*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 1 of 162--

EO12866PulpPaper2060AQ4Proposal_12_13_2011.doc6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544 

RIN 2060–AQ41

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from the Pulp and Paper Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the 

Pulp and Paper industry to address the results of the 

residual risk and technology review that the EPA is 

required to conduct under sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of 

the Clean Air Act. These proposed amendments include

revisions to the kraft pulping process condensates

standards; a requirement for 5-year repeat emissions 

testing for selected process equipment; revisions to

provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction; additional test methods for measuring 

methanol; and technical and editorial changes.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 2 of 162--

PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having full effect if the 

Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your 

comments on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting 

to speak at a public hearing by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS FROM 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 15 

DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544, by one of the following 

methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments.

 Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 

Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the 

EPA Air and Radiation Docket website.

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0544 in the subject line of the message.

 Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544.

 Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 3 of 162--

20460, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0544. Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

 Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, 

deliver comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2007-0544. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays), and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include two copies.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544. The EPA policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be 

confidential business information or otherwise protected 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” 

system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 4 of 162--

contact information unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 

your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption 

and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this 

rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544. All 

documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly available (e.g.,

confidential business information or other information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 5 of 162--

whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 

Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 

EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will 

begin at 10:00 a.m. on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

and will be held at the EPA campus in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. 

Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 

inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Natural Resources Group (E143-03), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4487.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 6 of 162--

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this 

proposed action, contact Mr. John Bradfield, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, (E143-03), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3062; fax number: (919) 

541-3470; and email address: bradfield.john@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0881; fax number: (919) 

541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to a 

particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in 

Table 1 to this preamble.

TABLE 1--LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN 

THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP 

for: OECA Contact1 OAQPS Contacts

2

Pulp 

and 

Paper

Sara Ayres

(202)564-5391

ayres.sara@epa.gov

John Bradfield

(919) 541-3062 

bradfield.john@epa.gov

1 EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

2 EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 7 of 162--

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

processes, data inventories and risk modeling are included 

in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, 

to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 

purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined 

here:

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists

ADAF Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

AERMOD Air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BBDR Biologically-Based Dose-Response 

CAA Clean Air Act

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CBI Confidential Business Information

CCA Clean Condensate Alternative

CD ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEEL Community Emergency Exposure Levels

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology

EIA Economic Impact Analysis

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

ft Feet

ft3 Cubic Feet

FTE Full-Time Equivalents

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model version 3

HI Hazard Index
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 8 of 162--

HON Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

HQ Hazard Quotient

hr Hour

HVLC High Volume Low Concentration

ICR Information Collection Request

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

ISIS Industrial Sectors Integrated Solution Model

km Kilometer

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

lb Pounds

LVHC Low Volume High Concentration

m

3 Cubic Meters

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes

included in a source category

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone

mg Milligrams

MIR Maximum Individual Risk

MRL Minimal Risk Level

NAC/AEGL National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure

Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and 

Health

NRC National Research Council

NSPS New Source Performance Standard

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

of 1995

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards

ODTP Oven-Dried Tons of Pulp

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent 

and bio-accumulative in the environment 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 9 of 162--

ppm Parts Per Million

ppmw Parts Per Million by Weight

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL Reference Exposure Level

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RfC Reference Concentration

RfD Reference Dose

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review

SAB Science Advisory Board

SBA Small Business Administration

SCC Source Classification Code

Sec Second

SISNOSE Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of 

Small Entities

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index

TPY Tons Per Year

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System

TRIM.FaTE Fate, Transport and Environmental Exposure 

module of EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UF Uncertainty Factor

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

URE Unit Risk Estimate

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WWW Worldwide Web

μg Micrograms

Organization of this Document.

The information in this preamble is organized as 

follows:

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. Does this action apply to me?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 10 of 162--

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the 

EPA?

II. Background

A. What is this source category and how did the MACT 

standard regulate its HAP emissions?

B. What data collection activities were conducted to 

support this action?

III. Analyses Performed

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions 

for this proposal?

C. How did we perform the technology review?

D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessments?

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety?

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 

technology review?

D. What other actions are we proposing?

E. Compliance Dates

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

B. What are the air quality impacts?

C. What are the cost impacts?

D. What are the economic impacts?

E. What are the benefits?

VI. Request for Comments

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 11 of 162--

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or 

Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage 

regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of 

the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) 

calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. “Major 

sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 

10 tpy or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable (after considering 

cost, energy requirements and nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT 

standards.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 12 of 162--

Maximum achievable control technology standards must 

require the maximum degree of emissions reduction through 

the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or 

techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that:

(A) reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of materials or other 

modifications; (B) enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat pollutants when 

released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work practice 

or operational standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (E) are a 

combination of the above (CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E)).

The MACT standards may take the form of design, equipment, 

work practice or operational standards where the EPA first 

determines either that: (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted 

through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutants, or that any requirement for, or use 

of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with law; or 

(B) the application of measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations (CAA sections 

112(h)(1)-(2)).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 13 of 162--

The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed 

for MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) 

and may not be based on cost considerations. For new 

sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT floors for existing 

sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing 

MACT standards, we must also consider control options that 

are more stringent than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor based on the 

consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements.

The EPA is then required to review these technologybased standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking 

into account developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 

years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 14 of 162--

review, the EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate 

the prior MACT determination and, in particular, is not 

obligated to recalculate the MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 

F.3d 1077, 1084 (D. C. Cir., 2008).

The second stage in standard-setting focuses on 

reducing any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, first, that the 

EPA prepare a Report to Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks posed (or 

potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the 

MACT standards, the public health significance of those 

risks, and the EPA’s recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and 

submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in 

response to the report, thereby triggering the EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and 

address residual risk.

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, 

for source categories subject to certain MACT standards, 

whether those emissions standards provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health. If the MACT standards 

apply to a source category emitting a HAP that is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 15 of 162--

“classified as a known, probable, or possible human 

carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in 

the category or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards 

for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 

(CAA section 112(f)(2)(A)). This requirement is procedural.

It mandates that the EPA establish CAA section 112(f) 

residual risk standards if certain risk thresholds are not 

satisfied but does not determine the level of those 

standards. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The second 

sentence of CAA section 112(f)(2) sets out the substantive 

requirements for residual risk standards: protection of 

public health with an ample margin of safety based on the 

EPA’s interpretation of this standard in effect at the time 

of the CAA amendments. Id. This refers to the Benzene 

NESHAP, described in the next paragraph. The EPA may adopt 

residual risk standards equal to existing MACT standards 

(or to standards adopted after the technology review 

required by CAA section 112(d)(6)) if the EPA determines 

that the existing standards are sufficiently protective, 

even if (for example) excess cancer risks to a most exposed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 16 of 162--

individual are not reduced to less than 1 in 1 million. Id.

at 1083, (“If EPA determines that the existing technologybased standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then 

the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the 

residual risk rulemaking”). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 

further authorizes the EPA to adopt more stringent 

standards, if necessary “to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect.”1

As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) expressly 

preserves our use of the two-step process for developing 

standards to address any residual risk and our 

interpretation of “ample margin of safety” developed in the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 

Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 

Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).

The first step in this process is the determination of 

acceptable risk. The second step provides for an ample 

 

1 “Adverse environmental effect” is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably 

anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities over broad areas.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 17 of 162--

margin of safety to protect public health, which is the 

level at which the standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is required to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect).

The terms “individual most exposed,” “acceptable 

level,” and “ample margin of safety” are not specifically 

defined in the CAA. However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) 

preserves the EPA’s interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA concluded that the 

EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) is a 

reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (D. C. 

Cir. 2008), which says “[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the 

Federal Register.” See also, A Legislative History of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate 

debate on Conference Report). We also notified Congress in 

the Residual Risk Report to Congress that we intended to 

use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 

112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 18 of 162--

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall 

objective:

* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin 

of safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from hazardous air 

pollutants by: (1) protecting the greatest number of 

persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) 

limiting to no higher than approximately 1 in 10 

thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million] the estimated risk 

that a person living near a facility would have if he 

or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The agency also stated that, “The EPA also considers 

incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer 

or other serious health effects as a result of exposure to 

a pollutant) to be an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence measures the extent of 

health risks to the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other 

serious health effects in the exposed population.” The 

agency went on to conclude that “estimated incidence would 

be weighed along with other health risk information in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 19 of 162--

judging acceptability.” As explained more fully in our 

Residual Risk Report to Congress, the EPA does not define 

“rigid line[s] of acceptability,” but rather considers 

broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other 

health measures and factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11).

The determination of what represents an “acceptable” risk 

is based on a judgment of “what risks are acceptable in the 

world in which we live” (Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

p. 178, quoting the D.C. Circuit’s en banc Vinyl Chloride

decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is 

not risk-free.

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that “EPA will 

generally presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than approximately 1 in 10 

thousand, that risk level is considered acceptable.” 54 FR 

38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as being “the estimated risk that a person living near 

a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentrations for 70 years.” Id. We explained 

that this measure of risk “is an estimate of the upper

bound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as 

continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.” Id.

We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 20 of 162--

“does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a 

conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is 

unlikely to be exceeded.” Id.

Understanding that there are both benefits and 

limitations to using maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining acceptability, we 

acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that “consideration 

of maximum individual risk...must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.” Id.

Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100 in 1 

million (1 in 10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging 

the acceptability of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line for making that 

determination. Id. Further, in the Benzene NESHAP, we noted 

that, “Particular attention will also be accorded to the 

weight of evidence presented in the risk assessment of 

potential carcinogenicity or other health effects of a 

pollutant. While the same numerical risk may be estimated 

for an exposure to a pollutant judged to be a known human 

carcinogen, and to a pollutant considered a possible human 

carcinogen based on limited animal test data, the same 

weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. In considering 

the potential public health effects of the two pollutants, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 21 of 162--

the Agency’s judgment on acceptability, including the MIR, 

will be influenced by the greater weight of evidence for 

the known human carcinogen.” Id. at 38046.

The agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 

the following: “In establishing a presumption for MIR 

[maximum individual cancer risk], rather than a rigid line 

for acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and factors. These include 

the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health 

effects within the exposed population, the numbers of 

persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk range 

and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km 

exposure radius around facilities, the science policy 

assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with 

the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for 

human health effects, other quantified or unquantified 

health effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, 

and co-emission of pollutants.” Id.

In some cases, these health measures and factors taken 

together may provide a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed population than that 

provided by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone.

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “[e]ven though the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 22 of 162--

risks judged “acceptable” by the EPA in the first step of 

the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step 

of the inquiry, determining an “ample margin of safety,” 

again includes consideration of all of the health factors, 

and whether to reduce the risks even further.” Beyond that 

information, additional factors relating to the appropriate 

level of control will also be considered, including costs 

and economic impacts of controls, technological 

feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish 

the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health as required by section 

112.”

In NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

the Court of Appeals held that section 112(f)(2) 

“incorporates EPA’s ‘interpretation’ of the Clean Air Act 

from the Benzene Standard, and the text of this provision 

draws no distinction between carcinogens and noncarcinogens.” Additionally, the Court held there is nothing 

on the face of the statute that limits the agency’s section 

112(f) assessment of risk to carcinogens. Id. at 1081–82. 

In the NRDC case, the petitioners argued, among other 

things, that section 112(f)(2)(B) applied only to non-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 23 of 162--

carcinogens. The D.C. Circuit rejected this position, 

holding that the text of that provision “draws no 

distinction between carcinogens and non-carcinogens,” id., 

and that Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene standard 

applies equally to carcinogens and non-carcinogens.

In the ample margin of safety decision process, the 

agency again considers all of the health risks and other 

health information considered in the first step. Beyond 

that information, additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other 

relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the 

agency will establish the standard at a level that provides 

an ample margin of safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 38046.

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated industrial source category that is the 

subject of this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding the entities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. This standard, and any changes considered 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 24 of 162--

in this rulemaking, would be directly applicable to 

affected sources. Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities are not affected by this proposed 

action. As defined in the Source Category Listing Report 

published by the EPA in 1992, the Pulp and Paper Production 

source category includes any facility engaged in the 

production of pulp and/or paper. This category includes, 

but is not limited to, integrated mills (where pulp and 

paper or paperboard are manufactured on-site), nonintegrated mills (where either pulp or paper/paperboard are 

manufactured on-site, but not both), and secondary fiber 

mills (where waste paper is used as the primary raw 

material). Examples of pulping methods include kraft, soda, 

sulfite, semi-chemical and mechanical.

TABLE 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected 

By This Proposed Action

Source category NESHAP

NAICS 

code1

MACT code2

Pulp and Paper Pulp and Paper 322 1626-1

1 North American Industry Classification System

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 25 of 162--

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on 

the WWW through the EPA’s TNN. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control.

Additional information is available on the RTR web 

page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes source category descriptions and 

detailed emissions estimates and other data that were used 

as inputs to the risk assessments.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the 

EPA?

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing 

CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email.

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM 

that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the 

disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 26 of 162--

CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does 

not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 

CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2007-0544.

II. Background

A. What is this source category and how did the MACT 

standard regulate its HAP emissions?

The Pulp and Paper production source category includes 

any facility engaged in the production of pulp and/or 

paper. This category includes, but is not limited to, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 27 of 162--

integrated mills (where pulp and paper or paperboard are 

manufactured on-site), non-integrated mills (where 

paper/paperboard or pulp are manufactured, but not both), 

and secondary fiber mills (where waste paper is used as the 

primary raw material). The Pulp and Paper production

process includes operations such as pulping, bleaching, 

chemical recovery and papermaking. Different pulping 

processes are used, including chemical processes (kraft, 

soda, sulfite and semi-chemical) and mechanical, secondary 

fiber or non-wood processes.

The NESHAP from the Pulp and Paper Industry (or MACT 

rule) was promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504) and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. As promulgated in 

1998, the subpart S MACT standard applies to major sources 

of HAP emissions from the pulp production areas (e.g., 

pulping system vents, pulping process condensates) at 

chemical, mechanical, secondary fiber and non-wood pulp 

mills; bleaching operations; and papermaking systems. A 

separate NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM) applicable to 

chemical recovery processes at kraft, soda, sulfite and 

stand-alone semi-chemical pulp mills was promulgated on 

January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3180). However, only subpart S is 

undergoing the RTR that is the subject of this proposal.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 28 of 162--

This is the first in a series of rules being developed 

for the Pulp and Paper industrial sector. This proposal 

includes both a risk assessment and a technology review of 

the emission sources in subpart S, as well as a risk 

assessment of the whole facility. The whole facility risk 

assessment includes emissions the other sources in the Pulp 

and Paper industrial sector: boilers covered under subpart 

DDDDD, chemical recovery systems covered under subpart MM, 

various sources covered under the NSPS for kraft pulp mills 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart BB), and other applicable MACT 

emission sources. In the future, we will also conduct an 

RTR for the subpart MM category, as well as a review of the 

kraft pulp mills NSPS, subpart BB. When we conduct the RTR 

for the subpart MM rule, subpart S emission sources will be 

included in the facilitywide risk assessment.

According to results of the EPA’s 2011 Pulp and Paper 

ICR, there are a total of 171 major sources in the United 

States including:

 111 major sources that carry out chemical wood 

pulping (kraft, sulfite, soda or semi-chemical);

 33 major sources that carry out mechanical, 

groundwood, secondary fiber and non-wood pulping

(without chemical wood pulping);

 94 major sources that perform bleaching; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 29 of 162--

 156 major sources that manufacture paper or 

paperboard products.

Facilities in the category perform at least one of 

several pulp and papermaking operations (e.g., chemical 

pulping, bleaching and papermaking; pulping and unbleached 

papermaking; etc.).

Subpart S includes numerical emission limits for 

pulping system vents, pulping process condensates and 

bleaching system vents. The control systems used by most 

mills to meet the subpart S emission limits are as follows:

• Pulping system vents — thermal oxidizers, power 

boilers, lime kilns and recovery furnaces.

• Pulping process condensates — steam strippers, 

biological treatment and recycling to pulping 

equipment that is controlled by the pulping vent 

standards.

• Bleaching system vents – caustic scrubbers (for 

chlorinated HAPs, other than chloroform) and process 

modifications to eliminate the use of chlorine and 

hypochlorite.

Facilities that only purchase pre-consumer paper or 

paperboard stock products and convert them into other 

products (i.e., converting operations) are not part of the 

subpart S source category and are not affected by today’s 

action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 30 of 162--

B. What data collection activities were conducted to 

support this action?

In February 2011, the EPA issued an ICR, pursuant to 

CAA section 114, to United States pulp and paper 

manufacturers to gather information needed to conduct the 

regulatory reviews required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) 

and (f)(2). The ICR was divided into three parts, with each 

part due on a different date. Part I requested available 

information regarding subpart S process equipment, control 

devices, pulp and paper production, bleaching and other 

aspects of facility operations, to support the subpart S 

technology review and a later review of the kraft pulp 

mills NSPS under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB. Part II 

requested updated inventory data for all pulp and paper 

emission sources, to support the residual risk assessment

for the Pulp and Paper Sector (including subparts S and MM) 

and to both supplement and update the NEI for the source 

category. Part III requested available information on 

subpart MM chemical recovery combustion equipment, control 

devices, etc., to support a later subpart MM technology 

review (which will include a source category and a 

facilitywide risk assessment) and a subpart BB NSPS review.

Responses to all three parts of the ICR have been received 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 31 of 162--

and data from the first two parts of the ICR have been 

compiled. The response rate for the subpart S ICR was 100 

percent.2

III. Analyses Performed

In this section, we describe the analyses performed to 

support the proposed decisions for the RTR for this source 

category.

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

The EPA conducted risk assessments that provided 

estimates of (1) the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from 

the 171 pulp and paper mills in the source category, (2) 

the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks within the 

exposed populations, (3) the total cancer incidence, (4) 

estimates of the maximum TOSHI for chronic exposures to HAP 

with the potential to cause chronic noncancer health 

effects, (5) worst-case screening estimates of HQ for acute 

exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 

health effects and (6) an evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects. The risk assessments 

consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed below.3 The 

 

2 Part II of the ICR will be available for download on the RTR web page 

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html

3 The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which 

provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp and Paper Source Category.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 32 of 162--

methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven 

primary steps below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009 and described 

in their peer review report issued in 2010; they are also 

consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 

report.

1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual 

Emissions and Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we used 

data from Part II of the Pulp and Paper ICR as the basis 

for the risk assessment. Part II of the ICR, which 

concluded in June 2011, targeted facilities that are major 

sources of HAP emissions and involved an update of prepopulated NEI data spreadsheets (or creation of new NEI 

datasets). The NEI is a database that contains information 

about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their 

precursors and HAP. The NEI database includes estimates of 

actual annual air pollutant emissions from point and volume 

sources; emission release characteristic data such as 

emission release height, temperature, diameter, velocity 

and flow rate; and location latitude/longitude coordinates.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 33 of 162--

The actual annual emissions data in the NEI database 

were based on data from actual emissions tests and 

estimates of actual emissions (based on emission factors) 

provided by subpart S sources surveyed in Part II of the 

ICR. We received a comprehensive set of emissions test data 

and emissions estimates that enabled us to conduct risk 

modeling of detectable HAP emissions for all major source 

facilities in the Pulp and Paper category.

Two substantial QA efforts were conducted on the Part 

II data in order to create the modeling files needed for 

the residual risk assessment, which included: (1) QA of the 

updated inventory spreadsheets submitted by each mill prior 

to import into the compiled database; and (2) QA and 

standardization of the compiled database.

We reviewed the NEI datasets to ensure that the major 

pulp and paper processes and pollutants were included and 

properly identified, to ensure that emissions from the 

various processes were allocated to the correct source 

category (e.g., MACT code 1626-1), and to identify 

emissions and other data anomalies that could affect risk 

estimates. We also standardized the various codes (e.g., 

SCCs, pollutant codes), eliminated duplicate records and 

checked geographic coordinates. We reviewed emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 34 of 162--

release parameters for data gaps and errors, assigned the 

proper default parameters where necessary, segregated the 

emission points into logical emission process groups and 

ensured that fugitive release dimensions were specified or 

given default values where necessary. We made changes based 

on available information, including updated information 

voluntarily submitted by pulp and paper mills.4

We assigned emissions process groups to distinguish 

between processes with related SCCs. For mills with VOC

emissions data but no HAP emissions data, we developed HAPto-VOC ratios to estimate HAP emissions, using HAP and VOC 

emission factors provided by NCASI.

5 However, as noted 

above, most emissions factors were based on actual tests or 

actual tests conducted at similar sources (see NCASI 

Technical Bulletin No. 973).6 Additionally, the largest HAP 

emission compound in the category, methanol, at 

approximately 86 percent of the HAP in the category, is 

required to be quantified in each compliance test 

referenced in the standard. Consequently, the greatest 

 

4 For more information, see the memorandum in the docket entitled, 

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk 

Modeling.

5 Ibid.

6 A. Someshwar, NCASI. Compilation of ‘Air Toxic’ and Total Hydrocarbon

Emissions Data for Pulp and Paper Mill Sources – A Second Update. 

Technical Bulletin No. 973. February 2010.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 35 of 162--

proportion of HAP emissions at each facility are based on 

emission factors derived from actual source specific tests.

For purposes of risk modeling, we reviewed emissions 

data for chromium, mercury, POM and glycol ether in order 

to properly speciate emissions. Chromium emissions were 

speciated as hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and 

trivalent chromium (chromium III).7 Mercury emissions were 

speciated as particulate divalent mercury, gaseous divalent 

mercury and elemental gaseous mercury.8 Total POM emissions 

were speciated differently for each emission unit type 

(e.g., gas- or oil-fired paper machine dryers) based on the 

most common POM compounds emitted from that unit (e.g., 

phenanthrene, fluorene, pyrene, fluoranthene and/or 2-

methylnaphthalene). We speciated all total glycol ether 

records as 1,2-dimethoxyethane, since this pollutant 

represents 99 percent of all emissions reported under the 

glycol ether compounds category from pulp and paper

emission sources.9 Acrolein emissions were removed from the 

 

7 For more information, see the memorandum in the docket entitled, 

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk 

Modeling.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 36 of 162--

subpart S modeling file due to uncertainty in the emissions 

estimates.10

In addition, we reviewed facilitywide data included in 

the NEI dataset from the EPA’s TRI to ensure that 

combustion-related dioxin/furan emissions were apportioned 

to the proper MACT code (0107 or 1626-2). As expected, 

there were no dioxin/furan emissions data for subpart S 

sources (MACT code 1626-1).11

The Part II NEI emissions dataset for the Pulp and 

Paper (subpart S) source category shows 45,000 tpy of total 

HAP emissions from the 171 mills in the dataset. Methanol, 

acetaldehyde, cresol/cresylic acid (mixed isomers), phenol, 

chloroform, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, biphenyl, 

hexachloroethane, xylenes, propionaldehyde and 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene account for the majority of the HAP 

emissions reported for pulp and paper production

(approximately 43,900 tpy, or 97 percent). The remaining 3 

percent of the HAP, reported in lesser quantities, include 

acetophenone, benzene, cumene, carbon disulfide, chlorine, 

methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride 

(dichloromethane), naphthalene, styrene, 

 

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 37 of 162--

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), toluene, 

trichloroethylene and 56 others. Methanol, which accounts 

for about 86 percent of the total HAP mass emissions, is 

the HAP emitted by the largest number of facilities, with

methanol reported for 166 out of 171 mills in the dataset 

(or 97 percent). Emissions of the following PB-HAP were 

identified in the emissions inventory for the Pulp and 

Paper (subpart S) source category: cadmium compounds, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds and POM. As a standard 

practice in conducting risk assessments for source 

categories, EPA conducts a two-step process: (1) are PBHAPs being emitted; and (2) are they being released above 

screening thresholds. If these releases are significantly 

above the screening thresholds and EPA has detailed 

information on the releases and the site, a complete 

multipathway analysis of the site will be conducted to 

estimate pathway risks for the source category. Further 

information about the analysis performed for this category

follows in section III.B.4 of this preamble.

2. Establishing the Relationship between Actual Emissions 

and MACT-Allowable Emissions Levels

The available emissions data in the Part II NEI

emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 38 of 162--

actually emitted during the 2009 time period covered under 

the survey. These “actual” emissions levels are often lower 

than the emissions levels that a facility might be allowed 

to emit and still comply with the MACT standards. The 

emissions levels allowed to be emitted by the MACT 

standards are referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions 

levels. These represent the highest emissions levels that 

could be emitted by the facility without violating the MACT 

standards.

We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final HON residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is 

inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum 

level at which sources could emit while still complying

with the MACT standards. However, we also explained that it 

is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data 

are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 

accordance with the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 

14, 1989). It is reasonable to consider actual emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 39 of 162--

because sources typically seek to perform better than 

required by emissions standards to provide an operational 

cushion to accommodate the variability in manufacturing 

processes and control device performance. Facilities’ 

actual emissions may also be significantly lower than MACTallowable emissions for other reasons such as state 

requirements, better performance of control devices than 

required by the MACT standards or reduced production.

As described earlier in this section, actual emissions 

were based on the Part II NEI emissions dataset. To 

estimate emissions at the MACT-allowable level, we 

developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions for 

each source type for the facilities in the source category. 

This ratio is based on the level of control required by the 

subpart S MACT standards compared to the level of reported 

actual emissions and available information from the Part I

survey on the level of control achieved by the emissions 

controls in use. For example, if survey data indicated that 

an emission point type was being controlled by 92 percent,

while the MACT standard required only 87 percent control, 

we would estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from that 

emission point type could be as much as 1.6 times higher 

(13 percent allowable emissions compared with 8 percent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 40 of 162--

actually emitted), and the ratio of MACT-allowable to 

actual would be 1.6:1 for this emission point type.12

After developing these ratios for each emission point 

type in this source category, we next applied these ratios 

on an emission process unit basis to the Part II actual 

emissions data to obtain risk estimates based on MACTallowable emissions.

13

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation 

Exposures and Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks

Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure 

concentrations and health risks from the source category

addressed in this proposal were estimated using the HEM-3 

human exposure model. The HEM–3 performs three of the 

primary risk assessment activities listed above: (1) 

conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating longterm and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) 

estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks 

 

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 41 of 162--

using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 

information.

The dispersion model used by HEM–3 is AERMOD, which is 

one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial facilities.14 To perform the 

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, which is used for 

dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year of 

hourly surface and upper air observations for 130 

meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of 

United States Census Bureau census block15 internal point 

locations and populations provides the basis of human 

exposure calculations based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. 

In addition, for each census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling hill height which 

are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks 

 

14 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 

Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex 

Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005).

15 A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for 

which census statistics are tabulated.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 42 of 162--

is used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values recommended by the 

EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this section.

In developing the risk assessment for chronic 

exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each of the HAP emitted by each source for 

which we have emissions data in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid 

were primarily used as a surrogate for the chronic 

inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who 

reside in that census block. There were two exceptions to 

this. In those cases where we identified census block 

centroids which were located on-site, these centroids were 

re-assigned to a nearby residential location. In those 

cases where nearby census blocks were abnormally large, 

additional residential receptors were placed within those 

census blocks at observable residences to ensure an 

adequate representation of chronic risks to the nearby 

residences. We calculated the MIR for each facility as the 

cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 43 of 162--

per day, 7 days per week and 52 weeks per year for a 70-

year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the 

centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer 

risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration of each of the HAP 

(in micrograms per cubic meter) by its URE, which is an 

upper bound estimate of an individual’s probability of 

contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a 

concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. In general, for residual risk assessments, we 

use URE values from the EPA’s IRIS.

16 For carcinogenic 

pollutants without the EPA IRIS values, we look to other 

reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often 

using CalEPA URE values, where available. In cases where 

new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 

developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process similar to that used

by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place 

of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.

