ada aa/C/US/US@, utoga/C/US/US@

Date: 12/01/2011 11:57 AM

Subject: APPROVED & TRANSMITTED to OMB - SAN 5469 - RTR NESHAP from

 the Pulp and Paper Industry

Today OP approved for OMB review the NPRM, SAN 5469 - Risk and Technology Review 

for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and 

(See attached file: EO12866PulpandPaper2060AQ41Proposal20111201.d

(Embedded image moved to file: pic14523.gif)

tier 2 action.

Paper Industry. This significant action is attached below and was developed as a 

oc)

Office: 6440T ARN

Phone: 202.564.6535

Washington, DC 20460

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

US Environmental Protection Agency

Regulatory Management Division

Amy L. Cole

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

malfunction

provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown and 

; additional test methods for measuring methanol; and 

technical and editorial changes.
Budget receives a copy of you

assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and 

comments on the information collection provisions are best 

r 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-OAR-2007-0544

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 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544. Please include a 
• Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver 

comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), 

2

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC

0460, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544.

normal hours of operat

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s 

ion (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special 

information.

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

Please include two copies.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2007-0544. The EPA policy is that all comments received 

made available online at 

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

information cla

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

imed 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 

comment.

contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 
the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

ROM you submit.

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

the 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

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 

http://www.regulations.gov

documents in the docket are listed in the 

index. Although listed in the index, 

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

business information or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as 

copy.

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 

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 
(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 

presenting oral testimo

at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in 

ny or inquiring as to whether a public 

hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of 

Division, Natural Resources Group (E143

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

-03), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–4487.

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. 
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, 

TABLE 1

preamble.

contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this 

--LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS 

for:

NESHAP 

PROPOSED ACTION

OECA Contact1 OAQPS Contacts2

Paper

and 

Pulp 

(202)564

Sara Ayres

-5391

ayres.sara@epa.gov

(919) 541

John Bradfield

-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:

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

this preamble.

processes, data inventories and risk modeling are included in 

While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

ACGIH

following terms and acronyms are defined here:

the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists

ADAF Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors
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

HON

Hazardous

Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards for

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

m3 Cubic Meters

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MACT Code

included in a source category

Code within the NEI used to identify processes

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone

mg Milligrams
NAS National Academy of Sciences

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP

Pollutants

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

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

Assurance

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PB-HAP

bio

Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and 

-accumulative in the environment 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter

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

Entities

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TRIM.FaTE

EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Modeling System

Fate, Transport and Environmental Exposure module of 

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?

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

D.

information?

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 

B.

regulate its HAP emissions?

What data collection activities were conducted to support 

III.

this action?

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 

C

this proposal?

. 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?
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?

VIII.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

VI. Request for Comments

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

B.

Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

G.

Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

H.

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

I.

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

I.

Populations

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 
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 

technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, 

impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards.

energy requirements and nonair quality health and environmental 

Maximum achievable control technology standards must 

require the maximum degree of emissions reduction through the 

techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that

application of measures, processes, methods, systems or 

: (A) 

changes, substitution of materials or ot

reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through process 

her modifications; (B) 

practice or operational standards (includi

or fugitive emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work 

or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage 

enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (C) capture 

ng requirements for 

the above (CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)

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

-(E)). The MACT standards may 

standards where 

take the form of design, equipment, work practice or operational 

the EPA first determines either that: (A) a 
112(h)(1)

due to technological and economic limitations (CAA sections 

methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable 

inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement 

-(2)).

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 

achieved in practice by the best

floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 

-controlled similar source. The 

the average emissions limitation achieved by the best

floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than 

MACT floors for existing sources can be less stringent than

-performing 

(or the best

12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory 

-performing five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

stringent than the floor.

standards, we must also consider control options that are more 

We may establish standards more 

of achieving the em

stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost 

issions reductions, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
112(d)(6).

no less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 

In conducting this 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 

This provision requires, first, that 

any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA section 112(f).

the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating 

significance of those risks, and 

implementation of the MACT standards, the public health 

the risks posed (or potentially posed) by sources after 

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 

those emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to 

source categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether 
from a source in the category or subcategory to le

excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions 

ss than one in 

one million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards 

112(f)(2)(A)).

an ample margin of safety to protect public health (CAA section 

for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide 

This requirement is procedural. It mandates that 

the EPA establish CAA section 112(f) residual risk standards if 

the level of those standards.

certain risk thresholds are not satisfied but does not determine 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083.

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

of public health with an ample margin of safety based on 

substantive requirements for residual risk standards: protection 

the 

the 

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

CAA amendments. Id. This refers to the Benzene NESHAP, 

described in the next paragraph. The EPA may adopt residual risk 

112(d)(6)) if 

adopted after the technology review required by CAA section 

standards equal to existing MACT standards (or to standards 

the EPA determines that the existing standards are 

sufficiently protective, even if (for example) excess cancer 

risks to a most exposed individual are not reduced to less than 
during the residual risk rulemaking”). Section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA further authorizes the EPA to adopt more stringent 

costs, energy, safety and othe

standards, if necessary “to prevent, taking into consideration 

r 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 

margin of safety” develo

address any residual risk and our interpretation of “ample 

ped in the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic 

Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By

Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage 

-Product Recovery 

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

risk.

first step in this process is the determination of acceptable 

The second step provides for an ample margin of safety to 

are set (unless a more stringent 

protect public health, which is the level at which the standards 

standard is required to 

1

 

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

significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably 

significant degradation of environmental qualities

adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or 

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

over broad areas.
and “ample margin of safety” are not specifically defined in the 

CAA. However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s

NRDC v. EPA

interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the Court in 

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) 

Federal Register

from the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the 

expressly incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act 

.” 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 

determinations (

NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11).

against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants 

safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection 

* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

by:

an individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

(1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to 
The 

maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years. 

facility would have if he or she were exposed to the 

agency also stated that, “The EPA also considers 

other serious he

incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

alth effects as a result of exposure to a 

exposed population.

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

Incidence measures the extent of health 

estimate of the occurrence of 

risks to the exposed population as a whole, by providing an 

cancer or other serious health 

effects in the exposed population.” The agency went on to 

other health risk information in judging acceptability.”

conclude that “estimated incidence would be weighed along with 

As 

explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

the EPA does not define “rigid line[s] of acceptability,” but 

other health measures and factors (EPA

rather considers broad objectives to be weighed with a series of 

–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11).

The determination of what represents an “acceptable” risk is 

in which we live” (

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

Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 178, 
no higher than approximately 1

presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is 

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 

Id.

exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.”

that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were 

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.

conservative risk 

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

We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk 

level which is an upper-bound that is unlikely 

to be exceeded.” Id.

Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations 

NESHAP that “consideration of maximum individual risk

determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene 

to using maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for 

...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 
presented in

attention will also be accorded to the weight of evidence 

the risk assessment of potential carcinogenicity or 

possible human ca

be a known human carcinogen, and to a pollutant considered a 

risk may be estimated for an exposure to a pollutant judged to 

other health effects of a pollutant. While the same numerical 

rcinogen based on limited animal test data, the 

influenced by the

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

the potential public health effects of the two pollutants, the 

same weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. In considering 

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 

acceptabil

individual cancer risk], rather than a rigid line for 

ity, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These include the overall 

individual lifet

exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each 

incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the 

ime risk range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km exposure radius around facilities, the 
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 

magnitude of ris

together may provide a more realistic description of the 

k in the exposed population than that provided 

by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone. As explained 

“acceptable” by 

in the Benzene NESHAP, “[e]ven though the risks judged 

the EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride

inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 

reduce the risks even further.”

consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to 

determining an “ample margin of safety,” again includes 

Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control 

Agency will establish the standard at a level that provides

other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the 

controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any 

will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of 

an 

by section 112.

ample margin of safety to protect the public health as required 

”
carcinogens and non

and the text of this provision draws no distinction between 

-carcinogens.” 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 noncarci

that the text of that provision “draws no distinction between 

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

nogens and non-carcinogens,” id., and that Congress’ 

carcinogens and non

incorporation of the Benzene standard applies equally to 

-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 

uncertainties

economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, 

level of control will also be considered, including costs and 

information, additional factors relating to the appropriate 

and any other relevant factors. Considering all of 

these factors, the agency will establish the standard at a level 
The regulated industrial source category that is the 

rather provides a guide for readers regarding 

Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

subject of this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble.

the entities 

likely to be affected by this proposed action. This standard, 

applicable to 

and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would be directly 

affected sources. Federal, state, local and tribal 

defined in 

government entities are not affected by this proposed action. As 

the Source Category Listing Report published by the 

paper.

includes any facility engaged in the production of pulp and/or 

EPA in 1992, the Pulp and Paper Production source category 

This category includes, but is not limited to, integrated 

mills (where pulp and paper or paperboard are manufactured onsite), non-integrated mills (where either pulp or

paper/paperboard are manufactured on-site, but not both), and 

raw material).

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

Examples of pulping methods include kraft, soda, 

sulfite, semi-chemical and mechanical.

This Proposed Action

TABLE 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 
2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

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

information?

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 

following address:

and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the 

copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy 

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

areas of air pollution control.

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

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 

D.

assessments.

estimates and other data that were used as inputs to the risk 

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 
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

claimed as CBI must be submi

a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 

version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, 

tted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain 

not contain CBI.

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

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 

CFR part 2.

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

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 

EPA

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

-HQ-OAR-2007-0544.

II. Background

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

regulate its HAP emissions?
(where pulp and paper or paperboard are manufactured on-site), 

non-integrated mills (where paper/paperboard or pulp are 

waste paper is used as the primary raw material).

manufactured, but not both), and secondary fiber mills (where 

The Pulp and 

Paper production process includes operations such as pulping, 

bleaching, chemical recovery and papermaking. Different pulping 

sulfite and semi

processes are used, including chemical processes (kraft, soda, 

-chemical) and mechanical, secondary fiber or 

non-wood processes.

The NESHAP from the Pulp and Paper Industry (or MACT rule) 

40 CFR 

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

part 63, subpart S. As promulgated in 1998, the subpart S 

pu

MACT standard applies to major sources of HAP emissions from the 

lp production areas (e.g., pulping system vents, pulping 

and non

process condensates) at chemical, mechanical, secondary fiber 

-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 
sources in 

both a risk assessment and a technology review of the emission 

the Pulp and Paper industrial sector. This proposal includes 

subpart S, as well as a risk assessment of the whole 

facility. The Pulp and Paper industrial sector also includes

boilers covered under subpart DDDDD, chemical recovery systems

covered under subpart MM, and various sources covered under the 

NSPS for kraft pulp mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB). 

Emissions from these sources and any other applicable MACT 

also conduct an RTR for the subpart MM category

risk assessment done for this rulemaking. In the future, we will 

emission sources for each site were included in the facilitywide 

, 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
products.

Facilities in the category perform at least one of several 

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

etc.).

bleaching and papermaking; pulping and unbleached papermaking; 

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.

Subpart S includes numerical emission limits for pulping 

vents.

system vents, pulping process condensates and bleaching system 

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 

controlled by the 

treatment and recycling to pulping equipment that is 

pulping vent standards.

• Bleaching system vents – caustic scrubbers (for chlorinated 

eliminate the use of chlorine and hypochlorite.

HAPs, other than chloroform) and process modifications to 

B. What data collection activities were conducted to support 

this action?
required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). The ICR was

date.

divided into three parts, with each part due on a different 

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

effectively 

compiled. The response rate for all three parts of the ICR was

100 percent.

III. Analyses Performed
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 

models: 

provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and 

for this rulemaking contains the following document which 

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

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp and Paper Source 

Category. The methods used to assess risks (as described in the 

seven primary steps below) are consistent with those peertheir peer review report issued in 2010; they are

reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009 and described in 

also 
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, 

involved an update of pre

targeted facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions and 

-populated NEI data spreadsheets (or 

creation of new NEI datasets). The NEI is a database that 

estimates of 

pollutants, their precursors and HAP. The NEI database includes 

contains information about sources that emit criteria air 

actual annual air pollutant emissions from point 

and volume sources; emission release characteristic data such as 

flow rate; and location latitude/longitude coordinates.

emission release height, temperature, diameter, velocity and 

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 

that enabled us to conduct risk modeling of detectabl

comprehensive set of emissions test data and emissions estimates 

e HAP 
residual risk assessment, which included

data in order to create the modeling files needed for the 

: (1) QA of the updated 

into the compiled database

inventory spreadsheets submitted by each mill prior to import 

; 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 

the proper default parameters where necessary, 

emissions release parameters for data gaps and errors, assigned 

records and checked geographic coordinates. We reviewed 

segregated the 

emission points into logical emission process groups and ensured 

values where necessary. We

that fugitive release dimensions were specified or given default 

made changes based on available 

by pu

information, including updated information voluntarily submitted 

lp and paper mills. (For more information, see the 
processes with related SCCs. For mills with VOC emissions data

but no HAP emissions data, we developed HAP-to-VOC ratios to 

provided by 

estimate HAP emissions, using HAP and VOC emission factors 

NCASI. However, as noted above, most emissions 

factors were based on actual tests or actual tests conducted at 

Additionally, the largest HAP emission

similar sources (reference NCASI Technical Bulletin 973). 

compound in the category, 

methanol, at approximately 86 percent of the HAP in the 

category, is required to be quantified in each compliance test 

emission factors derived from actual source specific tests.

proportion of HAP emissions at each facility are based on 

referenced in the standard. Consequently, the greatest 

For purposes of risk modeling, we reviewed emissions data 

for chromium, mercury, POM and glycol ether in order to properly 

divalent mercury, gaseous divalent m

(chromium III). Mercury emissions were speciated as particulate 

hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and trivalent chromium 

speciate emissions. Chromium emissions were speciated as 

ercury and elemental gaseous 

emission unit type (

mercury. Total POM emissions were speciated differently for each 

e.g., gas- or oil-fired paper machine 
records as 1,2-dimethoxyethane, since that pollutant is the most 

commonly emitted glycol ether from pulp and paper emission 

sources. Acrolein emissions were removed from the subpart S 

entitled, 

(For more information, see the memorandum in the docket 

modeling file due to uncertainty in the emissions estimates.

