1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ 202 463

- 2700 Fax: 202 463

- 2785 ▪ www.afandpa.org June 19 , 2013

Via Electronic Mail

Ms. Gina McCarthy

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

Mail Code 6101A Washington, DC 20460 Email: mccarthy.gina@epa.gov

Re: Request for Extension of the Comment Period on Proposed New Source Performance Standard for Kraft Pulp Mills, Docket ID Number

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0640

Dear Ms. McCarthy:

On May 2 3, 2013, EPA announced a 45

- day comment period on “Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review” 78 Fed. Reg. 31315 (the “proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS Rule”). Those comments are currently due on or before July 8, 2013. For the reasons discussed below, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) hereby requests that you extend the comment period on the proposed Kraft NSPS Rule roughly three weeks until July 31.

AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest products industry,

r epresenting pulp, paper, packaging and wood products manufacturers, and forest landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment. AF&PA’s members operate

facilities who se emissions are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”); in fact, CAA compliance often represents a significant portion of operating costs at those facilities. AF&PA therefore has been actively involved in many EPA rulemakings to

establish s tandards affecting the industry, including proceedings to promulgate, review,

and revise New Source Performance Standards under CAA section 111. AF&PA members therefore have a direct and vital interest in the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS Rule, which could sig nificantly change the compliance obligations for new or modified pulp mills, and therefore the costs of compliance with emission limitations applicable to Kraft pulp mills.

With the publication of the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS Rule, EPA made available

for the first time several supporting documents, memos and data assessment

– several of which are over 100 pages long

– that are critical to understanding the changes EPA is proposing to the Kraft Pulp NSPS requirements. These include:

### Ms. McCarthy

June 19 , 2013 Page 2

 February 4, 2013 RTI mem o on “Projections of the Number of New,

Modified, and Reconstructed Emission Units for the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS

Review”

 April 5, 2013 EPA memo from Kelley Spence on “Review of the Continuous Emission Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data

from t he Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request Responses Pertaining to Subpart BB Sources”

 February 22, 2013 EPA memorandum from Alexander Macpherson on “Economic Impact Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp

Mills New Source Performanc e Standards Subpart BB”

 February 4, 2013 RTI memo on “Emissions Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/Impacts of the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills

NSPS”

 April 26, 2013 EPA memo from John Bradfield and Kelley Spence on

“Review of the Air Permits for Kraft Pulp Mills”

 March 22, 2013 RTI memorandum on “Review of Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request (ICR) Responses Pertaining to Startup and Shutdown of Subpart BB Equipment”

 March 29, 2013 RTI memorandum on “Technology Review and Regu latory Options for the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS”

This last memo on the Technology Review is especially important to understanding the proposed changes to the opacity requirements for recovery furnaces

and lime kilns. It is the first time AF&PA and the Nationa l Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) have seen how EPA has taken the extensive data AF&PA members provided during the 2011 Information Collection Request (ICR) of paper mills, assessed it, reviewed its quality, developed hypotheses about mill p erformance capabilities, identified regulatory options and drawn regulatory conclusions from it. This and related memos are at the heart of the proposed changes to the rule.

Despite getting started with our review immediately upon obtaining a copy of the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS after it was signed on May 15, it is a major effort to understand first how EPA did its analysis and then what data was used to support its conclusions. For example, EPA has proposed changing the opacity limits for new, modified, and reconstructed recovery furnaces from 35 percent to 20 percent opacity and reducing the monitoring allowance from 6 percent to 2 percent of the 6

- minute opacity averages. EPA states that these changes are justified based on EPA’s

evaluation of the ICR d ata and claims that nearly all mills can perform at these levels. However, there are mills in the data set that do not appear to currently meet the tougher requirements. NCASI and AF&PA need additional time to reach out to these member

mills and understand the circumstances of their opacity levels to determine if compliance with the proposed changes is feasible, and if not, what alternative opacity limits would be achievable according to statutory requirements of section 111(d). Given the complexity

of the data sets and other commitments of mill staff, this will take an additional three weeks to complete. Until this review is complete, we cannot draft comments that will be informative to the Agency.