In 2004, the EPA determined that the CIIT cancer doseresponse value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9 per μg/m3) was 

based on better science than the IRIS dose-response value 

 

16 The IRIS information is available at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 44 of 162--

(1.3 x 10-5 per μg/m3), and we switched from using the IRIS 

value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting 

regulatory actions. Based on subsequent published research, 

however, the EPA changed its determination regarding the 

CIIT model, and in 2010, the EPA returned to using the 1991 

IRIS value. The NAS completed its review of the EPA’s draft 

assessment in April of 2011

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=13142), and the 

EPA has been working on revising the formaldehyde 

assessment. The EPA will follow the NAS Report 

recommendations and will present results obtained by 

implementing the biologically-based dose-response (BBDR)

model for formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these 

estimates with those currently presented in the External 

Review draft of the assessment and will discuss their 

strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS 

committee, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses 

will be an integral component of implementing the BBDR 

model. The draft IRIS assessment will be revised in 

response to the NAS peer review and public comments, and 

the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS database. 

In the interim, we will present findings using the 1991 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 45 of 162--

IRIS value as a primary estimate and may also consider 

other information as the science evolves. 

We note here that POM, a carcinogenic HAP with a 

mutagenic mode of action, is emitted by some of the 

facilities in this category.

17 For this compound,18 the ADAF

described in the EPA’s Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 

Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens19

were applied. This adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for this pollutant by a factor 

of 1.6. In addition, although only a small fraction of the 

total POM emissions were not reported as individual 

compounds, the EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for 

compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene 

equivalence, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM has

the same mutagenic mechanism of action as does 

benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, the EPA’s Science Policy 

Council20 recommends applying the Supplemental Guidance to 

 

17 U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments that include carcinogens 

described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic mode of 

action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines Implementation Work 

Group Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated June 14, 2006.

18 See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document available in 

the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of action.

19 U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-Life 

Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.

20 U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 

Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 

dated June 14, 2006.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 46 of 162--

all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for which 

risk estimates are based on relative potency. Accordingly, 

we have applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent 

portion of all POM mixtures.

Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks 

associated with emissions from the source category were 

estimated as the sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those classified as 

carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential21) emitted 

by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks for the population 

within 50 km of the source were also estimated for the 

source category as part of these assessments by summing 

individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with 

both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 

38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models,

including AERMOD. 

 

21 These classifications also coincide with the terms "known carcinogen, 

probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen," respectively, which are 

the terms advocated in the EPA's previous Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). 

Summing the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the 

EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA -

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data -- an SAB 

Advisory, available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A

682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 47 of 162--

To assess risk of noncancer health effects from 

chronic exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ system to obtain the HI 

for that target organ system (or TOSHI). The HQ is the 

estimated exposure divided by the chronic reference value, 

which is either the EPA RfC, defined as “an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a 

lifetime,” or, in cases where a RfC is not available, the 

ATSDR chronic MRL or the CalEPA Chronic REL. The REL is 

defined as “the concentration level at or below which no 

adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.” As noted above, in cases where new, 

scientifically credible dose-response values have been 

developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process similar to that used 

by the EPA, we may use those dose-response values in place 

of, or in addition to other values.

Worst-case screening estimates of acute exposures and 

risks were also evaluated for each of the HAP at the point 

of highest offsite exposure for each facility (i.e., not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 48 of 162--

just the census block centroids) assuming that a person was

located at this spot at a time when both the peak (hourly) 

emission rate and hourly dispersion conditions occurred. In 

general, acute HQ values were calculated using best 

available, short-term dose-response value. These acute 

dose-response values include REL, AEGL and ERPG for 1-hour 

exposure durations. As discussed below, we used 

conservative assumptions for emission rates, meteorology 

and exposure location for our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots 

Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for 

Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value

(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined 

as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse 

health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure 

duration.” Reference exposure level values are based on the 

most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in 

the medical and toxicological literature. Reference 

exposure level values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 49 of 162--

to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL

does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels were derived in 

response to recommendations from the NRC. As described in 

Standing Operating Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Hazardous Substances

(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),

22 “the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure levels—CEEL—was 

replaced by the term AEGL to reflect the broad application 

of these values to planning, response, and prevention in 

the community, the workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund sites.” This document also 

states that AEGL values “represent threshold exposure 

limits for the general public and are applicable to 

emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.”

The document lays out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating (page 21) that “the primary purpose of the AEGL 

program and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 

airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority 

 

22 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute 

Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 50 of 162--

chemicals.” In detailing the intended application of AEGL 

values, the document states (page 31) that ”[i]t is 

anticipated that the AEGL values will be used for 

regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by United States 

federal and state agencies, and possibly the international 

community in conjunction with chemical emergency response, 

planning and prevention programs. More specifically, the 

AEGL values will be used for conducting various risk 

assessments to aid in the development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as well as real-time 

emergency response actions, for accidental chemical 

releases at fixed facilities and from transport carriers.”

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically defined as “the 

airborne concentration of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could experience notable 

discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 

effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are 

transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.” The 

document also notes (page 3) that, “Airborne concentrations 

below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce 

mild and progressively increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 51 of 162--

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.” Similarly, the document 

defines AEGL–2 values as “the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or 

other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an 

impaired ability to escape.”

Emergency Response Planning Guidelines values are 

derived for use in emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene Association’s document 

entitled, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) 

Procedures and Responsibilities

(http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf)

, which states that, “Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are 

intended as health-based guideline concentrations for 

single exposures to chemicals.”23 The ERPG–1 value is 

defined as “the maximum airborne concentration below which 

it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed 

for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 

transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a 

 

23 ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 52 of 162--

clearly defined, objectionable odor.” Similarly, the ERPG–2 

value is defined as “the maximum airborne concentration 

below which it is believed that nearly all individuals 

could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious health effects or

symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.”

As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL 

and ERPG values include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a severity level 1 

value AEGL or ERPG has not been developed; in these 

instances, higher severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values 

are compared to our modeled exposure levels to screen for 

potential acute concerns.

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are 

typically lower than their corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are slightly 

different, AEGL–1 values are often the same as the 

corresponding ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are often 

equal to ERPG–2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically result when basing 

them on the acute REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ value exceeds 1, we also 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 53 of 162--

report the HQ value based on the next highest acute 

threshold (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1 value).

To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we 

first developed estimates of maximum hourly emission rates 

by multiplying the average actual annual hourly emission 

rates by a factor to cover routinely variable emissions. An 

acute multiplication factor of 1.6 was used for papermaking 

equipment (e.g., paper machines, stock preparation, 

repulping, etc.) based on a paper machine peak-to-mean 

analysis. Similarly, a peak-to-mean multiplier of 2 was 

used for pulp and paper wastewater treatment units based on 

analysis of data from pulp and paper primary clarifiers and 

aerated stabilization basins. Peak-to-mean multipliers 

ranging from 1 to 3.1 were developed for other types of 

pulp and paper equipment based on the routine annual 

emissions data and peak hourly emissions data obtained from 

Part II survey data.24

In cases where all acute HQ values from the screening 

step were less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further analysis was performed. In 

 

24 More information supporting the use of these factors for Pulp and 

Paper production is presented in the memorandum, Inputs to the Pulp and 

Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling, which is available 

in the docket for this action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 54 of 162--

the cases where an acute HQ from the screening step was 

greater than 1, additional site-specific data were 

considered to develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. The data 

refinements included using site-specific facility layouts, 

as available, to distinguish facility property from an area 

where the public could access and be exposed. These 

refinements are discussed in the draft risk assessment 

documents, which are available in the docket for this

source category. Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to see how the emissions 

vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency 

distribution of hourly emission rates over a year would 

allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate 

potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more 

complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we 

recognize that having this level of data is rare, hence our 

use of the multiplier approach.

4. Multipathway Exposure and Risk Screening

The potential for significant human health risks due 

to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 55 of 162--

multipathway exposures) and the potential for adverse 

environmental impacts were evaluated in a three-step 

process. In the first step, we determined whether any 

facilities emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP). There are 14 PBHAP compounds or compound classes identified for this 

screening in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library

(available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are 

cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated dibenzodioxins 

and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, heptachlor, 

hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, 

mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated biphenyls, 

POM, toxaphene and trifluralin. Emissions of four different 

PB-HAP were identified in the Part II NEI emissions dataset

for the Pulp and Paper (subpart S) source category: cadmium 

compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds and POM. These 

four compounds plus chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans

were identified in the NEI dataset for the entire mill,

which includes sources inside and outside the subpart S 

category (e.g., boilers, chemical recovery combustion 

sources). In the second step of the screening process, we 

determined whether the facility-specific emission rates of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 56 of 162--

each of the emitted PB–HAP were large enough to create the 

potential for significant non-inhalation human health or 

environmental risks. To facilitate this step, we have 

developed emission rate thresholds for each PB–HAP using a 

hypothetical screening exposure scenario developed for use 

in conjunction with the TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical 

screening scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis 

to ensure that its key design parameters were established 

such that environmental media concentrations were not 

underestimated (i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that risks might be 

acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high), and to 

also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human 

health endpoints. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE 

model TRIM-Screen. The facility-specific emission rates of 

each of the PB–HAP in each source category were compared to 

the emission threshold values for each of the PB–HAP 

identified in the source category datasets. 

For all of the facilities in the source category

addressed in this proposal, all of the PB-HAP emission 

rates were less than the emission threshold values, except 

for one facility with POM emissions as benzo(a)pyrene that 

exceeded the screening emission rate by a factor of 2. For 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 57 of 162--

POM, exceeding the screening emission rate relates to a 

potential for creating a cancer risk in excess of 1 in a 

million. In performing the screening for potential 

multipathway exposures and risks of concern, we determined 

that emissions of POM were not significant enough to pose 

multipathway impacts of concern for human health or the 

environment. If the emission rates of the PB-HAP had been 

determined to be significant, the source category would 

have been further evaluated for potential non-inhalation 

risks and adverse environmental effects in a third step 

through site-specific refined assessments using the EPA’s 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

For further information on the multipathway analysis 

approach, see the residual risk documentation as referenced 

in section IV.A of this preamble.

5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options

This rulemaking does not require the installation of 

any new emission controls to reduce risk; therefore, no 

risk modeling was conducted to estimate risk reductions 

following installation of emission controls for this 

proposal.

6. Conducting Facilitywide Risk Assessments
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 58 of 162--

To put the source category risks in context, we also 

examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a 

contiguous area and under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source 

category of interest but also emissions of HAP from all 

other emissions sources at the facility. Nearly all 171

major sources in the subpart S category include boilers,

and 111 of the 171 major sources include chemical recovery 

combustion sources (e.g., recovery furnace, smelt 

dissolving tank, lime kiln). Pulp and paper mills also 

include paper coating, landfills, petroleum storage and 

transfer and other operations. Therefore, where data were 

available, we performed a facilitywide risk assessment for 

these major sources as part of today’s action.

We estimated the risks due to the inhalation of HAP 

that are emitted “facilitywide” for the populations 

residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category analysis described 

above. For these facilitywide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to the facilitywide 

risks to determine the portion of facilitywide risks that 

could be attributed to the source categories addressed in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 59 of 162--

this proposal. We specifically examined the facilities 

associated with the highest estimates of risk and 

determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the 

source category of interest. The risk documentation 

available through the docket for this action provides all 

the facilitywide risks and the percentage of source 

category contribution for all source categories assessed.

The methodology and the results of the facilitywide 

analyses for each source category are included in the 

residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A 

of this preamble, which is available in the docket for this 

action.

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in 

all risk assessments, including that performed for the 

source category addressed in this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe the approach that we took, 

which used conservative tools and assumptions to bridge 

data gaps, ensures that our decisions are healthprotective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 60 of 162--

emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure 

estimates and dose-response relationships follows below.25

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset

Although the development of the RTR dataset involved 

QA/QC processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on: (1) the source of the data, (2) the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, (3) the degree to 

which assumptions made to complete the datasets are 

accurate, (4) whether and to what extent errors were made 

in estimating emissions values, (5) whether the emissions 

were based on or extrapolated from stack tests or estimates 

of fugitive emissions, and (6) miscellaneous other factors.

The annual HAP emissions estimates used in the risk 

assessment are derived from data provided by mills in 

response to the Part II survey. Many of these emissions 

estimates are based on emission factors, developed from the 

most comprehensive dataset available for this industry, 

provided by NCASI. The uncertainties associated with 

emission factors include the uncertainties in the 

measurement of the data, limitations in the size and 

quality of the dataset, the presence of non-detects and 

 

25 A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the 

risk assessment documentation (Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Pulp and Paper Category) available in the docket for this action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 61 of 162--

outliers in the dataset, the emission factor calculations 

used, etc. As noted in section III.A.1 of this preamble, 

acrolein emissions were not modeled due to uncertainties in 

the emissions estimates.26

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling

Although the analysis employed the EPA’s recommended 

regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that 

there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including AERMOD. In 

circumstances where we had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, we selected model options (e.g.,

rural/urban, plume depletion, chemistry) that provided an 

overestimate of ambient concentrations of the HAP rather 

than an underestimate. However, because of practicality and 

data limitation reasons, some factors (e.g., building

downwash) have the potential in some situations to 

overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. Despite 

these uncertainties, we believe that at offsite locations 

and census block centroids, the approach considered in the 

dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.

 

26 For more information, see the memorandum in the docket entitled, 

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk 

Modeling.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 62 of 162--

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure

The effects of human mobility on exposures were not 

included in the assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility between census blocks in 

the modeling domain were not considered.27 The assumption of 

not considering short- or long-term population mobility 

does not bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does 

it affect the estimate of cancer incidence since the total 

population number remains the same. It does, however, 

affect the shape of the distribution of individual risks 

across the affected population, shifting it toward higher 

estimated individual risks at the upper end and reducing 

the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, 

thereby increasing the estimated number of people at 

specific risk levels.

In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic 

exposures at the centroid of each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all people 

living in that block. Using the census block centroid to 

predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures 

for people in the census block who live farther from the 

 

27 Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment to another 

over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement from 

one residence to another over the course of a lifetime.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 63 of 162--

facility and under-predict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the facility. Thus, using 

the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures may 

lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of the 

true maximum impact for any one individual but is an 

unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the projected cancer 

inhalation risks associated with pollutant exposures over a 

70-year period, which is the assumed lifetime of an 

individual. In reality, both the length of time that 

modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate 

(i.e., more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth 

or decline of the modeled industry (i.e., the increase or 

decrease in the number or size of United States 

facilities), will influence the future risks posed by a 

given source or source category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these factors will, in 

most cases, result in an overestimate both in individual 

risk levels and in the total estimated number of cancer 

cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility maintains 

or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the same location and the 

residents spend most of their days at that location, then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 64 of 162--

the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual 

cancer incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from 

these sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the 

length of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume 

chronic exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their time indoors, 

actual exposures may not be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For many of the 

HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger 

particles, these levels are typically lower. This factor 

has the potential to result in an overstatement of 25 to 30 

percent of exposures for some HAP.