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 

Residual Risk Modeling.)

In addition, we reviewed facilitywide data included in the 

NEI dataset from the EPA’s TRI to ensure that combustion-related 

(0107 or 1626

dioxin/furan emissions were apportioned to the proper MACT code 

-2). As expected, there were no dioxin/furan 

emissions data for subpart S sources (MACT code 1626-1). (For 

Modeling

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk 

more information, see the memorandum in the docket entitled, 

.)

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, 

chloroform, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, biphenyl, 

acetaldehyde, cresol/cresylic acid (mixed isomers), phenol, 
tpy, or 97 percent). Hazardous air pollutants reported in lesser 

quantities include acetophenone, benzene, cumene, carbon 

disulfide, chlorine, methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride 

(perchloroethylene), toluene, trichloroethylene and 5

(dichloromethane), naphthalene, styrene, tetrachloroethylene 

6 other 

HAP. 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 estimated 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 

PB

conducting risk assessments for categories where emissions of 

-HAP are present, the EPA conducts a two-step process to 

justify a complete multipathway analysis for population risk

from the source category. Further information about the analysis

performed in this category follows in section III.B.4 of this 

preamble.

2. Establishing the Relationship between Actual Emissions and 

MACT-Allowable Emissions Levels
“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 “MACTallowable” 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 

(70 FR 19998

emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule 

–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 

maximum level 

level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the 

at which sources could emit while still complying

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

with the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September

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

reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are 

14, 1989). It is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions because sources 
performance. Facilities’ actual emissions may also be 

significantly lower than MACT-allowable emissions for other 

reasons such as state requirements, better performance of 

production.

control devices than required by the MACT standards or reduced 

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

information from 

compared to the level of reported actual emissions and available 

the Part I survey on the level of control 

achieved by the emissions controls in use. For example, if 

controlled by 9

survey data indicated that an emission point type was being 

2 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 
in this source category, we next applied these ratios on an 

to obtain risk estimates based on MACT

emission process unit basis to the Part II actual emissions data 

-allowable emissions. (See 

the memorandum, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October

2011 Residual Risk Modeling, for more on the development of 

allowable multipliers for the Pulp and Paper source category.)

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation 

Risks

Exposures and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation 

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 

(2) estimating long

modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

-term and short-term inhalation exposures to

(3) estimating individual and population

individuals residing within 50 km of the modeled sources, and 

-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 

information.
estimates, HEM

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a 

upp

calculations. This library includes 1 year of hourly surface and 

library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 

er 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 block3

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 

factors an

dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk 

the elevation and controlling hill height which are also used in 

d other health benchmarks is used to estimate health 

values recommended by 

risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest 

the EPA for HAP and other toxic air 

2

 

pollutants. These values are available at 

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

Model and Other Revisions

of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion

(70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 3 A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for which 

census statistics are tabulated.
emissions 

each of the HAP emitted by each source for which we have 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of 

data in the source category. The air concentrations at 

each nearby census block centroid were primarily used as a 

all the people who reside in that census block.

surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 

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 

residential receptors 

where nearby census blocks were abnormally large, additional 

were placed within those census blocks at 

chronic risks to the nearby residences.

observable residences to ensure an adequate representation of 

We calculated the MIR 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per d

for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a 

ay, 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.

estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concen

Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the 

tration of each 

of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its URE, which is 
air. In general, for residual risk assessments, we use URE 

values from the EPA’s IRIS.4 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 

similar to that used by 

with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process 

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 (1.3 x 10-5

per μg/m3

), and we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT 

on subsequent published research, however

value in risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based 

, 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 

4

 

review of the EPA’s draft assessment in April of 2011

The IRIS information is available at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS.
currently pr

formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these estimates with those 

results obtained by implementing the BBDR model for 

esented in the External Review draft of the 

implementing the BBDR model. In t

uncertainty analyses will be an integral component of 

recommended by the NAS committee, appropriate sensitivity and 

assessment and will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. As 

he interim, we will present 

also consider other information as the science evolves

findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a primary estimate and may 

. 

We note here that POM, a carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic 

mode of action, is emitted by some of the facilities in this 

category.5 For this compound,6 the ADAF described in the EPA’s 

Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from EarlyLife Exposure to Carcinogens7 were applied. This adjustment has 

the effect of increasing the estimated lifetime risks for this 

5

 

U.S. EPA, 2005. Performing risk assessments that include carcinogens 

described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic mode of action. 

Communication II

Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines Implementation Work Group 

: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated October 4, 2005. 6 See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document available in the 

docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of action. 7 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.
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 Council8 recommends applying the 

Supplemental Guidance to 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 

potential

carcinogenic to humans and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 

sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including 

9

) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and 

8

 

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

Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated June 14, 2006. 9 These classifications also coincide with the terms "known carcinogen, 

terms advocated in the 

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

EPA's previous Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

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

an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in the

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is 

ir 2002 peer review 

of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA - Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data -- an SAB Advisory, available at: 

File/ecadv02001.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$

.
risks.A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 

common targe

exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a 

t 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 ATSDR chronic MRL or 

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

likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is 

the CalEPA Chronic REL. The REL is 

duration.”

health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure 

defined as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse 

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 
offsite exposure for each facility (

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

i.e., not 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 

exposure location for our acute analysis. 

conservative assumptions for emission rates, meteorology and 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program 

Reference Exposure Levels f

Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute 

or Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL 

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

effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration

as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health 

.”

Reference exposure level values are based on the most sensitive, 

toxicological literature.

relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and 

Reference exposure level values are 

designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the 
an adverse health impact.

