1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ 202 463-2700 Fax: 202 463-2785 ▪ www.afandpa.org January 20, 2012

Via Electronic Mail

Ms. Gina McCarthy

Assistant Administrator for t he 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

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry, Docket ID Number EPA-H Q-OAR-2007-0544

Dear Ms. McCarthy:

On December 27, 2011, EPA announced a 60-day comment period on “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.” 76 Fed. Reg. 81,328 (the “proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule”). Those comments are currently due on or before February 27, 2012. For the reasons discussed below, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) hereby requests that you extend the comment period on the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule for an additional 30 days. Thus, comments would be due on or before March 27, 2012. In addition, AF&PA requests that you hold the comment period open indefinitely (or at least for another 120 days) for one portion of the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule, concerning whether EPA should change excess emis sion allowance prov isions in existing 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.443(e), 63.446(g), and 63.459(b)(11)(ii).

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 th e 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 signifi cant 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 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under CAA section 112. AF&PA members therefore have a direct and vital interest in the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule, which would significantly increase the stringency of, and therefore the costs of compliance with, em ission standards applicable to pulp and paper

mills.

### Ms. McCarthy January 19, 2012 Page 2

The Federal Register preamble for the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule requests, or creates a need for, industry collection and analysis of additional data in order to respond to EPA’s proposal to make existing emission limitations more stringent. It also effectively obligates industry to evaluate large amounts of information associated with EPA modeling of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from existing pulp and paper mills, as part of EPA’s residual risk anal ysis. That data only became available to AF&PA in the first week of January 2012, and it consists of approximately 2000 files of data associated with EPA’s modeling of actual emissions and another 2000 files associated with EPA modeling of allowable emissions. AF&PA contractors, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (N CASI), and member companies are already engaged in an analysis to try to identify any errors in EPA modeling or in the source data on which EPA based its modeling. This is a time-consuming, yet necessary, step in assessing EPA’s evaluatio n of the residual risk associat ed with existing HAP emissions from pulp and paper mills.

A key issue raised by the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule is whether pulp and paper mills can comply with more-stringent emission limitations for pulping vent gases and treatment limits for kraft condensate streams, based on EPA analysis of very detailed and voluminous responses that AF&PA members and other pulp and paper mill operators submitted in response to EPA’s indu stry survey last year. AF&PA, NCASI, and AF&PA contractors are attempting to understand EPA’s analysis and to track down any apparent inconsistent or unexpected data. The volume and complexity of information that needs to be reviewed and analyzed makes this a very time-consuming

task.

AF&PA and NCASI already have devoted co nsiderable effort to understanding what we and, we believe, EPA staff now unders tand to be a calculation error reflected in the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule. EPA has identified, on the basis of its review of current treatment levels reported in the industry survey, that a change in HAP removal requirement for kra ft condensates (from 92 to 94 percent) is justified. EPA believes this is a modest improvement in control technology efficiency and asserts that it can be achieved with existing technology. However, in calculating the proposed

numerical treatment lim its, EPA has used scaling factors that result in HAP treatment requirements much larger than levels achieved through a 2% improvement in control device treatment efficiency. In some cases, EPA proposed HAP removal requirements are greater than the Subpart S HAP collection requirements.

AF&PA, NCASI, and AF&PA members spent a great deal of time during the first two weeks of the comment period for the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule trying to understand how EPA had developed the proposed condensate treatment limits and assembling information to try to convin ce EPA that the prop osed limitations are

inconsistent with the remainder of EPA’s a nalysis, including EPA’s estimates of what compliance with the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule would cost the industry.

We understand that EPA staff nowconcede that there was a calculation error in the derivation of the proposed limits, and t hey agree with AF&PA that the proposed

limitations were inc onsistent with EPA’s intention to base the limitat ions on improved

### Ms. McCarthy January 19, 2012 Page 3

HAP removal efficiency, but not on greater collection of HAP-containing streams than was assumed for the 1998 MACT standards. The effort industry spent addressing this detour alone justifies extending the comment period.

Another key issue raised by the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule is whether the proposed increase in condensate HAP treatment requirements is appropriate. Industry reported treatment levels also reflect compliance with alternate standards like the Clean Condensate Alternative (CCA) and include compliance margins that are necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Any revision to the condensate

treatment limits would have the unintended consequence of impacting these other compliance approaches that were sanctioned under the earlier rules after extensive discussion with the Agency. AF&PA, NC ASI, and AF&PA contractors have provided an initial analysis of this issue to EPA. Again, the volume and complexity of information that needs to be reviewed and analyzed makes this a very time-consuming task.

