## Georgia-Pacific

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS December 5, 2014 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Office ofthe Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 3000, WJC Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Georgia-Pacific LLC Traylor Champion Senior Vice-President, Environmental Affairs & Pr

oduct Safety 133 P eachtree Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 652

-4776 btchampl@gapac.com

Re: Petition ofGeorgia-Pacific LLC for Reconsideration ofEPA's Final Rule, ''National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards; and Manufacture ofAmino/Phenolic Resins" Dear Administrator McCarthy, Georgia-Pacific LLC ("Georgia-Pacific") writes to request administrative reconsideration ofthe recently-announced rnle entitled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards; and Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins." 79 Fed

. Reg. 60898 (Oct. 8, 2014) ("final rule" or "rule")

. Our primary concern regarding this rule is the emissions standard for amino/phenolic resins production ("APR") for continuous process vents. In the proposed rule, the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency ("EPA" or the "Agency") expressed this standard as a percent reduction requirement. Inthe final rule, the standard was expressed as a production-based limit. GeorgiaPacific suggested inits comments onthe proposed rule that EPA should adopt a productionbased limit and we continue to believe that such a form is appropriate. However, because EPA did not propose to adopt a production-based limit and did not include in the proposed rule key information that formed the basis ofthe final standard (such as the emissions and production information used to derive the standard), Georgia-Pacific did nothave adequate notice ofand opportunity to comment on the final production-based limit or essential dataused in the development ofthe standard. Reconsideration of this rule is governed by§ 307(d)(7)(B) ofthe Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S .C

. § 7607(d)(7)(B). This section provides that EPA "shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration ofthe rule" if "theperson raising an objection" to the rule "can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the public comment period] or ifthe grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified forjudicial review)," provided that "such objection is ofcentral relevance toThe Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 2014 Page2 the outcome ofthe rule." 42 U.S.C

. § 7607(d)(7)(B). As explained below, Georgia-Pacific's objections meet the CAA's standard for reconsideration

. Becausethe mle is currently effective, Georgia-Pacific respectfully requests that EPA consider ourpetition expeditiously. Ifthis matter cannotbe quickly resolved, we request that EPApostpone the compliance deadline pending completion ofthe reconsiderationprocess. This petition outlines thejustification for reconsideration of the fmal rule. Section I explains howthe proposed rule gave inadequate notice ofthe production-based standard that EPA adopted in the final rule. Section II details how this lack ofnotice impacted the final rule because itprevented Georgia-Pacific from notifying EPA ofseveral flaws in the data used to calculate the MACT floor for continuous process vents. Finally, Section III lists the relief Georgia-Pacific seeks from the reconsideration process. I. The Proposed Rule Gave Inadequate Notice ofthe Production-Based Standard That Was Ultimately Adopted in the Final Rule In the final APRrule, EPA identified six units

- all resin spray dryers

- that are potentially subject to the final ( rule's emission standards for continuous process vents. GeorgiaPacific owns and operates three ofthe six resin spray dryers

. Georgia-Pacific's dryers predominantly dry phenolic resins (dry phenol

-formaldehyde resins)

. Tembec Inc. operates the other three dryers, which produce only dry amino resins (urea-formaldehyde resins). On January 9, 2014, EPApublished a proposed rule to amend the MACT sta ndard for APR. 

### 79 Fed. Reg. 1676 (Jan. 

### 9, 2014). Prior to this proposal, EPA determined that two source types within the APR source category lacked a MACT emissions standard: "storage vessels and continuous process vents at existing facilities

." 

### Id. at 1701. EPA asserted that there were uncontrolled continuous process vents at two affected facilities: Georgia-Pacific's plant in Crossett, AR and Tembec's BTL Specialty Resins plant in Toledo, OH. EPA proposed "that the MACT floor level ofcontrol is to reduce organic HAP either by 85 percent or to a concentration of 20parts per million by volume (ppmv), when using a combustion control device, or to a concentration of50 ppmv when using a non-combustion control device. " 

### Id. at 1703.
In its comments on the proposed rule, Georgia-Pacific informed EPA that there were additional continuous process vents that would be subjectto the proposed rule. In addition, Georgia-Pacific reconunended that EPA "consider an uncontrolled production-based emission limit similar to that proposed for theAcrylic andModacrylic Fibers (AMF) Production Source Category." Georgia-Pacific Comments at 2. We recommended this limit shouldbe "based on the last 5 years of production, taking into account the expected variability inthe drying of multiple resin types, at the facilities represented inthe APR category with spray dryer continuous process vents." 

### Id. at 6

. To assist in this process, we submitted a summary ofannual production and emissions data for our three continuous process vents. 

### Id. Attachment B. EPA responded favorably inthe final rule to Georgia-Pacific's comments. Instead ofthe 85% reduction option, EPApromulgated a production-based standard of"0.95 kg organicThe Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 2014 Page 3 HAP/Mg (1

.9 lb organic HAP/ton) ofresinproduced for continuous process vents." 79 Fed. Reg. at 60910. EPA determined this emission limit using the information Georgia-Pacific submitted in its comments and data submittedby Tembec to Ohio EPA (Tembec's Annual Ohio EPA Emissions Inventory for 2009-2013). While we appreciate EPA's effort to address ourrecommendations onthe proposed rule and agree in concept with establishingproduction based limits, we unfortunately had no opportunity to offer comments on important details as to the basis for and ultimate level ofthe production-based standard that EPA adopted inthe final rule. For example, we were unable to comment on flaws in the methodthat EPA used to calculate theproduction-standard or questions regarding the validity ofTembec's data. Similarly, Georgia-Pacific also did not have adequate notice that the 85% standard would be replaced with this production standard. 

### In short, it was "impracticableto raise such objection[s]" during the public comment period because EPA's decisionto set such a standard did not become apparent until well after the close ofthe public comment period

. CAA§ 307(d)(7)(B). 

### II. Georgia-Pacific's Objections to the Production-Based Limit Are ofCentral Relevance to the Outcome ofthe Rule The inadequate notice ofthe production-based standard resulted in a lost opportunity for Georgia-Pacific to comment on the proposal and the data onwhich it was based. Since the issuance ofthe final rule, Georgia-Pacific has spent considerable time analyzing the new production-based standard and the supporting data. Had Georgia-Pacific been afforded an opportunity to review this same info1mation during the public commentperiod, we would have raised a number ofissues related to the data on whichEPArelied in setting the standard and the methods that EPA usedto calculate the standard. For example, Georgia-Pacific would have pointed out that the HAP emission rates that EPA attributed to Tembec's three dryers as part ofthe Agency's MACT floor calculations do not account for all HAP emissions from these three units

. Under CAA section 112, the MACT floor for existing sources "may be less stringent than standards for new sources in the same category or subcategory but shall not be less stringent than

... the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) inthe category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources." 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). Because there are only six sources, EPA used what it determined to be the best five sources: Tembec's three dryers (A, B, and C) and GeorgiaPacific's dryers (D and E). A review ofall of the emissions data Tembec submitted to EPA after the close ofthe comment period demonstrates that the data EPA relied upon did not account for all HAP emissions from Tembec's three dryers. Tembec provided EPA with emissions test reports and emissions inventory reports, yet EPArelied exclusively on Tembec's emissions inventory datato derive the HAP emission rates used inthe Agency's MACT floor analysis. The emissions inventory data, however, failed to account for all ofthe methanol and formaldehyde emissions, as demonstrated by testing conducted by Tembec on dryer Bin October of 2006. A summary ofThe Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 2014 Page4 the results was e-mailed by Tembec to EPA on May 7, 2014 (see EPA-HQ-OAR-201 2-013 3