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels were derived in response to 

recommendations from the NRC. As described in Standing Operating 

Exposure Guideline 

Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute 

Levels for Hazardous Substances

(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),10 “the NRC’s 

previous name for acute exposure levels—CEEL—was replaced by the 

Superfund sites.”

workplace, transportation, the military, and the remediation of 

planning, response, and prevention in the community, the 

term AEGL to reflect the broad application of these values to 

This document also states that AEGL values 

8 hours.”

are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

“represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and 

The document lays out the purpose and objectives of 

levels for once

program and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to develop guideline 

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

-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.” In 

10

 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure 

Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
States federal and state agencies, and possibly the 

response, planning

international community in conjunction with chemical emergency 

and prevention programs. More specifically, 

and prevention plans, as well as real

assessments to aid in the development of emergency preparedness 

the AEGL values will be used for conducting various risk 

-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 

individuals, could ex

predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

airborne concentration of a substance above which it is 

perience notable discomfort, irritation, or 

certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

cessation of exposure.”

are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

“Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.”

and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 

that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 

Similarly, the document 

defines AEGL–2 values as “the airborne concentration (expressed 
health effects or an impaired ability to escape.”

Emergency Response Planning Guidelines values are derived 

Industrial Hygiene Association’s document entitled, 

for use in emergency response, as described in the American 

Emergency 

Responsib

Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

ilities

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

developed for emergency planning and are intended as health

states that, “Emergency Response Planning Guidelines were 

-

chemicals.

based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 

”11 The ERPG–1 value is defined as “the maximum 

without perceiving a cle

experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or 

all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly 

arly defined, objectionable odor.”

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined as “the maximum airborne 

11

 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 

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

Industrial Hygiene Association.
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 

AEGL

not been developed; in these instances, higher severity level 

–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 

particular pollutant.

typically result when basing them on the acute REL value for a 

In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 

acute threshold

exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest 

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

To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we first 

factor

multiplying the average actual annual hourly emission rates by a 

developed estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by 

to cover routinely variable emissions. An acute 
mean multiplier of 2 was used for pulp and paper wastewater 

primary clarifiers and aerated stabilization basins. Peak

treatment units based on analysis of data from pulp and paper 

-tomean multipliers ranging from 1 to 3.1 were developed for other 

types of pulp and paper equipment based on the routine annual 

II 

emissions data and peak hourly emissions data obtained from Part 

survey data. 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.

In cases where all acute HQ values from the screening step 

negligible and no further analysis was performed.

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

In the cases 

additional site

where an acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, 

-specific data were considered to develop a more 

The data refinements included using site

refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern.

-specific facility 

layouts, as available, to distinguish facility property from an 

area where the public could access and be exposed. These 
probabilistic analysis to estimate potent

hourly emission rates over a year would allow us to perform a 

hour over an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of 

measurements over time to see how the emissions vary by each 

ial threshold 

4.

is rare, hence our use of the multiplier approach.

analysis. However, we recognize that having this level of data 

of the key parameters and elements adopted in this screening 

evaluation could include a more complete statistical treatment 

exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an 

Multipathway Exposure and Risk Screening

The potential for significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway 

exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts 

were evaluated in a three-step process. In the first step, we 

persistent and bio

determined whether any facilities emitted any HAP known to be 

-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP). 

There are 14 PB-HAP 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 
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: 

These 

cadmium compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds and POM.

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 

facility

second step of the screening process, we determined whether the 

-specific emission rates of each of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential for significant noninhalation human health or environmental risks. To facilitate 

PB

this step, we have developed emission rate thresholds for each 

–HAP using a hypothetical screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with the TRIM.FaTE model. The 

not underestimated (

established such that environmental media concentrations were 

analysis to ensure that its key design parameters were 

hypothetical screening scenario was subjected to a sensitivity 

i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that risks might be acceptable 
facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB–HAP in each 

for each of the PB

source category were compared to the emission threshold values 

–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 

emission rate by a factor of 2

POM emissions as benzo(a)pyrene that exceeded the screening 

. For 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 

pose multipathwa

determined that emissions of POM were not significant enough to 

potential multipathway exposures and risks of concern, we 

y 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 sitespecific refined assessments using the EPA’s TRIM.FaTE model. 
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

To put the source category risks in context, we also 

includes all HAP

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

-emitting operations within a contiguous area 

and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP 

emissions of HAP from all other 

emissions not only from the source category of interest but also 

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, 

include paper coating, landfills, petroleum 

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

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.
source category analysis described above. For these facilitywide 

facilitywide risks that co

to the facilitywide risks to determine the portion of 

risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared 

uld be attributed to the source 

source category of interest. The ris

determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the 

the facilities associated with the highest estimates of risk and 

categories addressed in this proposal. We specifically examined 

k 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 

7.

preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.

risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inh

Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment

erent 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 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships 

follows below. 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 

a.

the docket for this action.

Although the development of the RTR dataset involved 

Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset

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 

extent

to complete the datasets are accurate, (4) whether and to what 

incomplete or missing, (3) the degree to which assumptions made 

errors were made in estimating emissions values, (5) 

tests or estimates of fugitive emissions, and (6

whether the emissions were based on or extrapolated from stack 

) 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 

dataset available for this industry, p

based on emission factors, developed from the most comprehensive 

rovided by NCASI. The 
outliers in the dataset, the emission factor calculations used, 

b.

etc.

Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling

Although the analysis employed the EPA’s recommended 

any model, including AERMOD.

uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with 

regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is 

In circumstances where we had to 

selected model 

choose between various model options, where possible, we 

options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, 

concentrations of the HAP rather than an underestimate.

chemistry) that provided an overestimate of ambient 

However, 

because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some 

factors (e.g., building downwash) have the potential in some 

locations and census block c

Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at offsite 

situations to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts.

entroids, the approach considered in 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

the dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield 

concentrations.

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
domain were not considered.12 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 

toward higher estimated individual ris

of individual risks across the affected population, shifting it 

the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the distribution 

of cancer incidence since the total population number remains 

ks at the upper end and 

risk levels.

thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific 

reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, 

In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures 

at the centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for 

tends to over

Using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures 

the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block.

-predict exposures for people in the census block 

who live farther from the facility and under-predict exposures 

12

 

Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic 

for people in the census block who live closer to the facility.

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.
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 

facilities)

increase or decrease in the number or size of United States 

, will influence the future risks posed by a given 

source or source category. Depending on the characteristics of 

estimated number of

overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total 

the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 

cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where 

a facility maintains or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 

the risks could poten

the residents spend most of their days at that location, then 

years, residents live beyond 70 years at the same location and 

tially be underestimated. Annual cancer 

time emissions sources operate. 

sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of 

incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these 
of the pollutants modeled.

exposures may not be as high, depending on the characteristics 

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.13

In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there 

that should be highlighted.

are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

independent factors that may vary greatly, such

exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of 

as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology and human activity patterns. In 

co

the point of maximum ambient concentration as determined by the 

this assessment, we assume that individuals remain for 1 hour at 

-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case meteorological 

conditions. These assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual 

13

 

exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at 

U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. EPA 453/R–01–003; 

January 2001; page 85.
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the 

dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer 

chronic and acute exposures.

effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both 

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 

contrary, should be health protective” (

options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 

EPA 2005 Cancer 

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

summarized in the next several paragraphs. A complete detailed 

discussion of uncertainties and variability in dose-response 

is available in the docket for this action. 

relationships is given in the residual risk documentation which 

Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those 

estimate of risk.

that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound 

That is, they represent a “plausible upper 
in other circumstances the risk could be greater.

15 When 

values that do not underestimate ri

developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to provide risk 

sk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 

adequate health protection, the EPA typically uses the upper 

estimates in our risk assessments, an appro

bound estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency 

ach that may have 

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

benefits analysis). 

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent 

chronic exposure levels that are intended to be healthprotective levels. Specifically, these values provide an 

subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable

oral exposure (RfD) to the human population (including sensitive 

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 

risk of 

deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values that are 

14

 

intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the methodology 

IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm). 15 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of 

maximum likelihood estimates.

values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on 
protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.The UF 

are commonly default values,16 e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used in 

the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, 

UF may also be developed using compound-specific information.

are used.

When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and more UF 

Thus, there may be a greater tendency to overestimate 

of ref

risk in the sense that further study might support development 

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

fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some 

number of different q

While collectively termed “UF,” these factors account for a 

pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated.

uantitative considerations when using 

16

 

observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the 

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

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

uncertain.”

risk assessment process when the correct scientific model is unknown or 

knowledge and policy judgment, that are applied to various elements of the 

The 1983 NRC report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:

Managing the Process, defined default option as “the option chosen on the 

absence of data to the contrary” (NRC, 1983a, p. 63).

basis of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

Therefore, default 

options are not rules that bind the agency; rather, the agency may depart 

believes this to be appropriate.

from them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance when it 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting 

public health and the environment, default assumptions are used to ensure 

intended to overtly overestimate risk).

that risk to chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not 

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.
in extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans (i.e.,

data obtained in a study with less

interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from 

-than-lifetime exposure (i.e.,

extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); (4)

problems with the applicability of availab

(5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are 

estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and 

uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an 

le studies. Many of 

developed for chronic durations

development of acute reference values are quite similar to those 

the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the 

, but they more often use 

individual UF values that may be less than 10. Uncertainty 

factors are applied based on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not 

value (see the following paragraph).

is typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference

vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 

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) 
adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g.,

duration (

4 hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure 

e.g., 1 hour). 

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 

estimated exposures, the lack of short

reference value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the 

-term dose-response values 

charact

at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk 

erization as potential uncertainties.

Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed 

some HAP continue to have no reference va

pollutants emitted by the sources included in this assessment, 

reference values for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

lues for cancer or 

exposure levels is possible. For a group of compo

an understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental 

pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, 

chronic noncancer or acute effects. Since exposures to these 

unds that are 

either unspeciated or do not have reference values for every 
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 

the current value.

may determine that these pollutants are more or less potent than 

We may re-evaluate residual risks for the 

taking final action for th

final rulemaking if these reviews are completed prior to our 

is source category and if a doseassessment supporting this notice ma

response metric changes enough to indicate that the risk 

y significantly understate 

e.

human health risk.

Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Effects 

Screening

We generally assume that when exposure levels are not 

anticipated to adv

anticipated to adversely affect human health, they also are not 

ersely affect the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the site-specific levels of PBHAP 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 
we cannot rule out that possibility. The

not mean that multipollutant impacts are significant, only that 

individual pollutants or facilities do not screen out, it does 

multipathway impacts is negligible. On the other hand, when 

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 

uncertainty, and includes

“considers all health information, including risk estimation 

determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination 

standards to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA 

a presumptive level on maximum 
standard is needed to provide an ample margin of safety “in 

economic impacts, technological feasibilit

million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and 

persons at risk levels higher than approximately one in one 

consideration of all health information, including the number of 

y, 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 

the numbers 

emissions from the category under review, including: the MIR; 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; 

hazard

the maximum noncancer HI; and the maximum acute noncancer

. 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 

allowed pursuant to the so

category under review as well as based on the maximum emissions 

risk estimates based on the actual emissions from the source 

other and that affect the same population. The EPA developed 

urce category MACT standards. The EPA 

17

 

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

risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk were 

an individual exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
The agency is considering all available health information 

to inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample 

explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

margin of safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as 

“the first step judgment on 

“[t]he Administrator believes t

acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and thus 

hat 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 

the appropriate level of control will also be con

step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to 

health risk and other health information considered in the first 

sidered, 

feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.”

including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological 

Id.

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 uncertainties of the risk estimates.

also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and 

In this way, the effect 

impact on 

on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

the general public. These factors can then be weighed 

in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl 

assess availabl

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

Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable 

e data. It also complies with the Congressional 

thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and, 

particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 

intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 

consideration of any and all 

‘protect the public health.’”

judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will 

measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] 

(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 
presumptively a

particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the 

cceptable 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 

category.

margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source 

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?

Our technology review focused on the identification and 

promulgat

technologies that have occurred since the 1998 NESHAP was 

evaluation of developments in practices, processes and control 

ed. In cases where the technology review identified 

estimated impacts (costs, emission

feasibility of applying these developments, along with the 

such developments, we conducted an analysis of the technical 

s reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. We then made decisions on 
began by identifying known developments in practices, processes 

•

considered any of the following to be a “development”:

and control technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we 

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 

additional emissions reductions

development of the 1998 NESHAP) that could result in significant 

equipment (that were identified and considered during 

;

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 

•

and 

identified or considered during development of the 1998 NESHAP; 

Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that 

identified or considered 

could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 

during development of the 1998 NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes or 

in our evaluation of whether there 

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

control technologies that were not considered at the time we 

were additional practices, 

industry.

processes or controls to consider for the pulp and paper 

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 
these subsequent air toxic regulatory actions, we consistently 

considere

identify any practices, processes and control technologies 

analyses associated with these subsequent regulatory actions to 

We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical 

evaluated any new practices, processes and control technologies.

d in these efforts that could possibly be applied to 

review.

emission sources in the source category under this current RTR 

We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC to identify potential 

technology advances. (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.) Control 

technologies, classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to 

or new, and on the size, ag

stationary sources depending on whether the sources are existing 

e 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 source-specific permits) to 
or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains 

pollutant emission streams.

help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air 

over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can 

We searched this database to 

Pulp and Paper source category.

control technologies for the types of processes covered by the 

determine whether it contained any practices, processes or 

We also further analyzed a 

fur

number of BACT determinations listed in the RBLC to obtain 

ther information.