Extending the deadline for submission of comments on the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule as requested in this letter would improve the ability of AF&PA and its members to collect and analyze the large volume of information described above (although even with the requested 30-day extension, AF&PA likely will not be able to be as thorough as we would like). It also wo uld recognize that AF &PA and its members will have to be responding to other EPA proposals at the same time, including the proposed NESHAPs for Industrial, Commercial, and In stitutional Boilers and Process Heaters, published December 23, 2011, 76 Fed. Reg. 80,598,which would have a major adverse impact on pulp and paper mills. The req uested comment deadline extension will allow EPA to correct and supplement the record in response to issues discussed above and being uncovered in ongoing discussions with EPA staff. It would facilitate more thoughtful, thorough, and better-articula ted comments by AF&PA and others, which should be of greater assistance to EPA as it develops final regulations and responds to comments in accordance with CAA section 307(d).

The requested extension of the comment deadline also 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.” Given that the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule was published the day after the federal Christmas holiday and at a time when many people were off work for another week, the

current comment deadline is inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of this directive. But more importantly, in light of the extensive amount of data gathering and analysis necessary for industry to comment effectively on the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule, limiting the comment period to only 60 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,” during a comment period of “at least” 60 days.

### Ms. McCarthy January 19, 2012 Page 4

Accordingly, AF&PA requests that EPA extend the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule by at least 30 days (to at least March 27, 2012). AF&PA also requests that EPA include, in the Federal Register notice of the comment deadline extension, an explanation that the proposed emission limitations in the December 27, 2012 Federal Register notice were incorrect, and supply the correct values for the proposed revised emission standards. This is essential to avoid unnecessary effort by industry to addr ess the erroneous proposal and by EPA to evaluate and respond to those industry comments.

AF&PA is aware that EPA has entered in to a consent decree with Sierra Club, under which EPA is to sign a rule announ cing EPA’s final determinations under CAA 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) no later than July 31, 2012. See Sierra Club v. Jackson , N. D. Calif. No. C 09-00152 SBA, consent decree entered September 26, 2011. AF&PA objected to that consent decree when it was pr oposed, on the basis that it did not allow enough time for industry to comment upon pro posed regulations and for EPA to consider those comments and respond to them in t he final rule. See AF&PA August 13, 2010

comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2010-0508. If the consent decree now does not allow EPA sufficient time to satisfy the pu blic participation requi rements of the CAA, then the consent decree should be amended. It does not trump EPA’s rulemaking obligations under CAA section 307(d).

In any event, however, AF&PA believes that EPA can extend the comment period by 30 days without necessarily interfering wi th its ability to meet the July 31, 2012

deadline in the consent decree. AF&PA already has provided your staff with considerable information, based on an initial review of the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule by NCASI, AF&PA members, and outside experts. AF&PA intends to continue this helpful dialogue with your staff during the comment period. Thus, EPA should be able to make significant strides towards considering issues raised and data provided by the pulp and paper indust ry even before the extended comment-period deadline (and indeed even before the February 27, 2012 comment deadline announced in the December 27, 2011 Federal Register). In fact, on at least one issue, as discussed above, an exchange of information between AF&PA and EPA already has resulted in EPA staff identifying calculation errors in the December 27, 2011 proposal, which we understand EPA has begun to correct.

In addition, there is one issue raised in the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule that will require substantial industry analysis and data collection, as well as

substantial EPA work to determine what acti on the Agency should take, that AF&PA believes cannot reasonably be accomplished even within a comment period extended by 30 days. With respect to that issue, howev er, EPA is not subject to any consent decree deadline. As explained below, AF&PA r equests that EPA keep the comment period open beyond March 27, 2012 with respect to that issue, and that EPA not attempt to

address the issue in the final rule a nnouncing EPA’s determinations under CAA 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) for pulp and paper pro duction (the determinations subject to the July 31, 2012 consent decree deadline).

