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 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 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 

Pulp and Paper Industry, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-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 emission allowance provisions 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 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 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, emission 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 analysis. 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 (NCASI), 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 evaluation of the residual risk associated 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 industry 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 considerable effort to understanding 

what we and, we believe, EPA staff now understand 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 kraft 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 limits, 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 convince EPA that the proposed limitations are 

inconsistent with the remainder of EPA’s analysis, 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 they agree with AF&PA that the proposed 

limitations were inconsistent with EPA’s intention to base the limitations 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, NCASI, 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 would 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 Institutional 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 requested 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-articulated 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 address the erroneous proposal and by EPA to 

evaluate and respond to those industry comments. 

AF&PA is aware that EPA has entered into a consent decree with Sierra Club, 

under which EPA is to sign a rule announcing 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 proposed, on the basis that it did not allow 

enough time for industry to comment upon proposed regulations and for EPA to consider 

those comments and respond to them in the 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 public participation requirements 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 with 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 industry 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 action 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, however, EPA is not subject to any consent decree 

deadline. As explained below, AF&PA requests 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 announcing EPA’s determinations under CAA 

112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) for pulp and paper production (the determinations subject to the 

July 31, 2012 consent decree deadline). 
Ms. McCarthy 

January 19, 2012 

Page 5 

Specifically, in the December 27, 2011 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 percentage 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 risk 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 stringent, “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 submitting “sufficient supporting emissions data 

or other information” and cost information). 

AF&PA is in the process of collecting and analyzing information in response to 

EPA’s requests concerning the excess emission allowances 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 involved in assisting EPA with collection and 

analysis of data related to these excess emission allowances prior to publication of the 

proposed Pulp & Paper NESHAPs Rule nor 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 and 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-day extension to that comment period 

requested in this letter. But it is not necessary for EPA to impose 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 include, in a Federal Register notice 

extending the deadline on the residual risk and technology review portions of the 

December 27, 2011 Federal Register 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)deadline for comments on the proposed rule. AF&PA suggests 

that EPA request comments on the 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 solicit 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 opportunity 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 established under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3). 

* * * * * * 

 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, 

/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