Document RjNzd6xNJQzdJNOVg1z65Nk0B

Message From: Schwartz, Jerry [Jerry_Schwartz@afandpa.org] Sent: 7/26/2017 9:39:38 PM To: Forsgren, Lee [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=a055d7329d5b470fbaa9920celb68a7d-Forsgren, D]; Lousberg, Macara [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=e589fdabe6374c5987d0184b43fb5c57-MLousber] CC: Noe, Paul [Paul_Noe@afandpa.org]; Garber, Rich D [RichGarber@packagingcorp.com]; Roberto A. Artiga (roberto.artiga@kapstonepaper.com) [roberto.artiga@kapstonepaper.com]; Mayes Starke (mayes.starke@gapac.com) [mayes.starke@gapac.com]; Reitter, Annabeth [Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com]; Wiegand, Paul [pwiegand@ncasi.org] Subject: Follow Up Material from Today's Meeting Attachments: HDR Cost Report Aug 08[1] copy.pdf; HDR Press Release 12.5.13[2].docx; AWB - HDR Toxics Technology Report - Final ll-7-2013[2] copy.pdf; Larry Walker WQBudgetLegReport2016.pdf; Follow up Slides for Forsgren meeting.pptx Dear Lee and Macara, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this morning. Below and attached is the information you requested, as well as some additional information. I. tChoasttMs afoinreCdoimscphliaarngceerswditihd MnoatinceonHduumctatnheHireaolwthnWcoastet rstQuduya,litaysCwraitsertihae(HcaHsWe QinCW).AYaonudaOreRcorrect (discussed below). However, we note that the EPA cost study for Maine HHWQC compliance was extremely limited in terms of the pollutants for which cost estimates were derived. For example, the sptuulpdyadnidd pnaoptecromnsilildwear sPCmBerccoumryp(liEaPncAeacsossutms eadt avllirtaunadllythneoocnolymppolilaluntcaentceoxsatsmfionretdhefomr tilhl,earsesleuvmainntg it would only have to undertake a pollutant minimization plan). We think it is likely that dischargers could exceed permit limits for other pollutants based on the more stringent HHWQC included in the final EPA federal rule. Moreover, we note that other aspects of the federal rule for Maine (e.g., bacteria criteria) would impose costs on dischargers. II. CcoomstpslitaundcyeinwiOthRt:heThOereagtotanchHeHdW"AQuCg.usNt o0t8e"tfhilaetdwoecuhmaveentfsoccuossetsdfoour rpduilspcaunsdsiopnapoenr cmoisllts for PCBs, as that is the pollutant that is largely responsible for the significant costs we have dpporaocpcueemrsiesnndfrtueosdmt.ryo.WuTteshisdeheoinsudolduusrmctreyaskde(owecolseonad'rt,, uwhsaoetwePer,CverBers,cotinhvaethtreePdCmpBaasnpuaefrrae, ceNtutcOr.i)nTgbaenpcraoisucsseueseso,ufnbuiuqbtuiqtehuetitoyoutehsnetleeprgutalhpceyand contamination. Essentially, all ambient waters in the U.S. will exceed the federal Washington rule criterion of 7 parts per quadrillion (ppq) using Method 1668, and this level is not achievable in any effluent/runoff from any source. Indeed, even many laboratory blanks contain PCBs above that level. Here is the key point from the summary of the study on page 3: itaClHnoenoHcdcnsahuWuttnsseaQtodlr[llyiyConi.nignta(ihOeEteesrimxnetcwacpgerbohoesluanesal.sdsooiesTncfdoh$apsed5Fatd0CgcOe0eRodrsmse)3t.]giilrslopeionrlsaonipgt.veuniddIlinfpeitcdoaaadansndbidtmiotapipvonaelndyp,reiwenarposnmtrunaeilulldslliasenclngionctsototetshncttehslhyerntaofoOonluoogreprgegeoyoorftanfotth$epem3ut0heelpeeitgostahern$te9dlva0ipsrgaemedpilemliorilnls