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 (A F&PA) petitions the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, for reconsideration of an EPA action pub lished September 11, 2012 at 77 Fed. Reg. 55,698, titled: National Emission Stand ards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Ru le (EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544) (“the Pulp & Paper RTR Ru le” 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 start up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) and concerning the ability of mills employ ing the Maximum Achievable Control Technology to comply with the emission limit ations contained in the Rule during such periods.

Reconsideration pursuant to CAA sect ion 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 ar e incorrect. This information was not available prior to the close of the fo rmal 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 rulemaki ng, as it goes to whether the emission standards in the Pulp & Paper RTR Rule ar e achievable, accurately represent the2 performance of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and otherwise comply

with the criteria for Nationa l 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 propos ed Pulp & Paper RTR Rule ended February 27, 2012, in a February 22, 2012 le tter to me, Assist ant 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 Improv ement (“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 info rmation concerning factors that can cause emissions to be higher during SSM events, through written comme nts filed June 27, 2012 and through presentations to EPA staff.

That information is reflected in t he 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 provid e information that demonstrates the need

to reconsider and revise EPA’s conclusi ons with respect to emission rates and pollution control capabilities during SSM events:

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0229 Marc h 16, 2012 presentation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0231 Marc h 28, 2012 presentation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0235 Ma y 2, 2012 presentation EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0236 June 27, 2012 supplemental comments

Much of the information in those docum ents addresses conditions that lead to venting of regulated stream s. AF&PA provided to EPA ex tensive information about constraints on the operation of pulp mill processes and emission control equipment that result in, or can result in, higher vo latile HAP emissions dur ing periods of startup or shutdown. The data and knowledge abou t mill operations that AF&PA shared with EPA shows that, in part because of the poten tial 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 equi pment 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 ru le published September 11, 2012, EPA eliminated regulatory languag e and cross-references included in the original 40 C.F.R. pt. 63 subpart S rule that provi ded 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 doc uments in the administrative record, that commenters had not shown that emissions are higher during startup or

shutdown and EPA believes mills can co mply with a single MACT standard during startup and shutdown as well as normal opera tions. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. at 55,702-703; July 2012 Response to Co mments document at 123-26, 131-32.

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

assessment that excess emissions occu rring 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 fo r the most part. EPA has indicated, however, that it is considering modify ing 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 s hutdown. The information that AF&PA has provided to

EPA and cited above demonstrates that this clearly is no t 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 high er than those during periods of steadystate operations; and (2) HAP-containing ga s and liquid streams that are produced during startup and shutdown may not be suscept ible to the same technologies and

methods to minimize HAP emissions as ar e 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 a ccount 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 prov ided 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, demonstrate s that, even at well-operated mills4 employing MACT, there will be times when em issions are higher than during normal operations because of process variations, control equipment availability, and other

unavoidable circumstances. If EPA statements about “malf unctions” in the Federal Register preamble and Response to Co mments document described above were intended to apply even to events whose exce ss emissions are currently allowed by the venting allowance provisi ons 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 thes e concerns with OAQPS staff to see if we could resolve the issue quickly (see a ttached 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 star tup, shutdown, and ma lfunction described above. AF&PA has had a productive exchange of information with OAQPS staff during the development of t he Rule, and we hope the issues covered by this petition

for reconsideration can be addressed in the sa me manner. If you or your staff have any questions about this petition for recons ideration, please contact Tim Hunt, AF&PA’s Senior Director, Air Qualit y 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 Admini strator, Office of Air and Radiation Peter Tsirigotis, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Robin Dunkins, Office of Air Qua lity Planning and Standards John Bradfield, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards