AF&PA voices disappointment with partial vacatur of Boiler MACT rule

Because boiler operations are crucial to paper and wood manufacturers’ ability to generate energy, American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) President and CEO Donna Harman issued the following statement in response to the D.C. Circuit Court decision to vacate key parts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule.

Harmon writes: “We are disappointed that after years of back-and-forth the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled against reason in vacating certain key standards and remanding other portions of rules that, by most accounts, are reasonable and achievable despite the extensive technically sound information and test data provide to and relied upon by the EPA. We will continue to provide sound information and data to the EPA as it responds to the remanded and vacated portions of the rule.

“Unfortunately, this continues the atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty that is harming U.S. competiveness on a global scale. Americans deserve a smarter, more cost-effective regulatory process that ensures agencies do more good than harm. We urge the Congress to act on regulatory reforms that will prevent this type situation from occurring in the future,” she concludes.

The court’s decision, available at www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/01A29CE03015718085257FFF0054EFA9/$file/11-1108-1627694.pdf, vacates the MACT standards “for all major boiler subcategories that would have been affected had the EPA considered all sources included in the subcategories, as explained at supra § IV.B. We also remand, without vacatur, to the EPA to: (1) adequately explain how CO (carbon monoxide) acts as a reasonable surrogate for nondioxin/furan organic HAPs (hazardous air pollutants); (2) set emission standards for cyclonic burn barrels; (3) determine whether burn-off ovens, soil treatment units and space heaters are CISWI (commercial/industrial solid waste incinerators) units and, if so, to set standards for those types of units; (4) adequately explain the exclusion of synthetic boilers from Title V’s permitting requirements; and (5) adequately explain the choice of GACT (generally available control technology) standards over MACT standards for non-Hg (non-mercury) metals.”