1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ 202 463-2700 Fax: 202 463-2785 ▪ www.afandpa.org

 November 9, 2012 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Rule, 

77 Fed. Reg. 55,698 (Sept. 11, 2012) 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

By this letter, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) petitions the 

Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air 

Act, for reconsideration of an EPA action published September 11, 2012 at 77 Fed. 

Reg. 55,698, titled: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

the Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Rule (EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544) 

(“the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule” or “the Rule”). 

AF&PA objects to conclusions embodied in that final action concerning the 

nature of emissions from operations at pulp and paper mills covered by the Pulp & 

Paper RTR Rule during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) and 

concerning the ability of mills employing the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology to comply with the emission limitations contained in the Rule during such 

periods. 

Reconsideration pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) is appropriate because 

information that AF&PA has provided to EPA, but that was not available prior to the 

conclusion of the formal comment period for the proposed rule, demonstrates that 

EPA’s conclusions in the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule regarding emission from pulp and 

paper mill sources during SSM events and the ability of pulp and paper mill 

processes and pollution control equipment to achieve the same emission rate during 

such periods as during other periods are incorrect. This information was not 

available prior to the close of the formal comment period for the rulemaking and 

could not practicably have been raised prior to that time—either because it had not 

yet been collected, or because it responds to statements and conclusions EPA 

stated only after the close of the comment period. The new information is of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rulemaking, as it goes to whether the emission 

standards in the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule are achievable, accurately represent the 
2

performance of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and otherwise comply 

with the criteria for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in CAA 

section 112. Under these circumstances, CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires EPA to 

reconsider these emission factors (“the Administrator shall convene a preceding for 

reconsideration of the rule” (emphasis added)).1

Although the comment period on the proposed Pulp & Paper RTR Rule ended 

February 27, 2012, in a February 22, 2012 letter to me, Assistant Administrator 

McCarthy stated that EPA intended to consider information regarding excess 

emission allowances in the proposed rule received after that deadline but by June 

27, 2012, including results of a survey of pulp and paper mills to be conducted by the 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (“NCASI”). Subsequent to the 

February 27, 2012 close of the comment period, AF&PA has provided EPA with 

results of that NCASI survey and other information concerning factors that can cause 

emissions to be higher during SSM events, through written comments filed June 27, 

2012 and through presentations to EPA staff. 

That information is reflected in the following documents in EPA’s docket for 

the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule that AF&PA provided to EPA OAQPS staff, which are 

incorporated herein by reference and provide information that demonstrates the need 

to reconsider and revise EPA’s conclusions with respect to emission rates and 

pollution control capabilities during SSM events: 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0229 March 16, 2012 presentation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0231 March 28, 2012 presentation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0235 May 2, 2012 presentation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0236 June 27, 2012 supplemental comments 

Much of the information in those documents addresses conditions that lead to 

venting of regulated streams. AF&PA provided to EPA extensive information about 

constraints on the operation of pulp mill processes and emission control equipment 

that result in, or can result in, higher volatile HAP emissions during periods of startup 

or shutdown. The data and knowledge about mill operations that AF&PA shared with 

EPA shows that, in part because of the potential explosive nature of pulp mill vent 

gases, there are times during startup or shutdown of process or control equipment 

when regulated vent gases or condensate streams may have to bypass control 

equipment, or when control equipment may not be available or operating at design 

 

1

 Because CAA section 307(b)(1) provides for judicial review of EPA action through a 

petition for review only, in most circumstances, if such petition for review is filed within 60 

days after a final action is published, and it also provides that the “filing of a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator... shall not affect the finality of such rule or action for 

purposes of judicial review nor extend the time within which a petition for judicial review of 

such rule or action under this section may be filed,” AF&PA also intends to file a petition for 

review of the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1) and Rule 15(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit.
3

efficiency. The information also shows that anticipated process variations, control 

equipment downtime, and other unavoidable circumstances may lead to emissions 

much higher than those achieved during normal operations, even though the mill is 

employing MACT. 

