYBE
MAYBE
Emissions from currently regulated PSD compounds would be well below the PSD
significant emission rates. Although this is a methane reduction project and methane has
a higher global warming potential than CO2, the new boiler would be major for CO2 and
would have CO2 emissions that might trigger PSD review.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 38
Example 9: Conservation Project
Pulp and paper mills are typically located on large parcels of land and are near
major water sources. A pulp and paper mill might choose to perform a conservation
project such as conversion of part of its property to a wetlands habitat. Wetlands are the
largest natural source of methane. Regulation of GHG might result in this type of
beneficial project becoming undesirable to undertake if facilities are forced to consider
increases in methane emissions and go through air permitting.
B.
Wood Product Facilities
Many wood products facilities are subject to 40 CFR Part 70 (Title V) permitting
requirements due to VOC emissions (>100 tons per year), but there are several facilities
that are not major sources for purposes of PSD (<250 tons per year) or MACT (e.g., small
lumber mills and hardwood plywood mills). Regulation of GHGs under the New Source
Review or NSPS regulations would increase the regulatory burden on all of these mills.
Typically the sources of GHG at these facilities might be small energy systems producing
steam or hot oil or direct heat to dry wood and/or press wood products. These energy
systems are typically gas or wood fired and are usually well controlled. Regulation of GHG
emissions would result in all of these facilities with any fuel burning equipment being major
sources under PSD, since CO2 emissions would be greater than 250 tpy.
The following table shows the actual emissions from a hardwood plywood facility
producing 102 million square feet in a year and using a wood-fired boiler for process heat.
Table 10
Compound
CO
NOx
PM
PM10
VOC
SO2
Total GHG (CO2
Equivalent)
CO2
CH4
N2O
Emissions
ton/yr
19.30
67.24
87.11
86.62
19.46
5.13
40,647
39,736
4.28
2.65
Excluding GHG emissions, this facility is not a major source under the Title V and
PSD regulations and is not a major source of HAP and thus not subject to MACT.
However, unless biomass GHG emissions are excluded from regulation, regulation of
GHG emissions would subject this source to these regulations and more complex
permitting requirements. Even a small production increase at this facility or a minor
modification to the boiler would likely trigger PSD review for CO2 and not any other
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 39
compound. In addition, any small increase in boiler utilization or a new combustion source
would be likely to trigger additional regulatory burden on these facilities if biomass GHG
emissions are regulated.
Sample Project Emission Calculations and Analysis for Wood Products Facilities
The following are examples of projects at wood products facilities that would be
negatively impacted by regulating CO2 as a PSD compound.
Example No. 10: MACT Compliance
A facility producing medium density fiberboard (MDF) is a major source of HAP and
is subject to the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) MACT. The facility’s
primary dryers were uncontrolled, but the facility’s secondary dryers and MDF press were
controlled via a regenerative catalytic oxidizer (RCO). The chosen MACT solution was to
install a second RCO to control the primary dryers.
The RCO chosen has five 3 MMBtu/hour natural gas burners. Because of the large
emissions reductions due to the project, the project as permitted did not trigger PSD
review and was able to be permitted quickly under the state’s construction permitting
program. However, as shown in Table 11, if GHG emissions were subject to PSD review,
this project may have required PSD review for CO2, which would have caused delays in
permitting and implementing the project. This would have been especially challenging in
this case because the original compliance approach was overturned by a court leaving the
mill only a year to come into compliance.
Table 11
Compound
PM
PM10
CO
NOx
SO2
VOC
Total GHG (CO2
Equivalent)
CO2
CH4
N2O
Baseline
Actual
Emissions,
tpy
46.8
6.1
4.9
0
0
139
Projected
Actual
Emissions,
tpy
4.7
1.1
6.3
31
0.039
14
Project
Emissions
Increase,
tpy
-42.1
-5.0
1.4
31.0
0.0
-125.2
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
25
15
100
40
40
40
0
0
7,745
7,729
7,745
7729
<250
<250
YES
YES
0
0
0.15
0.04
0.1
0.0
<250
<250
MAYBE
MAYBE
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 40
Example No. 11: Generator Permitting
A wood products facility proposes to install a diesel-fired generator for use during
mill maintenance shutdowns or power outages. Assuming operation of 500 hours per
year, the generator would be a major source of CO2 emissions, but would not be major for
any other currently regulated compound. The generator might require complex, lengthy
permitting under PSD if CO2 emissions were regulated. If GHGs are regulated under the
Clean Air Act, the applicable regulations may be amended to cover CO2 emissions from
generators, adding a new level of regulatory and operational complexity beyond securing
manufacturer guarantees for PM, CO, and NOx.