28

In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, 

there are several factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. The accuracy of an 

acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may 

vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology 

and human activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

 

28 U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. EPA 453/R–

01–003; January 2001; page 85.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 65 of 162--

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum 

ambient concentration as determined by the co-occurrence of 

peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions.

These assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual 

exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be 

located at the point of maximum exposure during the time of 

worst-case impact.

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships

There are uncertainties inherent in the development of 

the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects 

from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties 

may be considered quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a preface to 

this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that 

is brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, 

that “the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an agency policy, risk 

assessment procedures, including default options that are 

used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, 

should be health protective” (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 

pages 1–7). This is the approach followed here as 

summarized in the next several paragraphs. A complete 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 66 of 162--

detailed discussion of uncertainties and variability in 

dose-response relationships is given in the residual risk 

documentation which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are 

those that have been developed to generally provide an 

upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a 

“plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” 

(although this is usually not a true statistical confidence 

limit).29 In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could 

be greater.30 When developing an upper bound estimate of 

risk and to provide risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default approaches are generally 

used. To err on the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the upper bound 

estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an approach that may 

have limitations for other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

 

29 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).

30 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a 

range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and 

which is based on maximum likelihood estimates.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 67 of 162--

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and RfD) values 

represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, these values 

provide an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure 

(RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human 

population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely 

to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. To derive values that are intended to be 

“without appreciable risk,” the methodology relies upon an 

UF approach (EPA 1993, 1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available data. The UF are 

applied to derive reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.

The UF are commonly default values,31 e.g., factors of 10 or 

 

31 According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment

(NRC, 1994) “[Default] options are generic approaches, based on general 

scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are applied to various 

elements of the risk assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.” The 1983 NRC report, Risk Assessment in 

the Federal Government: Managing the Process, defined default option as 

“the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that appears 

to be the best choice in the absence of data to the contrary” (NRC, 

1983a, p. 63). Therefore, default options are not rules that bind the 

agency; rather, the agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks 

posed by a specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate.

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public health and the 

environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to 

chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended to 

overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA Risk 

Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 68 of 162--

3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; where 

data are available, UF may also be developed using 

compound-specific information. When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF are used. Thus, there 

may be a greater tendency to overestimate risk in the sense 

that further study might support development of reference 

values that are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. However, for some 

pollutants, it is possible that risks may be 

underestimated. While collectively termed “UF,” these 

factors account for a number of different quantitative 

considerations when using observed animal (usually rodent) 

or human toxicity data in the development of the RfC. The 

UF are intended to account for: (1) variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the human population 

(i.e., inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans 

(i.e., interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-thanlifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the 

observed data to obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and (5) uncertainty 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 69 of 162--

when the database is incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. Many of the UF used 

to account for variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values are quite similar to 

those developed for chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be less than 10.

Uncertainty factors are applied based on chemical-specific 

or health effect-specific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably between human 

individuals, hence a value of 3 is typically used), or 

based on the purpose for the reference value (see the 

following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference 

value derivation include: (1) heterogeneity among humans; 

(2) uncertainty in extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed adverse effect 

(exposure) level to no observed adverse effect (exposure) 

level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an 

incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern.

Additional adjustments are often applied to account for 

uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute 

reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 

hour). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 70 of 162--

Not all acute reference values are developed for the 

same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the 

results of an acute assessment of human health effects 

relative to the reference value or values being exceeded. 

Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of

short-term dose-response values at different levels of 

severity should be factored into the risk characterization 

as potential uncertainties.

Although every effort is made to identify peerreviewed reference values for cancer and noncancer effects 

for all pollutants emitted by the sources included in this 

assessment, some HAP continue to have no reference values 

for cancer or chronic noncancer or acute effects. Since 

exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a 

quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for 

these pollutants at environmental exposure levels is 

possible. For a group of compounds that are either 

unspeciated or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective reference value to 

estimate risk from individual compounds in the group of 

compounds.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 71 of 162--

Additionally, chronic reference values for several of 

the compounds included in this assessment are currently 

under the EPA IRIS review (e.g., formaldehyde), and revised 

assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or 

less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate 

residual risks for the final rulemaking if these reviews 

are completed prior to our taking final action for this 

source category and if a dose-response metric changes 

enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this 

notice may significantly understate human health risk.

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental 

Effects Screening

We generally assume that when exposure levels are not 

anticipated to adversely affect human health, they also are 

not anticipated to adversely affect the environment. For 

each source category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB-HAP emissions to determine whether a 

full assessment of the multipathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Our screening methods use worst-case 

scenarios to determine whether multipathway impacts might 

be important. The results of such a process are biased high 

for the purpose of screening out potential impacts. Thus, 

when individual pollutants or facilities screen out, we are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 72 of 162--

confident that the potential for multipathway impacts is 

negligible. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 

or facilities do not screen out, it does not mean that 

multipollutant impacts are significant, only that we cannot 

rule out that possibility. The site-specific PB-HAP 

emission levels were almost all far below levels which 

would trigger a refined assessment of multipathway impacts. 

The only PB-HAP to exceed the screening threshold was POM 

with emissions exceeding the screening threshold by a 

factor of 2. Thus, we are confident that these types of 

impacts are insignificant for the facilities in this source 

category.

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions 

for this proposal?

As discussed in the previous section of this preamble, 

we apply a two-step process for determining whether to 

develop standards to address residual risk. In the first 

step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This 

determination “considers all health information, including 

risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

level on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)32

 

32 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only to 

cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 73 of 162--

of approximately one in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 

million].” 54 FR 38045. In the second step of the process, 

the EPA determines what level of the standard is needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety “in consideration of all 

health information, including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately one in one million, as 

well as other relevant factors, including costs and 

economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular decision.” Id.

In past residual risk actions, the EPA presented and 

considered a number of human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under review, including: 

the MIR; the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; 

cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; and the maximum 

acute noncancer hazard. See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, 65072-74

(October 21, 2010) and 76 FR 22566, 22575 (April 21, 2011).

In estimating risks, the EPA considered sources under 

review that are located near each other and that affect the 

same population. The EPA developed risk estimates based on 

the actual emissions from the source category under review 

as well as based on the maximum emissions allowed pursuant 

 

estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level of a 

pollutant for a lifetime.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 74 of 162--

to the source category MACT standards. The EPA also 

discussed and considered risk estimation uncertainties. The 

EPA is providing this same type of information in support 

of this action.

The agency is considering all available health 

information to inform our determinations of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety under CAA section 

112(f). Specifically, as explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

“the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced 

to any single factor” and thus “[t]he Administrator 

believes that the acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of 

health risk measures and information” (54 FR 38046). 

Similarly, with regard to making the ample margin of safety 

determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP, “[in the 

ample margin decision, the agency again considers all of 

the health risk and other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors 

relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and economic impacts of 

controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any 

other relevant factors.” Id.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 75 of 162--

The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP 

provides flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making determinations and how they might be 

weighed for each source category. In responding to comment 

on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: “The policy chosen by the Administrator permits 

consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only 

can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties 

of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most 

exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact 

on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in 

each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by employing [her] 

expertise to assess available data. It also complies with 

the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not 

exclude the use of any particular measure of public health 

risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA 

section 112 regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of health risk which 

the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 76 of 162--

appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public 

health.’” (54 FR at 38057).

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be 

weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that “an MIR of approximately 1 in 10 

thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 

acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, 

and would be weighed with the other health risk measures 

and information in making an overall judgment on 

acceptability. Or, the agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the 

presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light 

of other health risk factors” (Id. at 38045). Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA

stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: “...EPA believes the 

relative weight of the many factors that can be considered 

in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 

determined for each specific source category. This occurs 

mainly because technological and economic factors (along 

with the health-related factors) vary from source category 

to source category” (Id. at 38061).

C. How did we perform the technology review?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 77 of 162--

Our technology review focused on the identification 

and evaluation of developments in practices, processes and 

control technologies that have occurred since the 1998 

NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the technology 

review identified such developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of applying these 

developments, along with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, etc.) of applying 

these developments. We then made decisions on whether it is 

necessary and appropriate to propose amendments to the 

regulation to require any of the identified developments.

Based on specific knowledge of the source category, we 

began by identifying known developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For the purpose of this 

exercise, we considered any of the following to be a 

“development”:

• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that 

was not identified and considered during development of the 

1998 NESHAP;

• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 

equipment (that were identified and considered during 

development of the 1998 NESHAP) that could result in 

significant additional emissions reductions;

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was 

not identified or considered during development of the 1998 

NESHAP; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 78 of 162--

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 

that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was 

not identified or considered during development of the 1998 

NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes or 

control technologies that were not considered at the time 

we developed the 1998 NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data 

sources in our evaluation of whether there were additional 

practices, processes or controls to consider for the pulp 

and paper industry. To aid in our evaluation of whether 

there were additional practices, processes or controls to 

consider, one of these sources of data was subsequent air 

toxics rules. Since the promulgation of the MACT standards 

for the source category addressed in this proposal, the EPA 

has developed air toxics regulations for a number of 

additional source categories. In these subsequent air toxic 

regulatory actions, we consistently evaluated any new 

practices, processes and control technologies. We reviewed 

the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these subsequent regulatory actions to 

identify any practices, processes and control technologies 

considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied 

to emission sources in the source category under this 

current RTR review.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 79 of 162--

We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC to identify potential 

technology advances.33 Control technologies, classified as 

RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to stationary sources depending 

on whether the sources are existing or new, and on the 

size, age and location of the facility. Best available 

control technology and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are 

determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by state or 

local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RBLC to 

provide a central database of air pollution technology 

information (including technologies required in sourcespecific permits) to promote the sharing of information 

among permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future 

possible control technology options that might apply 

broadly to numerous sources within a category or apply only 

on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains over 5,000 

air pollution control permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air 

pollutant emission streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether it contained any practices, processes or 

control technologies for the types of processes covered by 

the Pulp and Paper source category. We also further 

 

33 See the memorandum in the docket entitled, Summary of RBLC and Other 

Findings to Support Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulp and 

Paper NESHAP.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 80 of 162--

analyzed a number of BACT determinations listed in the RBLC 

to obtain further information.

Additionally, we conducted a general search of the 

Internet and other sources for information on control 

technologies applicable to pulp and paper production.

Finally, we conducted a search of the database containing 

the responses received from the Part I survey to obtain 

information on process and emission controls currently in 

use in pulp and paper production.

Each of the evaluations listed above considered and 

reviewed the technologies suitable to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements listed in §§63.440 through 

63.449 (subpart S).34

D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

In addition to the analyses described above, we also 

reviewed other aspects of the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. Based on this 

review, we have identified aspects of the MACT standards 

that we believe need revision. 

This includes proposing revisions to the SSM 

provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they 

 

34 See the memoranda entitled Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for 

Pulping and Papermaking Processes and Summary of Pulp Bleaching 

Technology Review, in the docket for this rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 81 of 162--

are consistent with the court decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In addition, we are 

proposing various changes based on our review of the rule 

for testing and monitoring sufficiency, including a 

requirement for 5-year repeat air emissions testing for 

selected equipment and additional test methods for 

measuring methanol. We are also proposing minor changes 

with regards to editorial errors. The analyses and proposed 

decisions for these actions are presented in section IV.E 

of this preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

This section of the preamble provides the results of 

our RTR for the Pulp and Paper source category and our 

proposed decisions concerning changes to the 1998 NESHAP.

A. What are the results of the risk assessments?

For the Pulp and Paper source category, we conducted 

an inhalation risk assessment based upon actual and 

allowable emissions for all HAP emitted, as well as a 

multipathway analysis. This assessment also included a 

whole-facility analysis to estimate inhalation risks from 

all source categories for the Pulp and Paper industry. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 82 of 162--

Table 3 provides an overall summary of the results of 

the inhalation risk assessment from the 171 modeled mills 

subject to this source category. We also conducted an 

assessment of facilitywide risk. Details of the risk 

assessments and analyses can be found in the residual risk 

documentation referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, 

which is available in the docket for this action.

Table 3. Pulp and Paper Production Inhalation Risk 

Assessment Results1

Maximum

Individual

Cancer Risk

(in 1 million)2

Estimated 

Population

at 

Increased 

Risk of 

Cancer ≥ 1

in 1 

Million

Estimated 

Annual

Cancer

Incidence 

(cases 

per year)

Maximum

Chronic Noncancer

TOSHI3

Worst-case 

Maximum 

Refined 

Screening 

Acute 

Noncancer HQ4

Based on 

Actual 

Emissions 

Level

Based on 

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level

Based on 

Actual 

Emissions 

Level

Based on 

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level

10 10 76,000 0.01 0.4 0.6

HQREL = 20

HQERPG-1 = 0.4

(acetaldehyde)

HQREL = 6

HQERPG-1 = 0.004

(chloroform)

HQREL = 5

HQAEGL-1 = 0.2

(formaldehyde)

HQREL = 2

HQERPG-1 = 0.2

(methanol)

1 As noted in section III.A.1 of this preamble, acrolein emissions were not modeled due to 

uncertainties in the emissions estimates.

2 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the 

source category.

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Pulp and Paper source 

category is the respiratory system. 

4 See section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.

As shown in Table 3, the results of the inhalation 

risk assessment performed using actual emissions data 

indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could 

be up to 10 in 1 million, primarily due to hexachloroethane
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 83 of 162--

emissions; the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could 

be up to 0.4, primarily due to acetaldehyde emissions; and 

the maximum offsite worst-case acute HQ value could be up 

to 20, based on the REL value for acetaldehyde. The HQ of 

20 represents an upper-bound risk estimate and is located 

in an uninhabited location with limited public access or an 

off-site area that is owned by the facility. An acute 

noncancer HQ of 3 reflects the risk where people are 

living, with access to a public road. This would then 

result in the next highest HQ of 6 for this source category 

based on the acute REL dose-response value for chloroform. 