In the final Pulp and Paper RTR rule published September 11, 2012, EPA 

eliminated regulatory language and cross-references included in the original 40 

C.F.R. pt. 63 subpart S rule that provided relief from compliance with the MACT 

standards during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Although EPA has 

acknowledged it has authority to establish alternative emission standards that apply 

during startup and shutdown, EPA concluded in the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule that no 

separate standard is needed for the pulp and paper mill source category. EPA 

stated, in the preamble to the final rule and related documents in the administrative 

record, that commenters had not shown that emissions are higher during startup or 

shutdown and EPA believes mills can comply with a single MACT standard during 

startup and shutdown as well as normal operations. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. at 

55,702-703; July 2012 Response to Comments document at 123-26, 131-32. 

AF&PA understands that EPA reached this conclusion in part based on EPA’s 

assessment that excess emissions occurring during startup and shutdown can be 

accommodated within the excess emissions allowances for pulping vent gases 

provided in the original Subpart S standards and retained in the Pulp & Paper RTR 

Rule. AF&PA believes that will be true for the most part. EPA has indicated, 

however, that it is considering modifying or removing those excess emissions 

allowances, in a future rulemaking. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 55,706. If EPA were to 

eliminate the excess emission allowance provisions in a future rule, EPA’s 

statements described above would suggest that there would be no need for EPA to 

make any other change to the Subpart S standards to accommodate exceedances 

associated with startup and shutdown. The information that AF&PA has provided to 

EPA and cited above demonstrates that this clearly is not the case and that: (1) 

emissions during startup and shutdown, even at best performing mills that form the 

basis for the MACT standards, may be higher than those during periods of steadystate operations; and (2) HAP-containing gas and liquid streams that are produced 

during startup and shutdown may not be susceptible to the same technologies and 

methods to minimize HAP emissions as are available and can be used to control 

HAP emission from those streams during steady-state operations. 

Similarly, statements EPA made in the Final Pulp & Paper RTR Rule with 

respect to malfunction events, e.g., that malfunctions are not reasonably foreseeable 

and could not or need not be taken into account when establishing MACT standards, 

and that mills must take steps to “correct” and “prevent future” malfunctions in order 

to avoid civil penalties, 77 Fed. Reg. at 55,702-703, may have been intended only to 

address events that fall outside the venting allowances provided in the Pulp & Paper 

RTR Rule. See also, e.g., Response to Comments document at 133-35. The 

information AF&PA provided to EPA during and after the formal comment period and 

referenced above, however, demonstrates that, even at well-operated mills 
4

employing MACT, there will be times when emissions are higher than during normal 

operations because of process variations, control equipment availability, and other 

unavoidable circumstances. If EPA statements about “malfunctions” in the Federal 

Register preamble and Response to Comments document described above were 

intended to apply even to events whose excess emissions are currently allowed by 

the venting allowance provisions of the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule, then the information 

AF&PA has provided and has cited in this petition for reconsideration demonstrate 

that EPA’s statements were inaccurate and that it is unreasonable for EPA not to 

take malfunction conditions into account when establishing MACT standards for pulp 

and paper mills. 

After the rule came out, we raised these concerns with OAQPS staff to see if 

we could resolve the issue quickly (see attached document that was provided to the 

staff last month). However, time did not permit a resolution so we are filing this 

request for reconsideration with the allowed 60 days. 

* * * * * * 

For the reasons set forth above, AF&PA urges you to reconsider conclusions 

in the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule with respect to emissions of hazardous air pollutants, 

and capabilities of process controls and pollution control equipment to minimize 

those emissions, during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction described 

above. AF&PA has had a productive exchange of information with OAQPS staff 

during the development of the Rule, and we hope the issues covered by this petition 

for reconsideration can be addressed in the same manner. If you or your staff have 

any questions about this petition for reconsideration, please contact Tim Hunt, 

AF&PA’s Senior Director, Air Quality Programs, at (202) 463-2588 or at 

Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

/s/ 

Paul Noe 

Vice President for Public Policy 

American Forest & Paper Association 

Attachment 

cc: Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation 

 Peter Tsirigotis, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 Robin Dunkins, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

John Bradfield, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards