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

 February 3, 2012 

Via Electronic Mail 

Robin Dunkins 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Email: dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

Re: Supplementary Material for 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. Dunkins: 

On January 20, 2012, we sent Gina McCarthy a request for an extension to 

the comment period that included a request to “decouple” the excess emission 

allowance issue from the base Residual Risk and Technology Review proposal since 

it is totally separate from the Agency’s 112(f) and 112(d)(6) review responsibilities. 

This letter provides more information to support the need for at least 120 days to 

provide meaningful responses to the questions posed in the December 23, 2011 

Federal Register notice. 

As you know, the industry has not been interacting with OAQPS staff on these 

excess emission allowance issues the way we have on other issues addressed in the 

proposed rule. So we have not provided EPA with information on these 

issues recently, as we have for other issues in the proposed rule, and we are 

basically starting from scratch in terms of our own analysis. 

In the Federal Register EPA asks for comment on the following aspects of the 

excess emission allowances: 

1. The circumstances where allowances have been relied upon 

2. Whether those circumstances include periods of start-up, shutdown or 

malfunction and if not, why 

3. Information on the frequency of use 

4. And more specifically: 

a) Typical reasons for the releases including a description of the 

nature and cause 
Ms. Dunkins 

February 3, 2012 

Page 2 

b) Frequency, 

c) Duration, 

d) Estimated amount of emissions, 

e) Any work practices employed to reduce emission, and 

f) Any procedures used to monitor releases. 

5. Necessity of releases for technology reasons (equipment or 

operational) 

6. The time needed to switch between routine controls and available 

backup controls and whether venting is necessary during these times. 

EPA goes on to ask for feedback on options EPA is considering including: 

 Narrowing the provisions (such as when they would apply) 

 Setting an alternative numerical emission limit 

 Setting a work practice under section 112(h) or 

 Lengthening the averaging period of the current standard to 

accommodate the periods of excess emissions 

AF&PA and its member companies do not currently have any of the 

information on occurrences and frequency in a readily available format for 

compilation and analysis. It will take at least three months to gather the information in 

a form that would be useful to assess. The first step is to get relevant information 

from the member companies including current emission reports and/or the details of 

why and when these allowances are used. There are many different circumstances 

and approaches companies take and we would want to be sure we had the breadth 

of information to make informed comments to EPA. Mills are busy preparing for other 

rulemaking comments (Boiler MACT) including the RTR proposal itself as well as 

other reporting responsibilities that occur during the first quarter of the year. 

Therefore, AF&PA cannot expect information back from member companies for at 

least eight weeks and more likely ten weeks. Then, as with any data collection effort, 

there needs to be extensive follow-up to ensure the data is understood and 

interpreted properly. For example, understanding the reasons for these events and 

how they are different from malfunction situations. EPA has had a similar 

experiences reviewing and interpreting the data from the Information Collect Request 

(ICR) to support the rulemaking. 

Once data is collected, AF&PA will require another six to eight weeks to then 

compile the information, conduct detailed analyses and put the data into a form that 

appropriately characterizes what we know about frequency, duration, cause and 

amount of emissions. For a trade association, like EPA’s rulemaking workgroup 

process, this requires numerous calls and even face-to-face meetings to discuss the 

information, determine if any conclusions that can be drawn from it, and preparing 

the conclusions for submittal to EPA. 
Ms. Dunkins 

February 3, 2012 

Page 3 

The efforts to gather the information on current practices is only half the task 

being requested in the preamble of the proposal. The questions on alternatives to 

the current excess emission allowances will require an even more involved 

enterprise for AF&PA and its members. To comment constructively we need to get 

far enough through the data collection phase, which will take a couple of months, to 

have the information to make informed assessments. Since the current use of 

emission allowances is working fine in our view, the industry has never studied the 

merits of a work practice or numeric standard or the potential compliance costs and 

other impacts of any alternatives. This will take significant time, easily another two 

months, to sort through the nuances of how the options might work in the day-to-day 

circumstances of each mill. Developing the documentation for any final conclusions 

in comments will take the same sort of back and forth to make sure we have well 

thought through comments from a technical, policy, legal and economic perspective 

involving both members and consultants. Again, these are not the only 

responsibilities our member companies have so it can take a week or two even to get 

everyone together especially when some of the experts on use of excess emission 

allowances are running operations at the mills. 

These steps will easily take four months to complete and possibly more so a 

“decoupling” of the excess emission allowance issues is justified to give until June 

27, 2012 to provide additional feedback on the questions and issues raised in the 

December 27, 2011 Federal Register notice. Please note that, by requesting 

additional time and collecting and submitting additional information, AF&PA is not 

conceding that it could be appropriate or legally permissible for EPA to change the 

excess emission allowances currently contained in the Subpart S MACT standards. 

If you have further questions on this process, please contact Tim Hunt at 

202-463-2588. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ 

 

 Paul Noe 

Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, OAQPS 

 John Bradfield, OAQPS 

 Bill Schrock, OAQPS