One hundred sixty-two of the 171 facilities in this source 

category had an estimated worst-case HQ less than or equal 

to 1; the remaining 9 facilities had an estimated worstcase HQ less than or equal to 6.

35

To better characterize the potential health risks 

associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to 

HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s 

peer review of EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies36, we 

 

35 The acute refined HQ values for this source category can be found in 

Appendix 6, Table 1 of the Risk Assessment report. A summary of the 

refined acute 1-hour HQ values that were greater than 1 for this source 

category are as follows: 20,6,5,5,4,3,2,2,2,2,2.

36 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available 

at: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 84 of 162--

examine a wider range of available acute health metrics 

than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the acknowledgement that there are generally 

more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic reference values. By 

definition, the acute CalEPA REL represents a healthprotective level of exposure, with no risk anticipated 

below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, 

the health risk from higher-level exposures is unknown. 

Therefore, when a CalEPA REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or 

ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild 

effects are anticipated in the general public for a single 

exposure), we have used them as a second comparative 

measure. Historically, comparisons of the estimated maximum 

offsite 1-hour exposure levels have not been typically made 

to occupational levels for the purpose of characterizing 

public health risks in RTR assessments. This is because 

occupational ceiling values are not generally considered 

protective for the general public since they are designed 

to protect the worker population (presumed healthy adults) 

for short-duration (less than 15-minute) increases in 

 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006

68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 85 of 162--

exposure37. As a result, for most chemicals, the 15-minute 

occupational ceiling values are set at levels higher than a 

1-hour AEGL-1, making comparisons to them irrelevant unless 

the AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 levels are exceeded. Such is not the 

case when comparing the available acute inhalation health 

effect reference values for formaldehyde.

The worst-case maximum estimated 1-hour exposure to 

formaldehyde outside the facility fence line for the pulp 

and paper source category is 0.25 mg/m3. This estimated 

worst-case exposure exceeds the 1-hour REL by a factor of 5 

(HQREL=5) and is below the 1-hour AEGL-1 (HQAEGL-1=0.2). This

exposure estimate is below the AEGL-1, and exceeds the 

workplace ceiling level guideline for the formaldehyde 

value developed by NIOSH38 “for any 15 minute period in a 

work day” (NIOSH REL-ceiling value of 0.12 mg/m3; HQNIOSH=2).

The estimate is at the value developed by the ACGIH39 as 

 

37 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for 

Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect 

Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/061, and 

available on-line at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003

38 National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Formaldehyde; 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf

39 ACGIH (2001) Formaldehyde. In Documentation of the TLVs® and BEIs® 

with Other Worldwide Occupational Exposure Values. ACGIH, 1300 Kemper 

Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240 (ISBN: 978-1-882417-74-2) and 

available on-line at http://www.acgih.org.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 86 of 162--

“not to be exceeded at any time” (ACGIH TLV-ceiling value 

of 0.37 mg/m3; HQACGIH=1). Additionally, the estimated 

maximum acute exposure exceeds the Air Quality Guideline 

value that was developed by the World Health Organization

40

for 30-minute exposures (0.1 mg/m3; HQWHO=2.5).

All other HAP and facilities modeled had worst-case 

acute HQ values less than 1, indicating that they carry no 

potential to pose acute concerns. The maximum HQ based on 

an ERPG-1 dose-response value is 0.4 for acetaldehyde. In 

characterizing the potential for acute noncancer impacts of 

concern, it is important to remember the upward bias of 

these exposure estimates (e.g., worst-case meteorology 

coinciding with a person located at the point of maximum 

concentration during the hour) and to consider the results 

along with the uncertainties related to the emissions 

estimates and the screening methodology. However, it is 

acknowledged that the acute emission multipliers ranged 

from 1.4 to 3 and approached the annual hourly average 

emission rate for the facilities within the source 

category.

 

40 WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, in Air Quality Guidelines for 

Europe, second edition. World Health Organization Regional 

Publications, European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark. Available 

on-line at 

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 87 of 162--

The total estimated cancer incidence from these 

facilities based on actual emissions levels is 0.01 excess 

cancer cases per year, or 1 case in every 100 years. The 

cancer incidence is primarily driven by emissions of 

acetaldehyde and formaldehyde from papermaking and kraft 

wastewater operations.41

There are 68 facilities with maximum individual cancer 

risks of 1 in 1 million or greater and two facilities with 

maximum individual cancer risks of 10 in a million that 

represented the highest cancer risks for the source 

category. The MIR of 10 in a million for the source 

category was driven by emissions of hexachloroethane.

As explained above, our analysis of potential 

differences between actual emissions levels and emissions 

allowable under the Pulp and Paper MACT standards indicate 

that MACT-allowable emission levels are roughly equal to 

the actual emission levels.

42 The risk results from the 

inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime 

 

41 We note that the MIR for this source category would not change if the 

CIIT URE for formaldehyde had been used in the assessment; however, the 

total cancer incidence would decrease by about 36 percent. There is an 

ongoing IRIS reassessment for formaldehyde, and future RTR risk 

assessments will use the cancer potency for formaldehyde that results 

from that reassessment. As a result, the current results many not match 

those of future assessments.

42 For more information, see the memorandum in the docket entitled 

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk 

Modeling.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 88 of 162--

individual cancer risks are the same at 20 in a million, 

and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up 

to 0.6 at the MACT-allowable emissions level.

2. Multipathway Risk Screening Results

The results of a multipathway screening analysis 

showed that emissions of POM, cadmium and mercury were 

almost all below their respective screening emission rates, 

thereby indicating a negligible risk of adverse health 

effects associated with multipathway exposures. The only 

PB-HAP to exceed the screening threshold was POM, with 

emissions exceeding the screening threshold by a factor of 

2.

3. Facilitywide Risk Assessment Results

A facilitywide risk analysis was also conducted based 

on actual emissions levels. Table 4 displays the results of 

the facilitywide risk assessment.43

Table 4. Pulp and Paper Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results

Number of facilities analyzed 171

Cancer 

Risk

Estimated maximum facilitywide 

individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 30

Number of facilities with estimated 

facilitywide individual cancer risk of 

10 in 1 million or more

7

 

43 For detailed facility-specific results, see Appendix 6 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp and Paper in the docket for this 

rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 89 of 162--

Number of pulp and papermaking 

operations contributing 50 percent or 

more to facilitywide individual cancer 

risk of 10 in 1 million or more

2

Number of facilities with facilitywide 

individual cancer risk of 1 in 1 million 

or more

99

Number of pulp and papermaking 

operations contributing 50 percent or 

more to facilitywide individual cancer 

risk of 1 in 1 million or more

57

Chronic 

Noncancer 

Risk

Maximum facilitywide chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 2

Number of facilities with facilitywide 

maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more 4

Number of pulp and papermaking

operations contributing 50 percent or 

more to facilitywide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more

0

The maximum individual cancer whole-facility risk from 

all HAP emissions at any mill is estimated to be 30 in 1

million based on actual emissions. Of the 171 mills

included in this analysis, seven have facilitywide maximum 

individual cancer risks of 10 in 1 million or greater. At 

these mills, pulp and papermaking operations account for 30 

percent of the total facilitywide risk. There are 99

facilities with facilitywide maximum individual cancer 

risks of 1 in 1 million or greater. Of these 99 mills, 57

have pulp and papermaking operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. The 

facilitywide cancer risks at these 57 mills, and at the 7 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 90 of 162--

mills with risks of 10 in a million or more, are primarily 

driven by emissions of arsenic compounds, chromium 

compounds and nickel compounds from boiler and lime kiln

operations. However, we note that there are uncertainties 

in the amount and form of chromium emitted from these 

mills. For many of the mills, the emissions inventory used 

for the risk assessment included estimates for the two main 

forms of chromium (i.e., hexavalent and trivalent 

chromium). However, for other mills, we only had estimates 

of total chromium emitted. For those mills, we applied a 

hexavalent chromium speciation factor assigned by SCC for 

this source category.

44 Although, hexavalent chromium is 

toxic and is a known human carcinogen, trivalent chromium 

is less toxic and is currently “not classified as to its 

human carcinogenicity.”45 Therefore, the relative emissions 

of these two forms can have a significant effect on the 

cancer risk estimates.

The facilitywide maximum individual chronic noncancer 

TOSHI is estimated to be 2 based on actual emissions. Of 

the 171 mills included in this analysis, only four mills 

 

44 See the memorandum in the docket entitled, Inputs to the Pulp and 

Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling.

45 EPA’s IRIS Weight-of-Evidence Characterization for trivalent chromium 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0028.htm#refinhal
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 91 of 162--

have a HI value greater than 1, with all mills having an HI 

value less than or equal to 2. The chronic noncancer risks 

at these mills are primarily driven by acrolein emissions 

from industrial boilers, which are not regulated under the 

Pulp and Paper source category.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety?

1. Risk Acceptability

As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh 

all health risk factors and measures in our risk 

acceptability determination, including the MIR; the number 

of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges; 

cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; the maximum 

acute noncancer HQ; the extent of noncancer risks; the 

potential for adverse environmental effects; distribution 

of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population; 

and risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989).

For the Pulp and Paper source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed could be up to 10 in 1 million 

due to actual or MACT-allowable emissions. These risks are 

considerably less than 100 in 1 million, which is the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 92 of 162--

presumptive upper limit of risk acceptability. The risk 

analysis also shows generally low cancer incidence (1 case 

every 100 years); no potential for adverse environmental 

effects or human health multipathway effects; no potential 

for chronic noncancer impacts; and, while a potential 

exists for some acute inhalation impacts, they are likely 

to be minimal.

Additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that 

there are five mills with maximum facilitywide risks in 

between a cancer risk of 10 in 1 million and 30 in a 

million and four mills with a maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI between 1 and 2; it also showed that the Pulp and 

Paper source category did not drive these risks. The number 

of people exposed to cancer risks of 1 in 1 million or 

greater due to emissions from the source category is 

relatively low (76,000). Considering these factors and the 

uncertainties discussed in section III.B of this preamble, 

we propose that the risks from the Pulp and Paper source 

category are acceptable.

2. Ample Margin of Safety

Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate 

the cost and feasibility of available control technologies 

and other measures (including the controls, measures and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 93 of 162--

costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 

applied in this source category to further reduce the risks 

due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. 

As noted in our discussion of the technology review 

below in section IV.C, no technologies (beyond those

already in place) were identified for reducing HAP 

emissions from Pulp and Paper production processes.46 We are 

proposing to amend the kraft condensate standards to 

reflect increased performance of existing controls observed 

in the technology review, resulting in an estimated HAP 

reduction of approximately 4,000 tpy. Incrementally

increasing the stringency of the kraft condensate standards 

is expected to reduce risks from kraft wastewater 

operations. As a result, we conclude that the current 

standard, before the amendments proposed here are put in 

place, protects public health with an ample margin of 

safety.

Though we did not identify any new technologies to 

reduce risk from this source category beyond incremental 

improvements in the performance of existing technology used 

to meet the kraft condensate standards, we are specifically 

 

46 See the docket memoranda entitled, Section 112(d)(6) Technology 

Review for Pulping and Papermaking Processes and Summary of Pulp 

Bleaching Technology Review.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 94 of 162--

requesting comment on whether there are additional costeffective control measures that may be able to reduce risks 

from the Pulp and Paper subpart S source category. In 

particular, we are requesting states to identify any 

controls they have already required for these facilities, 

any controls they are currently considering or any other 

controls of which they may be aware.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 

technology review?

We evaluated developments in practices, processes and 

control technologies applicable to emission sources subject 

to the Pulp and Paper MACT. This included a search of the 

RBLC, the Internet and our database containing the 2011 

Part I survey responses. For chemical pulping and 

bleaching, we have determined that there have been no 

advances in emission control measures since the subpart S

standard was originally promulgated in 1998.

47 For kraft 

pulping process condensates, we have determined that the 

technology has sufficiently advanced since the 1998 MACT 

rule to warrant the development of an updated standard. The 

1998 MACT rule required kraft pulp mills to either: (1) 

 

47 Additional details on our technology review are provided in docket 

memoranda entitled, Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulping and 

Papermaking Processes, and Summary of Pulp Bleaching Technology Review.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 95 of 162--

recycle the condensates back to equipment that meet the

control standards for pulping system vents (LVHC, HVLC),

(2) treat the condensates to reduce or destroy the HAP by 

at least 92 percent by weight, (3) treat the condensates to 

remove a specified amount of HAPs (at least 10.2 lb/ODTP at 

mills performing bleaching or 6.6 lb/ODTP at mills without 

bleaching), or (4) treat the condensates to meet a 

specified HAP concentration at the control device outlet

(330 ppmw at mills performing bleaching or 210 ppmw at 

mills without bleaching). The three control strategies 

expected to be used by most mills are recycling the 

condensates, biological treatment and steam stripping.

Our technology review of kraft condensates did not 

yield any information about new technologies that could 

become the basis for regulatory options. We then reviewed

the 2011 Pulp and Paper ICR database. In our review of the 

database, we found that most kraft pulp mills chose the 92

percent control option for compliance demonstration for 

kraft condensates rather than recycling. Only five mills

use recycling, two mills use both recycling and steam 

stripping, and four mills use the aforementioned ppmw 

option to control kraft condensates. Consequently, the 

focus of our technology review was on the control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 96 of 162--

efficiencies of wastewater treatment systems and steam 

stripping.

We reviewed the 2011 Pulp and Paper ICR database to 

determine if, under the current control technologies, there 

were mills demonstrating greater than the 92 percent

minimum level of control (or any equivalent 

demonstrations). We found that all kraft pulp mills are

performing at a higher level than the 92 percent minimum 

level of control.

For regulatory options, we developed an incremental 

scale of improvement over the minimum 92 percent control,

set up by percent increments from 93 percent to 98 percent.

An estimated four mills would be impacted under the 93 

percent option, 15 mills under the 94 percent option, 28 

mills under the 95 percent option, 41 mills under the 96 

percent option, 54 mills under the 97 percent option and 66 

under the 98 percent option.

