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 23, 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, 

representing 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 whose 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 standards 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 significantly 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 memo 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 the 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 Performance 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 

Regulatory 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 National 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 performance 

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 data 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 (PM) 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 finalized 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 of 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 

determine what information is relevant to this rulemaking including what alternatives to 

suggest in our comments. This will take a total of 70 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 responses. 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 importance 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 proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS includes two 

Federal holidays – Memorial Day and Fourth 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 light 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 public 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 on the proposed Kraft Pulp NSPS until July 31st (by 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 

revisions 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 commented in support of the deadlines in the consent decree 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 would 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 are 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 rulemaking 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 Director, 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 Tsirigotis, EPA-RTP