Table 12
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
1.36
0.24
1.84
8.05
40
40
100
40
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.23
0.23
15
NO
0
389
389
<250
YES
1.16E+00
0
388
388
<250
YES
6.35E-05
0
0.02
0.02
<250
MAYBE
Compound
Emission
Factor (lb/hphr)
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
Projected
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
Emissions
Increase
(tpy)
SO2
VOC
CO
NOx
0.004045
0.000705
0.0055
0.024
0
0.00
0
0
1.36
0.24
1.84
8.05
PM/PM10
Total GHG (CO2
Equivalent)
0.0007
0
CO2
CH4
Example 12: Sawmill Expansion
A sawmill in the Southeastern United States produces 85 million board feet per year
(MBF/yr) of softwood lumber utilizing two direct-fired lumber kilns that burn wood. The
facility proposes to increase production to 105 MBF/year by installing a third direct-fired
kiln and other ancillary equipment. The facility would be a major source of CO2 emissions,
but would not be major for any other currently regulated compound. Table 12 shows the
increase in emissions due to this project.
If GHGs were regulated, and biomass burning were not considered climate neutral
and eligible for exclusion from PSD calculations this project would require complex and
lengthy permitting under PSD rather than a permit modification as a minor source. Once
the facility is “major” for one pollutant (in this case CO2), emission increase thresholds for
the other pollutants revert to the significant increase levels. As stated before, AF&PA
believes it is well established by the IPCC that biomass burning does not contribute to
atmospheric loadings of CO2. If the CO2 emissions from biomass burning were excluded
from the PSD applicability calculations, this project would not trigger PSD review and
would require a less burdensome and less lengthy permitting process.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 41
Table 13
Compound
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
Project
Actual
Emissions
(tpy)
PSD Major
Source
(Emissions
>250)?
Emissions
Increase
(tpy)
PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
Over PSD
Significant
Emission
Rate?
SO2
VOC
CO
NOx
4.5
159.0
91.3
11.5
5.5
195.6
112.3
14.1
NO
NO
NO
NO
1.0
36.6
21.0
2.6
40
40
100
40
NO
NO
NO
NO
PM
26.5
32.6
NO
6.1
25
NO
PM10
Total GHG
(CO2
Equivalent)
17.6
21.6
NO
4.0
15
NO
45,800
56,335
YES
10,535
<250
YES
CO2
45,538
56,012
YES
10,474
<250
YES
CH4
12.5
15.4
NO
2.9
<250
MAYBE
C.
Converting Facilities
The smallest manufacturing facilities in the forest products industry are typically
those referred to as converting facilities. These facilities conduct activities such as
production of corrugated boxes or food and beverage containers from paper. These
facilities do not manufacture paper, but they purchase large rolls of paper or paperboard
from other facilities. Most of these facilities are not of sufficient size to require a Title V
permit, so they are not currently subject to complex regulatory requirements. The largest
emissions at these facilities may be VOC emissions from printing and gluing and they
usually have fairly small PM emissions. The following table shows typical emissions from
a facility that produces beverage packaging containers, uses water-based and UV-cured
inks, and has a natural gas-fired boiler.
Table 14
Compound
VOC
Actual Emissions
72.8 TPY
SO2
0.01
TPY
NOx
PM
1.3
0.14
TPY
TPY
0.10
0.10
1.1
1584
1584
0.03
0.01
TPY
TPY
TPY
TPY
TPY
TPY
TPY
PM10
PM2.5
CO
Total GHG (CO2 Equivalent)
CO2
CH4
N2O
*Potential emissions are above 100 tpy
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 42
This facility has a Title V permit but is not a major source under MACT or PSD. The
facility has implemented projects over the past several years to greatly reduce VOC and
HAP emissions and avoid regulation under MACT and PSD. Regulation of GHGs would
make this facility a PSD major source solely due to CO2 emissions.