We did not take the analysis beyond 98 percent because 

that level was determined to be at the limit of control 

efficiency for one the major control techniques, steam 

stripping, and it was equivalent to the control level 

required for non-condensable gases ducted to controls from 

LVHC and HVLC sources in 40 CFR 63.443(d)(1). After setting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 97 of 162--

up the percent increments, we established an equivalency 

between the different percent control options and the 

lb/ODTP and ppmw options:

Percent 

control, 

%

lb/ODTP option ppmw option

Annual 

cost, 

$million

HAP 

emissions 

reduction, 

tpy

Mills 

performing 

bleaching

Mills 

without 

bleaching

Mills 

performing 

bleaching

Mills 

without 

bleaching

93 11.5 7.4 289 184 $0.99 2.0

94 12.8 8.3 248 158 $4.1 4.1

95 14.0 9.1 206 131 $9.0 6.1

96 15.3 9.9 165 105 $16 8.2

97 16.6 10.7 124 79 $25 10

98 17.9 11.6 83 53 $34 12

Finally, we estimated the costs and HAP emissions 

reductions associated with each percent control option.

Total annual costs for the options ranged from $1 million 

to $34 million, and HAP emissions reductions ranged from 

2,000 to 12,000 tpy. Taking these costs and emissions 

reductions into consideration, we are proposing the 94 

percent option for controlling kraft condensates emissions, 

which is estimated to cost $4 million per year, with an 

emissions reduction of 4,000 tpy and a cost effectiveness 

of $1,000 per ton of HAP.48

D. What other actions are we proposing?

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

 

48 Additional details on our kraft condensate technology review and cost 

analysis are provided in the memoranda, Summary of Kraft Condensate 

Control Technology Review, and Costs and Environmental and Energy 

Impacts for Subpart S Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for 

this proposed action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 98 of 162--

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that 

are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the 

“General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under 

CAA section 112(d). When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM.

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption

from 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and the 

elimination of the operational allowances from 40 CFR 

63.443(e), 40 CFR 63.446(g) and 40 CFR 63.459(b)(11) for 

LVHC, HVLC and steam strippers in this rule. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 

this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing 

several revisions to Table 1 (the General Provisions 

Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 99 of 162--

eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop a SSM plan. We also are 

proposing to eliminate or revise certain recordkeeping and 

reporting that related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has 

attempted to ensure that we have not included in the 

proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions that we have 

inadvertently incorporated or overlooked. We are also 

requesting comment on our proposal to remove the 

operational allowances for LVHC, HVLC and steam strippers

in 40 CFR 63.443(e) and 40 CFR 63.446(g).

49 We request 

comment on circumstances under which such provisions have 

been used, and how often they have been used. EPA is 

interested in knowing whether the operational allowances 

are necessary for technological reasons. We also request 

comment on whether it would be more appropriate to narrow 

the allowances (e.g., to reduce or restrict them to certain 

operational activities, or provide an alternative standard 

or work practice that applies during the times addressed by 

 

49 The basis for the promulgated allowances is discussed in the preamble 

to the final rule at 63 FR 18529-18530, April 15, 1998.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 100 of 162--

these allowances (and if so, suggestions for an alternative 

standard or work practice). To the extent that any person 

suggests that a work practice is appropriate, they will 

need to provide support for the conclusion that work 

practices are permissible under section 112(h) because a 

numerical standard is “not feasible” within the meaning of 

section 112(h)(2).

In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has 

taken into account startup and shutdown periods and is not 

proposing a different standard for those periods. Nothing 

in the record suggests that the operations (and attendant 

emissions) are significantly different during startup or 

shutdown than during normal operation. 

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are 

all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as 

a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner...” (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that 

CAA section 112 does not require that emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction be factored into development 

of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 101 of 162--

standards for new sources must be no less stringent than 

the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source 

and for existing sources generally must be no less 

stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 that directs the 

agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 

“achieved” by the best performing or best controlled 

sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while 

the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 

standards consistent with the section 112 case law, nothing 

in that case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 uses the 

concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit in 

defining the level of stringency that section 112 

performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of 

“best controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that is 

malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as 

malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different 

types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in 

the category and given the difficulties associated with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 102 of 162--

predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, 

the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 

“reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 

167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 

agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to "invest the 

resources to conduct the perfect study."). See also,

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”). In addition, the goal of a best controlled 

or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 103 of 162--

malfunctions could lead to standards that are significantly 

less stringent than levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider 

whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 

112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable” and was not instead “caused in part 

by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 CFR 63.2 

(definition of malfunction).

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that 

is properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and 

that such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the 

relevant emission standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 104 of 162--

Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 

20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, 

Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)).

The EPA is therefore proposing to add to the rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 

§63.456 for this proposed addition (and see §63.441 for a 

definition of “affirmative defense” that means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding.). We also are proposing other 

regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are 

necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 

met all of the elements set forth in §63.456. (See 40 CFR 

22.24). The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that causes an exceedance of 

the emission limit meets the narrow definition of 

malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance 

and or careless operation). For example, to successfully 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 105 of 162--

assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions “[w]ere 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure that 

steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.456 and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible 

steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 

health....” In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the 

Administrator may challenge the assertion of the 

affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 

22.27).

Specifically, we are proposing the following changes 

to the rule related to SSM:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 106 of 162--

(1) Remove 40 CFR 63.443(e) and 63.446(g), and revise 

63.459(b)(11)(ii) to eliminate reference to periods of 

SSM and excess emissions allowances;

(2) Revise 40 CFR 63.453(q) to incorporate the general 

duty from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) to minimize emissions;

(3) Add 40 CFR 63.454(g), and 40 CFR 63.455(g) to 

require reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

associated with periods of malfunction;

(4) Add 40 CFR 63.456 (formerly reserved) to include 

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits caused by 

malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense;

(5) Add 40 CFR 63.457(o) to specify the conditions for 

performance tests; and

(6) Revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6 

(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and the 

last sentence of 63.8(d)(3); 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), and (v); 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15); and, 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 

of the General Provisions do not apply.

We have attempted to ensure that we have not included 

in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions that we have 

inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.

2. Repeat Testing

As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance 

with various federal air emission regulations, we reviewed 

the testing and monitoring requirement of subpart S and are 

proposing the following change.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 107 of 162--

We are proposing to require repeat air emissions

performance testing once every 5 years for facilities 

complying with the standards for kraft, soda and semichemical pulping vent gases (§63.443(a)); sulfite processes 

(§63.444); and bleaching systems (§63.445). Repeat 

performance tests are already required by permitting 

authorities for some facilities.50 Further, we believe that 

requiring periodic repeat performance tests will help to 

ensure that control systems are properly maintained over 

time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions 

episodes.51

With today’s proposal, repeat air emissions testing 

would be required for mills complying with the kraft 

condensates standards in §63.446 using a steam stripper (or 

other equipment serving the same function) since such 

equipment is, by definition, part of the LVHC system.

Quarterly sampling for four HAPs (acetaldehyde, 

methanol, MEK and propionaldehyde) is currently required 

for biological treatment systems to demonstrate compliance 

with the kraft condensates standards in §63.446(e)(2). We 

 

50 Located in 11 states.

51 For information on the cost associated with the proposed repeat 

testing requirement, see the memorandum in the docket entitled, Costs 

and Environmental and Energy Impacts for Subpart S Risk and Technology 

Review.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 108 of 162--

believe this sampling sufficiently demonstrates compliance 

with the revised emissions standard we are proposing for 

kraft condensates. However, we are interested in receiving 

comment on the sampling and reporting methods used for 

these quarterly tests. We note that MEK was removed from 

the HAP list in 2005.52 However, the subpart S equations 

were derived considering inclusion of MEK. We request 

comment on the appropriateness of re-deriving these 

equations to eliminate MEK for the final rule.

We are not proposing repeat air emissions testing for 

facilities complying with the CCA standards due to the 

complexity of this compliance approach (e.g., comparison to 

baseline emissions calculations) and the fact that it often 

involves both air and/or liquid sampling depending on the 

CCA technology being used. Nevertheless, we are requesting 

comment on whether repeat air emissions testing is 

appropriate (or overly burdensome) for the CCA.

3. Electronic Reporting

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emissions factor development and annual 

 

52 See 70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 109 of 162--

emissions rate determinations. In conducting these required 

reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners and operators, to locate, 

collect and submit performance test data because of varied 

locations for data storage and varied data storage methods.

In recent years, though, stack testing firms have typically 

collected performance test data in electronic format, 

making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data

submittal and improve data accessibility.

Through this proposal, the EPA is presenting a step to 

increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of pulp and paper 

facilities submit electronic copies of required performance 

test reports to the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store performance test data for 

use in developing emissions factors. A description of the 

WebFIRE database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

As proposed above, data entry would be through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 110 of 162--

The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report 

through the EPA’s CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE 

database making submittal of data very straightforward and 

easy. A description of the ERT can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.

The proposal to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA would apply only to those 

performance tests conducted using test methods that will be 

supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific 

electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. We believe 

that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these data, the EPA would 

be able to develop improved emissions factors, make fewer 

information requests and promulgate better regulations.

One major advantage of the proposed submittal of 

performance test data through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of the documentation 

required to be reported by this rule. Another advantage is 

that the ERT clearly states what testing information would 

be required. Another important proposed benefit of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 111 of 162--

submitting these data to the EPA at the time the source 

test is conducted is that it should substantially reduce 

the effort involved in data collection activities in the 

future. When the EPA has performance test data in hand, 

there will likely be fewer or less substantial data 

collection requests in conjunction with prospective 

required residual risk assessments or technology reviews.

This would result in a reduced burden on both affected 

facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing and 

distributing data collection requests and assessing the 

results).

State, local and tribal agencies could also benefit 

from more streamlined and accurate review of electronic 

data submitted to them. The ERT would allow for an 

electronic review process rather than a manual data 

assessment, making review and evaluation of the source 

provided data and calculations easier and more efficient.

Finally, another benefit of the proposed data submittal to 

WebFIRE electronically is that these data would greatly 

improve the overall quality of existing and new emissions 

factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data 

for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 112 of 162--

factors are more representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data 

from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to 

ensure that emissions factors, when updated, represent the 

most current range of operational practices. In summary, in 

addition to supporting regulation development, control 

strategy development and other air pollution control 

activities, having an electronic database populated with 

performance test data would save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and 

effort while also improving the quality of emissions 

inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

Records must be maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, according to 

§63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is 

available for many records, and is the form considered most 

suitable for expeditious review if available. Electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal,

and some records and reports are required to be kept in 

electronic format. Records required to be maintained 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 113 of 162--

electronically include the output of continuous monitors 

and the output of the bag leak detection systems.

Additionally, standard operating procedures for the bag 

leak detection system and fugitive emissions control are 

required to be submitted to the Administrator for approval 

in electronic format.

4. Other

The following lists additional minor changes to the 

subpart S NESHAP and minor changes to the part 63 General 

Provisions that we are proposing. This list includes 

proposed rule changes that address editorial and other 

corrections.

(1) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(1) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-1 for Method 1 or 1A;

(2) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(3) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-1 for Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D;

(3) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(5)(i) to include two 

additional test methods--Method 320 of part 63, 

appendix A, and Method 18 of part 60, appendix A-6--

for measuring methanol emissions from pulp and paper 

processes;

(4) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(5)(ii) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-8 for Method 26A;

(5) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(d) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-7 for Method 21; and

(6) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(k)(1) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-2 for Method 3A or 3B, and include ASME PTC 

19.10 – Part 10 as an alternative to Method 3B;

(7) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(c)(3)(ii) to replace NCASI 

Method DI/MEOH-94.02 with the more recent version of 

this method, NCASI Method DI/MEOH-94.03;

(8) Add 40 CFR 63.14(f)(5) to incorporate by reference 

NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.03; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 114 of 162--

(9) Revise 40 CFR 63.14(i)(1) to incorporate by 

reference ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981.

E. Compliance Dates

We are proposing that existing facilities must comply 

with all of the requirements in this action (other than 

affirmative defense provisions and electronic reporting, 

which are effective upon promulgation of the final rule) no 

later than 3 years after the effective date of this rule.

All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with all

requirements in this rule upon startup.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

The affected source for kraft, soda, sulfite or semichemical pulping processes is the total of all HAP emission 

points in the pulping and bleaching systems. The affected 

source for mechanical, secondary or non-wood pulping 

processes is the total of all HAP emission points in the 

bleaching system.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

Under the proposed amendments, an estimated 15 mills 

would have to upgrade their steam strippers or biological 

treatment systems to comply with the more stringent kraft 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 115 of 162--

condensates standard. The current proposal is estimated to 

reduce HAP emissions by approximately 4,000 tpy.

The proposed amendments would require an estimated 114 

mills to conduct repeat testing for pulping and bleaching 

operations and all 171 major sources in the category to 

operate without the SSM exemption. We were unable to

quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with 

repeat emissions testing or eliminating the SSM exemption

and excess emissions allowance. However, repeat testing 

would provide incentive for facilities to maintain their 

control systems and make periodic adjustments to ensure 

peak performance, thereby reducing emissions and the 

potential for periodic episodes of acute risk. Eliminating 

the SSM exemption would provide an incentive for facilities 

to minimize emissions during periods of SSM.

C. What are the cost impacts?

Under the proposed amendments, pulp and paper mills 

are expected to incur costs to upgrade their steam 

strippers or biological treatment systems to comply with 

the more stringent kraft condensates standard. These mills 

would also incur costs to conduct repeat testing and record 

malfunctions in support of the new affirmative defense in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 116 of 162--

the rule. The total nationwide annual costs associated with 

these new requirements is $6.2 million. 

D. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA performed an EIA of the proposed rule. The 

EIA, which documents the data sources and methods used and 

provides detailed results, can be found in the docket for 

this proposed action. This section provides an overview of 

key results.

The EPA performed a series of single-market partialequilibrium analyses of national pulp and paper product 

markets to estimate the economic consequences of the 

proposal. The models predict how the regulatory program 

might affect prices and quantities for 10 paper and 

paperboard products that, aggregated, constitute the entire 

production of the papermaking industry. The EPA also 

conducted an economic welfare analysis that estimated the 

consumer and producer surplus changes associated with the 

regulatory program. The welfare analysis identifies how the 

regulatory costs are distributed across two broad classes 

of stakeholders: consumers and producers.