### Ms. McCarthy

June 19 , 2013 Page 3

Second, EPA has proposed to have the particulate matter (P M) and total reduced sulfur (TRS) limits apply at all times. (See proposed sections 60.282(b) and 60.283(b)). AF&PA has expressed concern about the elimination of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions before in the context of the recently fina lized Residual Risk and Technology Review rule for Subpart S Paper Mills, and these concerns extend to this NSPS. Pulp mills are very dynamic systems with complex process equipment and miles of pipes carrying various gases to control equipment or treatment . Although the NSPS limits are focused on a subset of equipment at a pulp mill, the whole pulping process from digester through chemical recovery is covered. Therefore, the elimination of SSM provisions would be infeasible to maintain the safe operation o f a pulp mill.

EPA has prepared a detailed memo and assessment of the SSM changes that AF&PA needs to examine in depth. Although much work has already been done on SSM provisions and existing venting allowances for Subpart S RTR, it will take time to

dete rmine what information is relevant to this rulemaking including what alternatives to suggest in our comments. This will take a total of 7 0 days to develop, 23 more than currently provided.

In addition, EPA has identified over a dozen issues in the preamble for which it requests comments. AF&PA wants to be thorough and responsive to the Agency’s interests and it will take additional time than anticipated to provide thoughtful and adequate res ponses. For example, questions relative to appropriate averaging times for limits or monitoring changes require detailed assessments of underlying mill performance data or an examination of methods that are complex. Therefore, an

additional three weeks to comment is necessary to cover these issues.

Finally, the requested extension of the comment deadline is consistent with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” In that Executive Order, President Obama emphasized the importan ce of public participation in rulemaking and directed that each agency, to the extent permitted by law, provide the public with an opportunity to comment that “should generally be at least 60 days.” Especially given that the comment period for the propose d Kraft Pulp NSPS includes two Federal holidays

– Memorial Day and Fo u rth of July

– when many people take time off from work, the current comment deadline is inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of this directive. But more importantly, in ligh t of the extensive amount of data analysis necessary for industry to comment effectively on the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS Rule, limiting the comment period to only 45 calendar days is inconsistent with Executive Order 13563’s emphasis on the importance of p ublic participation and providing “an opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.”

Accordingly, AF&PA requests that EPA extend the deadline for submitting

comments o n the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS until July 31 st ( b y a little more than three

weeks ).

### Ms. McCarthy

June 19 , 2013 Page 4

AF&PA is aware that EPA has entered into a consent decree with the Center for Biological Diversity, et al, under which EPA is to sign either a final rule containing

revi sions to NSPS Subpart BB or a final determination not to revise Subpart BB under CAA 111(b)(1)(B) no later than March 14, 2014. See Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA , N. D. Calif. No. C 11

- 06059 YGR, consent decree entered January 2, 2013.

AF&PA comm ented in support of the deadlines in the consent de c ree assuming significant changes to the NSPS would not be necessary, but we did not anticipate a comment period of only 45 days nor the changes in the SSM provisions and the

extensive data review that wou ld be necessary. AF&PA believes that EPA can extend the comment period by roughly three weeks without interfering with its ability to meet the March 14, 2014 deadline in the consent decree. Moreover, as the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS Rule indicates, there a re no new control technologies that might warrant wholesale revision of the NSPS, so there is no great urgency to completion of the rulemaking that would prevent EPA from seeking an extension of that deadline, if needed to be able to complete the rulemakin g consistent with the requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Order 13563.

AF&PA intends to continue our dialogue with your staff during the comment period to make sure we understand the basis for the proposed changes and be responsive to issues in our comments.

* * * * * *

AF&PA appreciates your consideration of this request and looks forward to your prompt response to this urgent matter. Please direct any questions about this request to Tim Hunt, AF&PA’s Senior Dire ctor, Air Quality Programs, at (202) 463

- 2588 or at tim_hunt@afandpa.org.

Sincerely,

Paul Noe Vice President for Public Policy

cc: Kelly Spence, EPA

- RTP John Bradfield, EPA

- RTP Robin Dunkins, EPA

- RTP

Peter Ts irigotis, EPA

- RTP