Additionally, we conducted a general search of the Internet 

applicable to 

and other sources for information on control technologies 

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 

with 

reviewed the technologies suitable to demonstrate compliance 

the requirements listed in §§63.440 through 63.449 (subpart 

S). See the memoranda entitled Section 112(d)(6) Technology 
In addition to the analyses described above, we also 

revision as appropriate and necessary.

reviewed other aspects of the MACT standards for possible 

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 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 

sufficien

on our review of the rule for testing and monitoring 

cy, 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.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results

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 

Table 

for this action.

section IV.A of this preamble, which is available in the docket 

can be found in the residual risk documentation referenced in 

3. Pulp and Paper Production Inhalation Risk Assessment 

Results

I

Maximum

ndividual

Cancer Risk

(in 1 million)1

in 

Cancer ≥ 1

Risk of 

Increased 

at 

Population

Estimated 

1 

Million

C

Annual

Estimated 

ancer

Incidence 

per year)

(cases 

C

Maximum

hronic Noncancer

TOSHI2

Worst-case 

N

Acute 

Screening 

Refined 

Maximum 

oncancer HQ3 Level

Emissions 

Actual 

Based on 

Level

Emissions 

Allowable 

Based on Based on 

Level

Emissions 

Actual 

Level

Emissions 

Allowable 

Based on 

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

category. 2 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Pulp and Paper source category 

3

is the respiratory system. 

See section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.
in 1 million, primarily due to hexachloroethane emissions; the 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.4, 

primarily due to acetaldehyde emissions; and the maximum offsite 

worst-case acute HQ value could be as high as 20, based on the 

REL value for acetaldehyde. The HQ of 20 represents an upperbound risk estimate and is located in an uninhabited location in

which public access is limited; a worst-case acute noncancer HQ 

of 3 may be more appropriate for this facility based upon public 

accessibility. This would then result in the next highest HQ of 

6 for this source category based on the acute REL dose-response 

category had an estima

value for chloroform. Nine of the 171 facilities in this source 

ted worst-case HQ greater than 1.

To better characterize the potential health risks 

associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and 

of EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies

in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer review 

18, we examine a wider 

18

 

chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the 

range of available acute health metrics than we do for our 

The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: 

$File/EPA

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/

-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf
represents a health-protective level of exposure, with no risk 

however, the health risk from higher

anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; 

-level exposures is unknown. 

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

c

have used them as a second comparative measure. Historically, 

anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), we 

level is available (i.e., levels at which mild effects are 

omparisons of the estimated maximum offsite 1-hour exposure 

levels have not been typically made to occupational levels for 

assessments

the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR 

. 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 exposure19. 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 

19

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

Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Agency, Washington, D

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 

C, EPA/600/R-09/061, and available on-line at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003
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 NIOSH20 “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 ACGIH21 as “not to be exceeded at any time” (ACGIH TLVceiling 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 

Organization22 for 30-minute exposures (0.1 mg/m3

; HQWHO=2.5).

20

 National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/d

Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Formaldehyde; 

ocs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf

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

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240 (ISBN: 978

Other Worldwide Occupational Exposure Values. ACGIH, 1300 Kemper Meadow 

-1-882417-74-2) and available on-line 

at http://www.acgih.org.

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

Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark.

second edition. World Health Organization Regional Publications, European 

Available on-line at 

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. 
response value is 0.4 for acetaldehyde. In characterizing the 

estimates (

important to remember the upward bias of these exposure 

potential for acute noncancer impacts of concern, it is 

e.g., worst-case meteorology coinciding with a person 

located at the point of maximum concentration during the hour) 

ranged from 1.4 to 3 an

However, it is acknowledged that the acute emission multipliers 

to the emissions estimates and the screening methodology. 

and to consider the results along with the uncertainties related 

d approached the annual hourly average 

emission rate for the facilities within the source category.

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. 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. The cancer risks at these 68 facilities are primarily 

driven by emissions of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde from 

papermaking and kraft wastewater operations.

As explained above, our analysis of potential differences 

between actual emissions levels and emissions allowable under 
the maximum lifetime individual cancer risks are the same at 20 

in a million, and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value 

could be as high as 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 

multipathway exposures.

negligible risk of adverse health effects associated with 

The only PB-HAP to exceed the screening 

3.

threshold by a factor of 2.

threshold was POM, with emissions exceeding the screening 

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. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Appendix 6 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for Pulp and Paper in the docket for this rulemaking.

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
facilitywide individual cancer risk of 10in

1 million or more

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

Risk

Noncancer 

Chronic 

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. 
nickel compounds from boiler and lime kiln operations. However, 

chromium emitted from these 

we note that there are uncertainties in the amount and form of 

mills. For many of the mills, the 

emissions inventory used for the risk assessment included 

and trivalent chromium). However, for other 

estimates for the two main forms of chromium (i.e., hexavalent 

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 category23. Although, hexavalent chromium is toxic and is 

Therefore, the relative emissions of these two forms can have

is currently “not classified as to its human carcinogenicity.” 

a known human carcinogen, trivalent chromium is less toxic and 

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 have a HI value of 1 

or greater. The chronic noncancer risks at these mills are 

primarily driven by acrolein emissions from industrial boilers, 

23

 

RTI Memorandum from T. Holloway, K. Hanks, and C. Gooden to J. Bradfield 

and B. Schrock, EPA. November 11, 2011, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry 

October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling.
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 

exposed population; and risk estimation uncertainty (54

effects; distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the 

of noncancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental 

maximum noncancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent 

FR 

38044, September 14, 1989).

For the Pulp and Paper source category, the risk analysis 

most exposed could be 

we performed indicates that the cancer risks to the individual 

as high as 10 in 1 million due to actual 

or MACT-allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less 

than 100 in 1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of 

risk acceptability. The risk analysis also shows generally low 

cancer incidence (1 case in every 100 years), no potential for 

adverse environmental effects or human health multipathway 
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 

2.

source category are acceptable.

Ample Margin of Safety

Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate the 

source category t

under the technology review) that could be applied in this 

measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed 

cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other 

o 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
In

in an estimated HAP reduction of approximately 4,000 tpy. 

crementally increasing the stringency of the kraft condensate 

operations. 

standards is expected to reduce risks from kraft wastewater 

As a result, we conclude that the current standard, 

protect

as amended by the proposed modifications being proposed today, 

s 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 requesting comment on 

whether there are additional cost-effective 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 

other controls of wh

facilities, any controls they are currently considering or any 

ich 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 
determined that there have been no advances in emission control 

measures since the subpart S standard was originally promulgated 

in 1998. 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. 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) 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 
basis for regulatory options.

any information about new technologies that could become the 

So our next consideration was an 

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

of the database, we found that kraft pulp mills generally 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 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 a

substantial majority of kraft pulp mills are performing at a 

higher level than the 92 percent minimum level of control. The 

average percent removal of kraft condensates currently being 

achieved is estimated to be 96.2 percent.
four mills would be impacted under the 93 percent option, 15 

option, 41 mills under the 96 percent option, 54 mills under t

mills under the 94 percent option, 28 mills under the 95 percent 

he 

97 percent option and 66 under the 98 percent option.