The market analysis found that the proposal is likely 

to induce minimal changes in the average national price of 

paper and paperboard products. Paper and paperboard product 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 117 of 162--

prices are predicted to increase less than 0.01 percent on 

average, while production levels decrease less than 0.01

percent on average, as a result of the proposal. The 

partial equilibrium models predict that consumers will see 

reductions in economic welfare of about $3.3 million as the 

result of higher prices and reduced consumption. Although 

producers’ welfare losses are mitigated to some degree by 

slightly higher prices, market conditions limit their 

ability to pass on all of the compliance costs. As a 

result, producers are also predicted to experience a loss 

in economic welfare of about $2.9 million. 

The EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on 

small businesses by comparing estimated annualized 

engineering compliance costs at the company-level to 

company sales. The screening analysis found that the ratio 

of compliance cost to company revenue falls below 1 percent

for the three small companies that are likely to be 

affected by the proposal. Based on this analysis, the EPA 

presumes there is no SISNOSE arising from the proposed 

NESHAP amendments.

Additionally, the EPA estimated the annual labor 

required to comply with the requirements of the proposal. 

To do this, the EPA first estimated the labor required for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 118 of 162--

emission control equipment operation and maintenance, then 

converted this number to FTEs by dividing by 2,080 (40 

hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks). The annual labor 

requirement to comply with the proposal is estimated at 

about five full-time-equivalent employees. The EPA notes 

that this type of FTE estimate cannot be used to make 

assumptions about the specific number of people involved or 

whether new jobs are created for new employees.

While a series of partial equilibrium models was used 

to analyze the economic impacts of this proposal, the EPA 

notes that it is currently developing the ISIS model for 

the United States pulp and paper industry. When completed, 

the ISIS model for the pulp and paper industry will be a 

dynamic engineering-economic model that facilitates 

analysis of emissions reduction strategies for multiple 

pollutants, while taking into account plant-level economic 

and technical factors, such as the type of mill, associated 

capacity, location, cost of production, applicable controls 

and costs. By considering various emissions reduction 

strategies, the model, when completed, will provide 

information on optimal industry operation and determine the 

most cost-effective controls to meet the demand for pulp 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 119 of 162--

and paper products and the emissions reduction requirements 

for a given time period of interest. 

E. What are the benefits?

The proposed rule is expected to result in a reduction 

of approximately 4,000 tpy of HAP. We have not quantified 

the monetary benefits associated with these reductions.

VI. Request for Comments

We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this 

proposed action. In addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested in any additional 

data that may help to reduce the uncertainties inherent in 

the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 

specifically interested in receiving corrections to the 

site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling.

Such data should include supporting documentation in 

sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality 

and representativeness of the data or information. Section

VII of this preamble provides more information on 

submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

The site-specific emissions profiles used in the 

source category risk analyses are available for download on 

the RTR web page at: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 120 of 162--

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each HAP emissions release 

point for each facility included in the source category.

If you believe that the data are not representative or 

are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, 

provide your reason for concern and provide any “improved” 

data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation of the basis for the 

revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit 

comments on the data downloaded from the RTR web page, 

complete the following steps:

1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested 

revisions to the data fields appropriate for that 

information. The data fields that may be revised include 

the following:

Data Element Definition

Control Measure Are control measures in place? 

(yes or no)

Control Measure Comment

Select control measure from list 

provided, and briefly describe the 

control measure

Delete Indicate here if the facility or 

record should be deleted

Delete Comment Describes the reason for deletion

Emissions Calculation Method 

Code For Revised Emissions

Code description of the method 

used to derive emissions. For 

example, CEMS, material balance, 

stack test, etc.

Emissions Process Group

Enter the general type of 

emissions process associated with 

the specified emissions point
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 121 of 162--

Data Element Definition

Fugitive Angle

Enter release angle (clockwise 

from true North); orientation of 

the y-dimension relative to true 

North, measured positive for 

clockwise starting at 0 degrees 

(maximum 89 degrees)

Fugitive Length

Enter dimension of the source in 

the east-west (x-) direction, 

commonly referred to as length 

(ft)

Fugitive Width

Enter dimension of the source in 

the north-south (y-) direction, 

commonly referred to as width (ft)

Malfunction Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to malfunctions (tpy)

North American Datum

Enter datum for latitude/longitude 

coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if 

left blank, NAD83 is assumed

Process Comment Enter general comments about 

process sources of emissions

REVISED Address Enter revised physical street 

address for MACT facility here

REVISED City Enter revised city name here

REVISED County Name Enter revised county name here

REVISED Emissions Release 

Point Type

Enter revised Emissions Release 

Point Type here

REVISED End Date Enter revised End Date here

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate 

here (ft3/sec)

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature 

here (°F)

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity 

here (ft/sec)

REVISED Facility Category 

Code

Enter revised Facility Category 

Code here, which indicates whether 

facility is a major or area source

REVISED Facility Name Enter revised Facility Name here

REVISED Facility Registry 

Identifier

Enter revised Facility Registry 

Identifier here, which is an ID 

assigned by the EPA Facility 

Registry System

REVISED HAP Emissions 

Performance Level Code

Enter revised HAP Emissions 

Performance Level here

REVISED Latitude Enter revised Latitude here 

(decimal degrees)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 122 of 162--

Data Element Definition

REVISED Longitude Enter revised Longitude here 

(decimal degrees)

REVISED MACT Code Enter revised MACT Code here

REVISED Pollutant Code Enter revised Pollutant Code here

REVISED Routine Emissions Enter revised routine emissions 

value here (tpy)

REVISED SCC Code Enter revised SCC Code here

REVISED Stack Diameter Enter revised Stack Diameter here 

(ft)

REVISED Stack Height Enter revised Stack Height here 

(ft)

REVISED Start Date Enter revised Start Date here

REVISED State Enter revised State here

REVISED Tribal Code Enter revised Tribal Code here

REVISED Zip Code Enter revised Zip Code here

Shutdown Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to shutdown events (tpy)

Stack Comment Enter general comments about 

emissions release points

Startup Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to startup events (tpy)

Year Closed Enter date facility stopped 

operations

2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each 

suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, commenter phone 

number and revision comments).

3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions 

revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance 

calculations).

4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested 

revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 123 of 162--

(through one of the methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble)..

5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you 

need only submit one file for that facility, which should 

contain all suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility. We request that all data revision comments be 

submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Access files, 

which are provided on the RTR web page at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. (Note: If you 

wish to compare your Pulp and Paper ICR Part II submittal 

to the dataset available on the RTR web page, then you may 

find it useful to refer to the memorandum in the docket 

entitled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 

2011 Residual Risk Modeling, since this memorandum 

describes how the Part II data were standardized for 

regulatory review.)

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action”

because it raises novel legal and policy issues.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 124 of 162--

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for 

review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this 

action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR 

document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2452.01. The information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information 

requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emissions standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim 

of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to 

agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 125 of 162--

We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the 

Pulp and Paper source category in the form of repeat 

testing for selected process equipment, as described in 40 

CFR 63.457(a)(2) and recordkeeping of malfunctions, as 

described in 40 CFR 63.454(g) (conducted in support of the 

affirmative defense provisions, as described in 40 CFR 

63.456). More specifically, we are proposing the addition 

of stack testing every 5 years for total HAP for chemical 

pulping operations and bleaching operations at pulp and 

paper mills. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative 

defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide 

the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of 

the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative 

defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required 

notification, reports and records for any individual 

incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,258 

and is based on the time and effort required of a source to 

review relevant data, interview plant employees and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 126 of 162--

document the events surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate 

also includes time to produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 

illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs 

are only incurred if there has been a violation and a 

source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative 

defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which 

malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among 

sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot 

reliably predict the severity and frequency of malfunctionrelated excess emissions events for a particular source. It 

is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently 

for estimating the number of malfunctions that would 

qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners 

or operators previously operated their facilities in 

recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to 

comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events reported by source 

operators, only a small number would be expected to result 

from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 127 of 162--

only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions 

would result in the source choosing to assert the 

affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators might be expected to 

avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than 

2 or 3 such occurrences for all sources subject to subpart 

S over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to 

gather information on such events in the future and will 

revise this estimate as better information becomes 

available.

The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with subpart S after the effective date of the 

proposed rule is estimated to be 52,300 labor hours at a 

cost of $4.94 million per year, and total non-labor capital 

and O&M costs of $841,000 per year. This estimate includes 

reporting costs, such as reading and understanding the rule 

requirements, conducting required activities (e.g., stack 

testing, inspections), and preparing notifications and 

compliance reports and recordkeeping costs associated with 

malfunctions, monitoring and inspections. The total burden 

for the federal government is estimated to be 6,870 hours 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 128 of 162--

per year at a total labor cost of $310,000 per year. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by 

OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved information collection

requirements contained in the final rule.

To comment on the agency's need for this information, 

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA 

has established a public docket for this rule which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0544. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 129 of 162--

between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments 

on the information collection requirements contained in 

this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the SBA’s regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 130 of 162--

(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. For this source category, which 

has the general NAICS code 322 (i.e., Paper Manufacturing),

the SBA small business size standard is 500 to 750 

employees (depending on the specific NAICS code) according 

to the SBA small business standards definitions. We have 

estimated the cost impacts of the proposed rule and have 

determined that the impacts do not constitute a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

After considering the economic impacts of this

proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. (See the EIA in the 

docket for this proposed rule.) Only three of the companies 

affected are considered small entities per the definition 

provided in this section. We estimate that this proposed 

action will not have a significant economic impact on those 

three companies. The impact of this proposed action will be 

an annualized compliance cost of less than 1 percent of 

each company’s revenues. 

Although this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 131 of 162--

small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. The proposed repeat 

testing requirement was established in a way that minimizes 

the costs for testing and reporting while still providing 

the agency the necessary information needed to ensure 

continuous compliance with the proposed standards. The 

proposed malfunction recordkeeping requirement was designed 

to provide all pulp and paper companies, including small 

entities, with a means of supporting an affirmative defense 

in the event of an exceedance occurring during a 

malfunction.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments 

on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 

state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate or 

the private sector in any 1 year. This proposed rule is not 

expected to impact state, local or tribal governments. The 

nationwide annual cost of this proposed rule for affected 

sources is $6.2 million. Thus, this rule is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 132 of 162--

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. This rule will not apply to such 

governments and will not impose any obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of 

the facilities subject to this action are owned or operated 

by state governments, and, nothing in this proposal will 

supersede state regulations. The burden to the respondents 

and the states is less than $6.2 million for the entire 

source category. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local 

officials.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 133 of 162--

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between 

the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. However, the EPA did outreach and 

consultation on this rule. The EPA presented this 

information to the tribes prior to proposal of this rule 

via a call with the National Tribal Air Association. In 

addition, the EPA presented the information on the sources 

and the industry at the National Tribal Forum in Spokane 

Washington. The EPA also offered consultation by letters 

sent to all tribal leaders. We held that consultation with 

the Nez Perce, Forest County Potowatomi and Leech Lake Band 

of Ojibewa on October 6, 2011.

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on 

this proposed action from tribal officials.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 134 of 162--

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in Executive Order 

12866, and because the agency does not believe the 

environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by 

this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 

This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in 

sections III and IV of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or 

Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as 

defined under Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of 

energy. This action will not create any new requirements 

for sources in the energy supply, distribution or use 

sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113, 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use VCS in its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 135 of 162--

regulatory activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards.

The EPA proposes to use two VCS in this proposed rule. One 

VCS, NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.03, “Methanol in Process 

Liquids and Wastewaters by GC/FID,” is cited in this 

proposed rule for its method of measuring methanol 

concentrations in process liquid and wastewater. This 

standard is freely available to the public at

http://www.ncasi.org, or can be requested in document form 

by email at publications@ncasi.org, by phone at (919) 941-

6400, or by mail at P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709-3318.

Another VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses,” is cited in this proposed rule for its 

manual method of measuring the content of the exhaust gas 

as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 136 of 162--

A-2. This standard is available at http://www.asme.org or 

by mail at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007–2900; or at 

Global Engineering Documents, Sales Department, 15 

Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.

While the EPA has identified VCS as being potentially 

applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to 

use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS 

would be impractical because they do not meet the 

objectives of the standards cited in this rule. See the 

docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these 

determinations.

Under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and 63.8(f) of the 

NESHAP General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA 

for permission to use alternative test methods or 

alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance specifications, or 

procedures in the final rule and any amendments.

The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public 

to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this regulation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 137 of 162--

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low income 

populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income, indigenous 

populations because it increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority, low income, or indigenous populations.

These proposed standards will improve public health 

and welfare, now and in the future, by reducing HAP
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 138 of 162--

emissions contributing to environmental and human health 

impacts. These reductions in HAP associated with the rule 

are expected to benefit all populations. 

Additionally, the agency has reviewed this rule to 

determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, 

low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such 

that they may face disproportionate exposure from 

pollutants that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. 

Although this analysis gives some indication of populations 

that may be exposed to levels of pollution that cause 

concern, it does not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or 

communities.

The demographic data show that while most demographic 

categories are below, or within, 2 percentage points of 

national averages, the African-American population exceeds 

the national average by 3 percentage points (15 percent

versus 12 percent), or +25 percent. The facility-level

demographic analysis results are presented in the November

2011 memorandum entitled Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts: Pulp and Paper, a copy of which is available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2007-0544).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 139 of 162--

The analysis of demographic data used proximity-to-asource as a surrogate for exposure to identify those 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, 

such that they have notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. The demographic data for this analysis 

were extracted from the 2000 census data, which were

provided to the EPA by the United States Census Bureau.

Distributions by race are based on demographic information 

at the census block level, and all other demographic groups 

are based on the extrapolation of census block group level 

data to the census block level. The socio-demographic 

parameters used in the analysis included the following 

categories: Racial (White, African American, Native

American, Other or Multiracial, and All Other Races); 

Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (Number of people below the 

poverty line, Number of people with ages between 0 and 18, 

Number of people with ages greater than or equal to 65, 

Number of people with no high school diploma). 