- 0058). The significance ofthis oversight is captured in EPA's own comments accompanying the proposed rule, where the Agency noted that " [m]ethanol, foimaldehyde and phenol account for the majority ofthe HAP emissions from the APRproduction processes" for the entire source category. 79 Fed. Reg. at 1683. Thus, the omission of methanol and fo1maldehyde emissions caused EPA to significantly underestimate the total HAP emissions from Tembec's sources. As the following table shows, the production-based HAP emission rate for the three Tembec dryers should be much higher than EPA's calculated values. These provisional calculations are based onprovisional estimates ofTembec's methanol and formaldehyde emissions derived from Tembec's emissions inventory data and the emissions test reports Tembec previously submitted to EP A. 1 This conectionwould have significantly altered EPA's assessment ofthe MACT floor, which is "the average emission limitation achieved bythe best performing 5 sources." 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). A review ofthe emissions data from the Provisional Calculations would suggest that none of the affected sources in the MACT floor could comply with the promulgated standard of 1.9 lbs. organic HAP/ton ofresinproduced. 

# MACT Floor and Production-Based Emission Limit for Spray Dryers

EPA ID

Dryer A (Tembec) Dryer B (Tembec) Dryer C(Tem bec)

Dryer D (GP) Dryer E (GP) Dryer F(GP) Median Mean or Average Standard Deviation %Std. Dev. Pounds of HAP/Ton of Resin Produced (EPA's Calculations) 0.1 0.2 0.74 8.7 10.4 13.46 0.74 4.0 5

. 1 127 Emission Limit

- Mean 10.2 Pounds of HAP/Ton of Resin Produced (Provisional C alculati ons) 6.4 3,8 3.2 8.7 11.5 14.5 6.4 6.7 3.5 51.4 6

.9 Emission limit- Median 1.9 6

.6

1Upon request, Georgia-Pacific can provide details of the calculations behind the numbers inthis table.The Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 2014 Page 5 Even ifthe dataEPA relied upon had fully accounted for Tembec's HAP emissions, however, at least three errors in EPA's calculations remain. First, we believe that the dryer emission rate was improperly calculated. We believe that EPA calculated the emission rate by dividing the 5-year total emissions by the 5-yeartotal resinproduction. This approach would mute the effect ofshorter-te1m variability that we believe exists inproduction rates and conesponding HAP emissions, thus producing an emissions standard that does not adequately account for variability. We believe that the better approach

- one that would better represent the actual variability experienced by the affected units

- would be to calculate the standard by taking the maximum emission rate per ton of production from the 5-years data set. This is illustrated in the table above inthe revised calculations for resin spray dryers A, B, C, D and E, which reflect a shift from calculating the standard using 5-year totals to using the average ofthe 1-year totals

. Another relevant approach for calculating the production-based emission limit and accounting for the variability inthe data is to apply a 99% upper prediction limit ("UPL") whichresults in a calculated 13.8 lbs organic HAP/ton ofresinproduced. Second, EPA calculated the MACT floor and emission limit by taking the median ofthe bestperforming sources instead ofthe mean. We understand that EPA's longstanding position is that the term "average" as used in§ l 12(d) should be constrned as any appropriate measure of central tendency

- which might include the arithmetic average, but also might include other measures ofcentral tendency such as the mode or median

. We believe, however, that the better reading ofthe statute is that the term "average" unambiguously means "arithmetic average." And, in any event, even ifthat term might permissibly be interpreted to mean the "median" in some cases, use ofthe median inthis case is notreasonable because itproduces an emissions limit that is not representative oftwo ofthe five best performing units