III. tCephnroeetsiistrtisemSsrteeuilmsedsaybuseeienrds)W.'acAIonm:mepwIponlriHtaDaDnnecRtcleye,rmcetophbsooetrssrte,2wb0cita1rhi3stee,thrdaieaobswnrtoeatahrteede-'sblseaapssmrsoeepsdtormcsinoeegadtehlinotHiotdHntohWloaoQgnf yiCnthade(sussfetihtnereayalOatEtnaRPdcAhrleoefpcedoadrAlet,gWraodBlvocecrrrueintmpemoreierantntaaitnnngdd Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 1 ED 002061 00094892-00001 ttechroveuamasltupmcalioeatimonnnctpe.tlei.aTcnahcbneloelco1ogsoietnss,fpobargutethaeEsESwP-3eApsftrianotaveliddre,usleevthewenoucthlodosstbeeeseetxivmpeeanntegdriitenuartehteser wtbhiolaluinoldnthsnooosftedgoouulalatrlarinsnetfedoerinvathrieouHsDR auNsnosftoueumtnhpdateitodinnatcshosanuttmrdaipssttci,ohtnahreagseErtPshAowscoeouislmdt paslniemamlpyelsynistoabptitroaonijnetcvotaoerldsiavanircreteuscaololsyrtlcnyooamcnpodlmiadpniflfciiacenuscltcethoceoodsbutltseasion.n(Ttahsheisyoius ahneard ferinrexodqtmueusnirttdehriedeadlWapctieotshrmcmeopinttleitsaerinemncsieenaxasnatcidmohnpsetldeaou)tfe,ltehaasengdavenanodrcniiaoleyntshcdeeoerploaeurynncptthooreomcvpioenlsnieatvlniyimtcaaepbnllsedecmhrceeeosndsotutauleterixoc.pene-Fitnnuodtroetitlhnsuesrlreiemv,aeovarelsieti,cmgovaumatniropiicanliin.pacanelcsea,nids IV. Permitting Status in OR: We can state unequivocally that the industry is not "living with" the OR wcreitebreiali.evNeothpautlpisatnhde pcaaspeerfomrilal lNl mPDajEoSr dpisecrhmaitrsgehrasvein btheeenstiastseu.edIndbeaesedd, NonPDthEeSOpRerHmHittWinQg CinaOnRd has slowed considerably and caused significant backlogs for a variety of reasons, including the HHWQC. This prompted the legislature to require the state environmental agency to commission a study to examine the problem. That report (see "Larry Walker..." file attached) found a variety of qppuraoagbleiltey2m)s.stacnodnatrrdibsu, treedqutoiritnhge cboamckplolegx, rinecgluuldaitnogry, `s[to]hluetiodnifsficaunltdy/oforresxopmenesdivisecehnagrgineersertiongm."ee(Rt wepaotertr, AstnateuasrtliheartdwraeftboeflitehveeWbeatltkeerrrreeflpeocrttsinthcelucduerdreannt epveermn imttinogresdtairteucst isntaOteremgeonnt: regarding permitting t"eehAxfefiesncatuitnbmogsbnesenttrhcaeeonfdortaefhrnaedensswteaaafslfkeeoachftrwioveleadsusertlretessowpifnaoedtneiitcsrhaeeNtretPolitDthtihgEeeaSastiedoponeeprvomteirointEnstsPoinAifnnOdteeirsweramgpwospnaro.toefTvrdahqilersuesacehtlaiitoeysnvsehttnaoadtnsN,daPanaDrndodEsn,Sgoinorpinsecoghrmmadnietisgwrceurasiptsetteiorvsse,, has contributed to significant delays in NPDES permitting, and increased NPDES permit backlog. After analysis it became clear that, despite the recognition of this problem, effective strategies or processes are not in place to deal with the long term effect of current and future water quality sptraongdraamrd.s, 303-d listings and resulting TMDL wasteload allocations on the NPDES permitting sIDntEaakQdedhleiotgioldanel,rrsein.qduFiciaraeiltumioreennstotsthaaadrtdetrheiellsusNstsPrauDcteEhdSdinepfeiacrmireenitctceiniengst dpaorfofcecucemtsssetnhisteanNnodPt cDinoEnfSeseispdteebrnamtcliykt rareelincgeenwievadeldwbfiarthocmkEloPvgaA,riaaosnuds rework is required to meet legal requirements while an NPDES permit remains incomplete." V. Risk