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the EPA focused on those 

census blocks within 3 miles of affected sources and 

determined the demographic composition (e.g., race, income, 

etc.) of these census blocks and compared them to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 140 of 162--

corresponding compositions nationally. The radius of 3

miles (or approximately 5 km) is consistent with other 

demographic analyses focused on areas around potential 

sources.53,54,55,56 In addition, air quality modeling 

experience has shown that the area within 3 miles of an 

individual source of emissions can generally be considered 

the area with the highest ambient air levels of the primary 

pollutants being emitted for most sources, both in absolute 

terms and relative to the contribution of other sources 

(assuming there are other sources in the area, as is 

typical in urban areas). While facility processes and 

fugitive emissions may have more localized impacts, the EPA 

acknowledges that because of various stack heights, there 

is the potential for dispersion beyond 3 miles. To the 

extent that any minority, low income, or indigenous

subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by the current 

emissions as a result of the proximity of their homes to 

these sources, that subpopulation also stands to see 

 

53 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People 

Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995.

54 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities 

in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399.

55 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze 

Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis”. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297.

56 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at 

Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 141 of 162--

increased environmental and health benefit from the 

emissions reductions called for by this rule.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 142 of 162--

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 143 of 162--

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the 

Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63-–[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(5) 

and revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.03, Methanol in Process 

Liquids and Wastewaters by GC/FID, May 2000, NCASI, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for 

§§63.457(c)(3)(ii), 63.459(b)(5)(iv)(A), 

63.459(b)(5)(iv)(A)(2), and 63.459(b)(8)(iii) of subpart S 

of this part.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 144 of 162--

approved for §§63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.457(k)(1), 63.865(b), 

63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 

63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 

63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 

63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 

63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and 

(g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), table 5 

to subpart DDDDD of this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of 

this part, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * *

Subpart S—[Amended]

* * * * *

3. Section 63.441 is amended by adding a definition 

for “affirmative defense” to read as follows:

§63.441 Definitions.

* * * * *

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding.

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 145 of 162--

4. Section 63.443 is amended by deleting paragraph 

(e).

5. Section 63.446 is amended as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (e)(3);

b. By revising paragraph (e)(4);

c. By revising paragraph (e)(5); and

d. By removing and reserving paragraph (g).

§ 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) Treat the pulping process condensates to reduce or 

destroy the total HAPs by at least 92 percent or more by 

weight on or before [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. After 

[INSERT DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], treat pulping process condensates 

to reduce or destroy the total HAPs by at least 94 percent 

or more by weight; or

(4) At mills that do not perform bleaching, on or 

before [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] treat the pulping 

process condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or more of 

total HAP per megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP, or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 146 of 162--

achieve a total HAP concentration of 210 parts per million 

or less by weight at the outlet of the control device. 

After [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], treat the pulping 

process condensates to remove 4.2 kilograms or more of 

total HAP per megagram (8.3 pounds per ton) of ODP, or 

achieve a total HAP concentration of 158 parts per million 

or less by weight at the outlet of the control device; or

(5) At mills that perform bleaching, on or before [INSERT 

DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] treat the pulping process condensates to 

remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram 

(10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP 

concentration of 330 parts per million or less by weight at 

the outlet of the control device. After [INSERT DATE 3

YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], treat the pulping process condensates to remove 

6.4 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram (12.8 

pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP 

concentration of 248 parts per million or less by weight at 

the outlet of the control device.

* * * * *

(g) [Reserved]
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 147 of 162--

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.453 is amended by adding paragraph (q)

to read as follows:

§ 63.453 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * * 

(q) At all times, the owner or operator must operate 

and maintain any affected source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a 

manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination 

of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 

being used will be based on information available to the 

Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, 

and inspection of the source.

7. Section 63.454 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 

and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§63.454 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each affected source 

subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply 

with the recordkeeping requirements of §63.10, as shown in 

table 1 of this subpart, and the requirements specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 148 of 162--

paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section for the 

monitoring parameters specified in §63.453.

* * * * * 

(g) Recordkeeping of malfunctions. The owner or 

operator must maintain the following records of 

malfunctions:

(1) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the 

air pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(2) Records of actions taken during periods of 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.453(q), including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 

operation.

8. Section 63.455 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) 

and (h) to read as follows:

§ 63.455 Reporting requirements.

* * * * * 

(g) Malfunction reporting requirements. If a 

malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the 

report must include the number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction which occurred 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 149 of 162--

during the reporting period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded.

The report must also include a description of actions taken 

by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.453(q), 

including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

(h) You must submit performance test reports as 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4).

(1) The owner or operator of an affected source shall 

report the results of the performance test before the close 

of business on the 60th day following the completion of the 

performance test, unless approved otherwise in writing by 

the Administrator. A performance test is “completed” when 

field sample collection is terminated. Unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator in writing, results of a 

performance test shall include the analysis of samples, 

determination of emissions, and raw data. A complete test 

report must include the purpose of the test; a brief 

process description; a complete unit description, including 

a description of feed streams and control devices; sampling 

site description; pollutants measured; description of 

sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to 

standard procedures; quality assurance procedures; record 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 150 of 162--

of operating conditions, including operating parameters for 

which limits are being set, during the test; record of 

preparation of standards; record of calibrations; raw data 

sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and 

laboratory analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; 

explanation of laboratory data qualifiers; example 

calculations of all applicable stack gas parameters, 

emission rates, percent reduction rates, and analytical 

results, as applicable; and any other information required 

by the test method and the Administrator.

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance test, you must submit 

performance test data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html) and also 

report the results of the performance test to the 

appropriate permitting authority in the form and-or format 

specified by the permitting authority. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically to EPA’s CDX. 

(3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test, as defined in §63.2 and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 151 of 162--

required by this subpart, you must submit the relative 

accuracy test audit data electronically into EPA’s CDX by 

using the ERT as mentioned in paragraph (h)(2) of this 

section and also report the results of the performance test 

to the appropriate permitting authority in the form and-or 

format specified by the permitting authority. Only data 

collected using test methods compatible with ERT are 

subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically 

to EPA’s CDX.

(4) All reports required by this subpart not subject 

to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this 

section must be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or 

the delegated authority may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 

Administrator retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this 

section in paper format.

9. Section 63.456 is revised to read as follows:

§ 63.456 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission 

Limit During Malfunction.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 152 of 162--

In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in paragraphs §§63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 

63.445(b) and (c), 63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or 

§63.450(d) the owner or operator may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of 

such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined 

at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for 

claims for injunctive relief.

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action 

to enforce such a limit, the owner or operator must timely 

meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that:

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 153 of 162--

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs; and

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions; and

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage; and

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 154 of 162--

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices; and

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs; and

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in 

a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the 

affected source experiencing an exceedance of its emission 

limit(s) during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (FAX) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it 

wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 155 of 162--

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit 

a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 

paragraphs §§63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 

63.445(b) and (c), 63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or 

§63.450(d) to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The owner or operator may 

seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional 

days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 

before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request 

for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, 

the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 

submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance.

10. Section 63.457 is amended as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (a);

b. By adding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2);

c. By revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(b)(5)(i), and (b)(5)(ii);

d. By revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii);

e. By revising paragraph (d)(1);
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 156 of 162--

f. By revising paragraph (k)(1); and

g. By adding paragraph (o).

§ 63.457 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Performance tests. Initial and repeat performance 

tests are required for the emissions sources specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) on this section, except for 

emission sources controlled by a combustion device that is 

designed and operated as specified in §63.443(d)(3) or 

(d)(4).

(1) Conduct an initial performance test for all 

emission sources subject to the limitations in §§63.443, 

63.444, 63.445, 63.446, and 63.447.

(2) Conduct repeat performance tests at five year 

intervals for all emission sources subject to the 

limitations in §§63.443, 63.444, and 63.445.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A-1, as

appropriate, shall be used for selection of the sampling 

site as follows:

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 157 of 162--

(3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate shall be 

determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, 

appendix A-1, as appropriate.

(4) The moisture content of the vent gas shall be 

measured using Method 4 of part 60, appendix A-3.

(5) * * *

(i) Method 308 or 320 in Appendix A of this part or 

Method 18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 shall be used to 

determine the methanol concentration.

(ii) Except for the modifications specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(A) through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this 

section, Method 26A of part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used 

to determine chlorine concentration in the vent stream.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) For determining methanol concentrations, NCASI 

Method DI/MEOH–94.03, Methanol in Process Liquids and 

Wastewaters by GC/FID, May 2000, NCASI, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. This test method is incorporated by reference in 

§63.14(f)(5) of subpart A of this part.

* * * * *

(d) * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 158 of 162--

(1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A-7; and

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(1) The emission rate correction factor and excess air 

integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Methods 3A 

or 3B of part 60, appendix A-2 shall be used to determine 

the oxygen concentration. The samples shall be taken at the 

same time that the HAP samples are taken. As an alternative 

to Method 3B, ASME PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 may be used 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14(i)(1)).

* * * * *

(o) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine 

the conditions of performance tests.

11. Section 63.459 is amended by revising paragraphs

(b)(11)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:

§ 63.459 Alternative standards.

* * * * * 

(b) * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 159 of 162--

(11) * * *

(ii) All periods of excess emission shall be reported, 

and shall include:

* * * * *

(iii) Any excess emissions that present an imminent 

threat to public health or the environment, or may cause 

serious harm to public health or the environment, shall 

constitute a violation.

12. Table 1 to subpart S is revised to read as 

follows:

Table 1 to Subpart S of Part 63—General Provisions 

Applicability to Subpart Sa

Reference

Applies to 

Subpart S Comment

63.1(a)(1)–(3) Yes

63.1(a)(4) Yes Subpart S (this table) specifies 

applicability of each paragraph in 

subpart A to subpart S.

63.1(a)(5) No Section reserved.

63.1(a)(6)–(8) Yes

63.1(a)(9) No Section reserved.

63.1(a)(10) No Subpart S and other cross-referenced 

subparts specify calendar or 

operating day.

63.1(a)(11)–(14) Yes

63.1(b)(1) No Subpart S specifies its own 

applicability.

63.1(b)(2)–(3) Yes

63.1(c)(1)–(2) Yes

63.1(c)(3) No Section reserved.

63.1(c)(4)–(5) Yes

63.1(d) No Section reserved.

63.1(e) Yes

63.2 Yes

63.3 Yes

63.4(a)(1) Yes

63.4(a)(3)

63.4(a)(4) No Section reserved.

63.4(a)(5) Yes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 160 of 162--

Reference

Applies to 

Subpart S Comment

63.4(b) Yes

63.4(c) Yes

63.5(a) Yes

63.5(b)(1) Yes

63.5(b)(2) No Section reserved.

63.5(b)(3) Yes

63.5(b)(4)–(6) Yes

63.5(c) No Section reserved.

63.5(d) Yes

63.5(e) Yes

63.5(f) Yes

63.6(a) Yes

63.6(b) No Subpart S specifies compliance dates 

for sources subject to subpart S.

63.6(c) No Subpart S specifies compliance dates 

for sources subject to subpart S.

63.6(d) No Section reserved.

63.6(e)(1)(i) No See §63.453(q) for general duty 

requirement

63.6(e)(1)(ii) No

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes

63.6(e)(2) No Section reserved.

63.6(e)(3) No

63.6(f)(1) No

63.6(f)(2) Yes

63.6(f)(3) Yes

63.6(g) Yes

63.6(h) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.6(i) Yes

63.6(j) Yes

63.7 Yes, except 

for 

63.7(e)(1). 

Section 63.7(e)(1) is replaced with 

§63.457(o) which specifies 

performance testing conditions under 

Subpart S.

63.8(a)(1) Yes

63.8(a)(2) Yes

63.8(a)(3) No Section reserved.

63.8(a)(4) Yes

63.8(b)(1) Yes

63.8(b)(2) No Subpart S specifies locations to 

conduct monitoring.

63.8(b)(3) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(i) No See §63.453(q) for general duty 

requirement (which includes 

monitoring equipment)

63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(iii) No

63.8(c)(2) Yes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 161 of 162--

Reference

Applies to 

Subpart S Comment

63.8(c)(3) Yes

63.8(c)(4) No Subpart S allows site specific 

determination of monitoring 

frequency in §63.453(n)(4).

63.8(c)(5) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.8(c)(6) Yes

63.8(c)(7) Yes

63.8(c)(8) Yes

63.8(d) Yes, except 

for last 

sentence, 

which refers 

to an SSM 

plan. 

SSM plans are not required.

63.8(e) Yes

63.8(f)(1)–(5) Yes

63.8(f)(6) No Subpart S does not specify relative 

accuracy test for CEMs.

63.8(g) Yes

63.9(a) Yes

63.9(b) Yes Initial notifications must be 

submitted within one year after the 

source becomes subject to the 

relevant standard.

63.9(c) Yes

63.9(d) No Special compliance requirements are 

only applicable to kraft mills.

63.9(e) Yes

63.9(f) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.9(g)(1) Yes

63.9(g)(2) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this

standard.

63.9(g)(3) No Subpart S does not specify relative 

accuracy tests, therefore no 

notification is required for an 

alternative.

63.9(h) Yes

63.9(i) Yes

63.9(j) Yes

63.10(a) Yes

63.10(b)(1) Yes

63.10(b)(2)(i) No

63.10(b)(2)(ii) No. See §63.454(g) for recordkeeping of 

(1) occurrence and duration and (2) 

actions taken during malfunction.

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release Draft During Review ***

--Page 162 of 162--

Reference

Applies to 

Subpart S Comment

63.10(b)(2)(iv) No

63.10(b)(2)(v) No

63.10(b)(2)(vi) Yes

63.10(b)(2)(vii)-

(ix)

Yes

63.10(b)(3) Yes

63.10(c)(1)-(7) Yes

63.10(c)(8) Yes

63.10(c)(9) No Section reserved.

63.10(c)(10)-(11) No See §63.454(g) for malfunction 

recordkeeping requirements.

63.10(c)(12)-(14) Yes

63.10(c)(15) No

63.10(d)(1) Yes

63.10(d)(2) Yes

63.10(d)(3) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.10(d)(4) Yes

63.10(d)(5) No See §63.455(g) for malfunction 

reporting requirements.

63.10(e)(1) Yes

63.10(e)(2)(i) Yes

63.10(e)(2)(ii) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.10(e)(3) Yes

63.10(e)(4) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

monitors that are not part of this 

standard.

63.10(f) Yes

63.11–63.15 Yes

aWherever subpart A specifies “postmark” dates, submittals may be sent 

by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier). 

Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not 

required.