Many converting facilities have small boilers that are usually natural gas fired, or
have extruders or sealers that use small amounts of natural gas. As presented earlier in
these comments, even burning 10 MMBtu per hour of natural gas causes these facilities to
be PSD major sources if CO2 is regulated. A 10 MMBtu per hour natural gas-fired boiler
would have less than 5 tpy of emissions of all currently regulated PSD compounds, but
over 5,000 tpy of CO2 emissions, as shown in the table 15.
Table 15
Compound
Emission Factor
(lb/MMcf)
Potential Emissions (tpy)
PM/PM10
7.6
0.32
SO2
VOC
CO
NOx
Total GHG (CO2 Equivalent)
CO2
0.6
5.5
84
100
120,000
0.03
0.23
3.57
4.25
5,196
5,103
CH4
N2O
2.3
0.64
0.10
0.03
A project to add production capacity to one of these facilities would normally result
in fairly small increases in regulated compounds, with the facility maintaining minor source
status.. However, with regulation of GHGs, the facilities with boilers would be major
sources and these projects might trigger PSD review solely for CO2.
Many times there is one individual at these facilities responsible for both
environmental, health, safety, and perhaps quality. Typically, these EHS professionals
have no experience with complex air quality regulations. Therefore, regulation of GHG
emissions would require additional resources at approximately 300 of these facilities or at
corporate offices due to the additional regulatory burden.
D.
CONCLUSIONS
Industry in the United States is competing in a global market. Therefore, it is critical
for industry to have clear direction as it pertains to environmental regulations so domestic
facilities can make intelligent choices that benefit our economy and environment.
•
The proposal to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act is not appropriate
and could have unforeseen effects to industrial facilities, especially those in the
forest products industry.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 43
•
Regulating greenhouse gases could cause many minor facilities to become major
sources. Over 1000 facilities that are not now major sources would be pulled into
the PSD program, increasing the resources devoted to regulatory compliance on
both the facility, corporate, and regulatory agency level
•
Regulating greenhouse gases will create additional reporting and permitting
requirements for both large and small facilities that could cause improvements to be
economically infeasible, even those with environmental benefits, and thus,
contribute to facilities simply cancelling these projects.
•
Regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would significantly increase
the permitting time for projects.
•
In order to avoid additional regulatory burden, facilities in the U.S. could be shut
down or lose production increase projects to facilities overseas.
•
Regulating GHG compounds under PSD is premature as there are no known
control devices to minimize emissions so the BACT analysis would be meaningless.
•
There are no methods to model these compounds. Therefore, if a facility triggers
PSD for a GHG pollutant, there are no guidelines on how to evaluate the impact of
these emission increases on the environment.
•
Regulating GHG compounds under PSD will increase the burden for both regulators
and industry as outlined in Table 16. The data shows that regulating GHGs under
the CAA would greatly increase the industry’s permitting costs and would be a
regulatory burden that already overloaded permitting agencies would not be able to
handle.
Table 16
Increase in
Number of
PSD
Applications
Hours per
Application
Cost per
Application
Total
Increase
in Annual
Hours
Equivalent
Number of
Employees
1
Total
Increase in
Annual Costs
Industry Burden
2600
866
$125,120
2,251,600
1083
$353,312,000
State and Local
Agency Burden
2600
301
$23,280
782,600
377
$ 60,528,000
1
Assumes each employee works 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year = 2080 hours/year
Assumptions
1. It is estimated that there are approximately 700 sawmills, 300 converting
facilities, 300 wood products facilities, and 400 pulp and paper mills (100 of
which are kraft pulp mills).
2. Assuming 1 project per year at sawmills and converting facilities, 2 projects per
year at wood products facilities and non-kraft mills, and 4 projects per year kraft
pulp mills, there might be 2,600 additional PSD permit applications per year.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
November 26, 2008
Page 44
3. Cost and Hours are based on data from the “Information Collection Request for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review”
published by Carrie Wheeler of the EPA [Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-20040081].
*****
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the important
questions of whether and, if so, how GHGs should be regulated under the CAA. We look
forward to continuing to work with the Agency as consideration of these issues continues.
Sincerely,
Paul Noe
Vice President, Public Policy