Slides (discussed individually) a. Risk Comparison: This slide compares various risks of dying versus the hypothetical risk of tcsbhtoyreninotcgrvraeeitcnretrtiri,ndiagienxpgcpraoetnhtnecescei2tvr0etuh0,ne0adgneMedrnesuetehnrvoaaedlcrohpalioloepgEvuayPlbaAalteniopdnpoepliocrromfieWteistcalaitsminnhdigtinsr.hguitlMgoehsno.rcaeoTotnvh1see0ur-,m8k--etihnyogrpseotesriiunbrlitetsifsknosgraaWtinrtehaiensmch1ruine0cgd-h6itbormilnsyokirseletvhealt, remote than those in other EPA rules and programs, and those of other agencies. b. Compounded Conservatism: The slide demonstrates the extremely conservative nature of the cnhaatiorancatlerHisHtiWcsQiCn.thTeheseecqounadtioconludmerniviinngthteheslcidreit.eriIat iassnsoutmliekeslyevthearytoanneyohnaes hAaLsLaollf tthheese characteristics, yet this is the basis for the national HHWQC. The WA and ME criteria are even more conservative, assuming higher fish consumption rates. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 1 ED 002061 00094892-00002 c. oloRnoiskpkraoLtteeevcxetcinlesgs: stThrheisisktrisoblviedeseratdhteeamb1oa0ns'6setrlriianstkee,slethvtheeel,trheaesiostrhenetoicEmaPleAraissnkuosrwaobfrleecqahunuicrmeesra.fnroBhmeecaiamltuhpslbeeemtnheeenfitrtaisotkifoinlnesvoiesfltsing HHWQC based on various risk levels differ by decimal points, and are certainly not measurable. Yet, as discussed, these risk level decisions have a dramatic impact on the cost of compliance for both state agencies and permitted industrial and municipal sources. KEY POINT: We understand that tribal treaty rights raise complicated legal issues. The Washington petition we filed and the Maine amended complaint provide well-reasoned arguments why those treaties don't require EPA's new policies that override cooperative federalism, and reject state HHWQC. wEevednoinf 'ot)n, ethbeerelieivsensothbaatsitshofosreEtrPeAatiteosddeoterremqinuierethsaptetchiiasl rperqouteircetsiotnheofEtrPibAa-lmtraenadtyatreigdhHtsH(WwhQicCh (including setting a 10-6 risk level for high consuming subpopulations such as the tribes) to protect those rights. As these slides demonstrate, the national HHWQC are incredibly pmreoatescutrivaeblaesbtehneeyfiat rferobmasceridteorina ebxatsreemd eolny tchoendseiffrevaretinvteriassksluemveplstiodnesp.icFteudr.theFri,nathlley,reoiusrnWoA petition for reconsideration demonstrates that EPA has always viewed risks resulting from criteria set at 10 6, 10'5and 10'4to be de minimis, and a new policy determining that only a 10'6 risk level is protective would be a radical change in policy with implications for other risk programs in EPA and in other agencies. VI. Additional Reading: Finally, here is a link to a blog and an article I wrote that was published in BNA Bloomberg. It is based on a lot of work by NCASI and others. It is rather lengthy, but it provides a (hopefully) easy to understand explanation of the issues involved. Thanks again for your time today, and we would be happy to provide any additional information. Jerry JSJEeeenrrnerryriyogrySSDccaihhnrewdwcaaEtrortntrzzv@iroanfamnednptaa.loPrgolicy _A__M__E_R_ItCXA;Nb _F_O__R__E__S.!T & PAPER ASSOCIATION 1101 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 1 ED 002061 00094892-00003