### Ms. McCarthy January 19, 2012 Page 5

Specifically, in the December 27, 20 11 Federal Register notice, EPA announced for the first time that it is considering removing or modifying excess emission allowances contained in the existing 40 C.F.R. pt. 63 subpt. S MACT standards for pulp and paper manufacturing at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.443(e), 63.446( g), and 63.459(b)(11)(ii). See 76 Fed. Reg. at 81,346. These provisions allow mills to exceed specified limits for low-volume, high-concentration and high -volume, low-concentration vent gas systems and for steam strippers for a small percenta ge of operating hours, based on EPA’s determination, when it enacted the Subpart S MACT standards, that best-performing mills were unable to

meet those limits at all times.

AF&PA disputes EPA’s authority to make changes to the MACT standards now that are not the product of EPA’s residual ri sk and technology review authorities in CAA section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). But even if EPA does have authority to make such changes, it would have to do so on the basis that the existing emission allowances are not representative of the performance of the best-performing mills representing the MACT “floor,” or perhaps that more string ent, “beyond floor” requirements are justified, taking into account cost and other factors. EPA has not completed such an analysis, and, in fact, EPA is soliciting a great deal of information from industry to help it assess these issues. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 81,346 (e.g., asking industry to provide EPA with information to allow EPA to evaluate various alternatives to removing the excess emission allowance provisions, including subm itting “sufficient supporting emissions data or other information” and cost information).

AF&PA is in the process of collecting and analyzing info rmation in response to EPA’s requests concerning t he excess emission al lowances in the existing Subpart S MACT rule. This is a large effort, implicating both a review of emissions and operations

data that EPA evaluated to establish the excess emission allowances in 1998 and collection and analysis of emissions and cost estimate information related to current mill configurations and performance. Unlike the residual risk and technology reviews, AF&PA has not been asked to be actively in volved in assisting EPA with collection and analysis of data related to these excess emissi on allowances prior to publication of the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule no r was any data requested by EPA in their Information Collection Request (ICR), so this data collection and analysis effort is essentially starting from scratch. It is estimated that approximately 300 semiannual reports will need to be reviewed in addition to collecting information from vendors and production staff on the design a nd operation of these systems.

It is not feasible to answer the questions EPA has proposed about the excess emission allowances within the comment period on the proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule, even if EPA grants the 30-da y extension to that comment period requested in this letter. But it is not necessary for EPA to im pose such a deadline on public participation on this issue, either. With respect to potentially revising the existing Subpart S standards to modify or eliminate the emission allowances, the December 27, 2011 Federal Register notice is more akin to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking than a proposed rule, since it throws out options and questions rather than proposing a particular action. As such, it is appropriate for EPA to give industry more

### Ms. McCarthy January 19, 2012 Page 6

time to respond to those questions, as well as to provide a more-formal opportunity to comment on a proposed rule if in fact EPA decides to propose to revise the emission allowance provisions of the existing MACT standards.

Accordingly, AF&PA requests that EPA incl ude, in a Federal Register notice extending the deadline on the residual risk and technology review portions of the December 27, 2011 Federal R egister notice, a statement that EPA will continue to accept information related to the emissions allowance questions at 76 Fed. Reg. 81,346 beyond the (extended)d eadline for comments on the prop osed rule. AF&PA suggests that EPA request comments on th e emission allowance issue by June 27, 2012. The Federal Register notice for the extension should also explained that, if the EPA did decide to propose revisions to the emission allowance provisions in current 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.443(e), 63.446(g), and 63.459(b)(11)(ii), EPA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solici t additional public comment at that time.

Finally, AF&PA considered asking for a public hearing to gain more time to comment but concluded it would be too early in our process to provide meaningful feedback on all the critical issues and that our time was much better spent analyzing the extensive docket and talking directly to the OAQPS staff on the proposed changes.

As noted above, providing an extended oppo rtunity for public participation with respect to the emission allowance issue does not in any way interfere with EPA’s ability to comply with the Sierra Club v. Jackson consent decree. That consent decree only contains deadlines for EPA action pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). It does not concern possible EPA revision of MACT standards esta blished under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3).

* * * * * *

AF&PA appreciates your cons ideration 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 Qual ity Programs, at (202) 463-2588 or at tim_hunt@afandpa.org.

Sincerely,

/s/

Paul Noe Vice President for Public Policy

cc: John Bradfield, EPA-RTP Bill Schrock, EPA-RTP Robin Dunkins, EPA-RTP Peter Tsirigotis, EPA-RTP