We did not take the analysis beyond 98 percent because that 

was equivalent 

for one the major control techniques, steam stripping, and it 

level was determined to be at the limit of control efficiency 

to the control level required for non-condensable

63.443(d)

gases ducted to controls from LVHC and HVLC sources in 40 CFR 

(1). After setting 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

Mills 

bleaching)

performing Mills without 

bleaching)

Mills 

bleaching)

performing 

Mills 

without 

bleaching)

93 11.5 7.4 289 184

94 12.8 8.3 248 158

95 14.0 9.1 206 131

96 15.3 9.9 165 105

97 16.6 10.7 124 79

98 17.9 11.6 83 53

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 
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.

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.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

1.

The 

Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

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 

commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, 

the 

EPA promulgated under CAA section 112(d). When incorporated into 

CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, 
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption and 

operational allowances 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 

requirement that the source develop a SSM plan.

to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

We also are 

reporting that related to the SSM exemption.

proposing to eliminate or revise certain recordkeeping and 

The EPA has 

unnecessary or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption.

regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, 

attempted to ensure that we have not included in the proposed 

We 

are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such 

overlooked.

provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or 

We are also requesting comment on our decision to 

strippers.

remove the operational allowances for LVHC, HVLC and steam 

24 We request comment on circumstances under which 

24

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

the final rule at 63 FR 18529-18530, April 15, 1998.
request comment on whether it would be more appropriate to 

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

certain operational activities, which could include work 

practices), or provide an alternative standard or work practice 

if so, suggestions

that applies during the times addressed by these allowances (and 

for an alternative standard).

In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken 

explained below, has 

into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons 

not proposed different standards for those 

periods. We have no data indicating that emissions are 

significantly higher during startup or shutdown than during 

normal operation. 

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 

infreque

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations.

nt, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

a process to operate in a normal or usual manner

pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or 

...” (40 CFR 

63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not 

require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction 
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no 

There is nothing in section 112 that directs the 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” 

agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

standards. Moreover, while 

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

the EPA accounts for variability in 

law, nothing in that case

setting emissions standards consistent with the section 112 case

law requires the agency to consider 

standards must meet. Applying the concept of “b

defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance 

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

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 uses the 

est controlled” 

significant difficulties

or “best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning presents 

, as malfunctions are sudden and 

unexpected events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if 

not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions 

difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 

that can occur across all sources in the category and given the 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (The EPA 

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 

conduct the perfect study.").

scientific information, rather than to "invest the resources to 

agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 

no g

590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, 

eneral limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision 

intoxicati

acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable 

can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

on or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, 

must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case 

regulation.”).

enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by 

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 malfunctions 

than levels that are achieved by a well

could lead to standards that are significantly less stringent 

-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is 
malfunction event, 

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

the EPA would determine an appropriate 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

emissions. The 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply 

” 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

emission standard.

such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that 

(See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Malfunctions

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

(Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to 

add to the rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding.).

proof and the merits of which are independently and objectively 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of 

We also 

are proposing other regulatory provisions to specify the 

evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth 

defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the 

elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative 

in 

§63.456. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

not reasonable preventable and not caused by

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 

causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

affirmative defense is available only where the event that 

poor maintenance 

and or careless operation). For example, to successfully assert 

or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner....”

pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air

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

the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a 

The 

criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to 
“[a]ll possible steps

applicable emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that 

“[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

were taken to minimize the impact of the 

human health....”

excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and 

In any judicial or administrative proceeding, 

defense and, if the respon

the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

dent has not met its burden of proving 

penalties may be assessed in accordance with 

all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate 

section 113 of the 

CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

Specifically, we are proposing the following changes to the 

rule related to SSM:

(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 

(

periods of malfunction;

reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with 

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

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

criteria for establishing the affirmative defense

emissions limits caused by malfunctions, as well as 

;

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

performance tests; and
of the General Provisions do not apply.

We have attempted to ensure that we have not included in 

ther

SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether 

inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in the absence of the 

the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 

e are any such provisions that we have inadvertently 

2.

incorporated or overlooked.

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.

We are proposing to require repeat air emissions

performance testing once every 5 years for facilities complying 

with the standards for kraft, soda and semi-chemical 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. 

tests will help to ensure that control systems a

Further, we believe that requiring periodic repeat performance 

re properly 
be required for mills complying with the kraft condensates

standards in §63.446 using a steam stripper (or other equipment 

definition, part of the LVHC system.

serving the same function) since such equipment is, by 

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 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 2005.25 However, the subpart S 

comment on the appropriateness of 

equations were derived considering inclusion of MEK. We request 

re-deriving these equations to 

eliminate MEK for the final rule.

We are not proposing repeat air emissions testing for 

complexity of this compliance approach (

facilities complying with the CCA standards due to the 

e.g., comparison to 

25

 See 70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005.
3

overly burdensome) for the CCA.

on whether repeat air emissions testing is appropriate (or 

. Electronic Reporting

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

emissions factor development and annual emissions rat

as for many other purposes including compliance determinations, 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 

e 

determinations. In conducting these required reviews, the EPA 

has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, 

because of v

operators, to locate, collect and submit performance test data 

but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and 

aried locations for data storage and varied data 

storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing firms 

submittal system that would

format, making it possible to move to an electronic data 

have typically collected performance test data in electronic 

increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data accessibility.

Through this proposal, the EPA is presenting a step to 

data accessibility

increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 

. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 
factors

store performance test data for use in developing emissions 

. 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. 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 

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

of the ERT can be found at 

_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 

commonly used EPA reference 

contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of the 

methods. A listing of the pollutants 

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

and test methods supported by the ERT is available at 

_tool.html. We believe that 

data submittal.

industry would benefit from this proposed approach to electronic 

Having these data, the EPA would be able to 
to compile and s

performance test data through the ERT is a standardized method 

tore 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 submitting these data to the EPA 

at the time the source test is conducted is that it should 

activities in the future.

substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 

When the EPA has performance test data 

collection requests in conjunction

in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data 

with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology reviews. This would 

the 

of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and 

result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms 

EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection 

requests and assessing the results).

State, local and tribal agencies could also benefit from 

submitted to them.