. As the table above shows, ifEPAhad used the mean value, the emission limit would have better reflected the performance of the Georgia-Pacific units. Third, EPA's calculations do not account for the recent change in control technology for Tembec's Dryer A. We understand that in 2012, Tembec replaced Dryer A's wet scrnbber with a baghouse to improve the control of particulate matter. The conesponding increase in HAP emissions associated with this change in control technology was not captured in the HAP emission data reported in Tembec's 2012 and 2013 emissions inventory reports, and thus was not incorporated into the HAP emission rate that EPA attributed to Dryer A inthe Agency' s MACT floor analysis. Georgia-Pacific does not believe it is appropriate to rely on emissions data for Dryer A that do not reflect the current configuration ofthat unit. IfEPA agrees to grantthis reconsideration request, Georgia-Pacific believes that the revised standard should be based onbetter emissions infmmation than currently is available from either Georgia-Pacific or Tembec. To that end, Georgia-Pacific is prepared in the very near term to conduct HAP emissions testing at each ofits three affected spray dryers. We believe that Tembec also is prepared to test its three affected units. We have contacted EPA staffat the Emissions Measurement Center to discuss the preferred EPAtest methodology to measure HAPs emissions from resin spray dryers. Ifreconsideration is granted, we will let you know once this task is completed and coordinate with EPA on completing the testing.The Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 20 14 Page 6 Lastly, Georgia-Pacific notes that the available data suggest the possibility that subcategorization may be appropriate. Even with the provisional calculations presented above, the emissions rates from Georgia-Pacific's spray dryers appear to be significantly higherthatthe emissions rates from Tembec's spray dryers

. While there are differences inthe emissions controls on the various affected units, we do notbelieve that the difference in emissions rates is solely orpredominantly attributable to that factor. We think the difference in emissions rates likely is attributable to fundamental differences in the design and operating characteristics ofour units versus Tembec's

- such as differences in resins types (phenolic resins for us versus ureaformaldehyde resins for Tembec) or differences in the size ofthe spray dryers (ours are significantly larger than Tembec's). Had Georgia-Pacific been able to comment on a proposal for a production-based standard and the accompanying data, we could have assessed these differences and possibly suggested that subcategorization is wananted. IfEPA goes forward with reconsideration, this is an issue that should be explored. 

### III. Requested Relief For the reasons discussed above, Georgia-Pacific respectfully requests EPA grant reconsideration ofthe final rule. Georgia-Pacific seeks the opportunity to work with EPA in developing revised proposed production-based standards and to comment onthe proposed standards before they are finalized. To assist in that process, Georgia-Pacific would be willing to conduct HAP emissions testing on its affected spray dryers and submit this information to EPA for use in developing the revised standards

. Because the rule cunently is effective, we ask for expeditious consideration ofthis request. Ifreconsideration cannot be completed reasonably quicldy, we believe that an extension ofthe compliance deadline may become warranted. Lastly, ifEPA grants reconsideration on the spray dryer limits, we ask that EPA also consider revising the final rule to address one additional issue. The final rule expands the applicability ofthe storage tank standards "to be consistent with other storage vessel standards already required for the chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON)." 79 Fed. Reg. at 60909. We do not object to the Agency's decisionto expand applicability

. But, in order to meet the goal of being wholly consistent with the HON storage tank standards, EPA also should include in the APRrule the HON storage vessel allowance for routine maintenance ofa control device (40 CFR § 63 .119( e)(3)) and the exemption for outages for processes reclaiming tank emissions whenthe liquid level in the tank is not increased during a process outage (Id. at§ 63.119(f)(3)). In addition to ensuring consistency, these provisions are needed because it is notpossible without great effort to eliminate HAP emissions from a storage tank when non-routine conditions arise (such as a control device outage or a process outage). And, the effort to empty and degas a tank in many cases could result in greater HAP emissions than would occur ifa limited allowance or exception were otherwise provided. 

## * * * * * * * 

## * * *The Honorable Gina McCarthy December 5, 2014 Page 7 Thank you for your consideration ofthis request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need more information

.
Sincerely,

Senior Vice-President, Environmental Affairs & Product Safety Georgia-Pacific LLC

cc: P. Tsirigotis (via e-mail) P

. Lassiter (via e-mail)