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

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 
procedures.

factors are more representative of current industry operational 

data for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the 

emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test 

A common complaint heard from industry and 

representative of a particular source category.

regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not 

With timely 

the 

receipt and incorporation of data from most performance tests,

EPA would be able to ensure that emissions factors, when 

practices.

updated, represent the most current range of operational 

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

populated wi

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

development, control strategy development and other air 

th performance test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and 

and, as a result, air quality regulations.

effort while also improving the quality of emissions inventories 

Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

records, and is the form considered most suitable for 

Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is available for many 
systems.

continuous monitors and the output of the bag leak detection

required to be maintained electronically include the output of 

Additionally, standard operating procedures for the bag 

4

electronic format.

required to be submitted to the Administrator for approval in 

leak detection system and fugitive emissions control are 

.

The following lists additional minor change

Other

s 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 

(4) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(5)

emissions from pulp and paper processes;

(ii) to specify part 60, 

appendix A-8 for Method 26A;

(5) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(d) to specify part 60, appendix A7 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;
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

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

–1981.

E. Compliance Dates

We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with 

all of the requirements in this action (other than affirmative 

upon promulgation of the final rule) 

defense provisions and electronic reporting, which are effective 

no later than 2 years after 

the effective date of this rule. All new or reconstructed 

V.

startup.

facilities must comply with all requirements in this rule upon 

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 

for mechanical, secondary or non

points in the pulping and bleaching systems. The affected source 

-wood pulping processes is the 

B.

total of all HAP emission points in the bleaching system.

What are the air quality impacts?

Under the proposed amendments, an estimated 15 mills would 

systems to comply with the more stringent kraft condensates 

have to upgrade their steam strippers or biological treatment 
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 

adjustme

facilities to maintain their control systems and make periodic 

nts to ensure peak performance, thereby reducing 

emissions and the potential for periodic episodes of acute risk. 

facilities to 

Eliminating the SSM exemption would provide an incentive for 

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 

to 

kraft condensates standard. These mills would also incur costs 

biological treatment systems to comply with the more stringent 

conduct repeat testing and record malfunctions in support of 

the new affirmative defense in the rule. The total nationwide 

annual costs associated with these new requirements is $6.2

million. 
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 partialto estimate the economic consequences of th

equilibrium analyses of national pulp and paper product markets 

e 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 

associate

that estimated the consumer and producer surplus changes 

d 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 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 
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 

compliance costs at the c

businesses by comparing estimated annualized engineering 

ompany-level to company sales. The 

company revenue falls below 1

screening analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to 

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 

equipment 

EPA first estimated the labor required for emission control 

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 
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 engineeringeconomic model that facilitates analysis of emissions reduction 

plant

strategies for multiple pollutants, while taking into account 

-level economic and technical factors, such as the type of 

a

mill, associated capacity, location, cost of production, 

pplicable controls and costs. By considering various emissions

reduction strategies, the model, when completed, will provide 

cost

information on optimal industry operation and determine the most 

-effective controls to meet the demand for pulp and paper 

products and the emissions reduction requirements for a given 

E.

time period of interest. 

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 

VI. Request for Comments

monetary benefits associated with these reductions.
reduce theuncertainties 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 

and representative

in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality 

ness of the data or information. Section VII 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source 

category risk analyses are available for download on the RTR web 

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

release point for 

files include detailed information for each HAP emissions 

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 

have, if available.

reason for concern and provide any “improved” data that you 

When you submit data, we request that you 

support your s

provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to 

uggested changes. To submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR web page, complete the following steps:
Data Element Definition

Control Measure (yes or no)

Are control measures in place? 

Control Measure Comment

control measure

provided, and briefly describe the 

Select control measure from list 

Delete Indicate here if the facility or 

record should be deleted

Delete Comment Describes the reason for deletion

Code For Revised Emissions

Emissions Calculation Method used to derive emissions.

Code description of the method 

For 

example, CEMS, material balance, 

stack test, etc.

Emissions Process Group

the specified emissions point

emissions process associated with 

Enter the general type of 

Fugitive Angle the y

from true North); orientation of 

Enter release angle (clockwise 

-dimension relative to true 

clockwi

North, measured positive for 

se starting at 0 degrees 

(maximum 89 degrees)

Fugitive Length the east

Enter dimension of the source in 

-west (x-) direction, 

(ft)

commonly referred to as length 

Fugitive Width the north

Enter dimension of the source in 

-south (y-) direction, 

commonly referred to as width (ft)

Malfunction Emissions to malfunctions (

Enter total annual emissions due 

tpy)

Hourly

Malfunction Emissions Max 

emissions here (lb/hr)

Enter maximum hourly malfunction 

North American Datum coordinat

Enter datum for latitude/longitude 

es (NAD27 or NAD83); if 

left blank, NAD83 is assumed

Process Comment process sources of emissions

Enter general comments about 

REVISED Address address for MACT facility here

Enter revised physical street 

REVISED City Enter revised city name here
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate here (ft

3

/sec)

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature here (

Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature 

°F)

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec)

Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity 

Code

REVISED Facility Category 

facility is

Code here, which indicates whether 

Enter revised Facility Category 

a major or area source

REVISED Facility Name Enter revised Facility Name here

Identifier

REVISED Facility Registry 

Registry System

assigned by the EPA Facility 

Identifier here, which is an ID 

Enter revised Facility Registry 

Perfor

REVISED HAP Emissions 

mance Level Code Performance Level here

Enter revised HAP Emissions 

REVISED Latitude (decimal degrees)

Enter revised Latitude here 

REVISED Longitude (decimal degrees)

Enter revised Longitude here 

REVISED MACT Code Enter revised MACT Code here

REVISED Pollutant Code Enter revised Pollutant Code here

REVISED Routine Emissions value here (

Enter revised routine emissions 

tpy)

REVISED SCC Code Enter revised SCC Code here

REVISED Stack Diameter (ft)

Enter revised Stack Diameter here 

REVISED Stack Height (ft)

Enter revised Stack Height here 

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)

Hourly

Shutdown Emissions Max 

emissions here (lb/hr)

Enter maximum hourly shutdown 

Stack Comment emissions release points

Enter general comments about 

Startup Emissions to

Enter total annual emissions due 

startup events (tpy)
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each 

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

and revision comments).

organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number 

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 

to Docket ID Number 

in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544 (through one of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if 

RTR@epa.gov

you submitted a copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at 

in addition to submitting them to the docket.

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 
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Review

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

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. Accordingly, the EPA 

12866 and 

submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes 

made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 

B.

the docket for this action.

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 

NESHAP

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on 

information collection requirements are not enforceable until 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 
is made is safeguarded according to 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 

agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

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 

(conducted in support of the affirmative defense provisio

recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 63.454(g) 

ns, as 

paper mills. 

chemical pulping operations and bleaching operations at pulp and 

the addition of stack testing every 5 years for total HAP for 

described in 40 CFR 63.456). More specifically, we are proposing 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative 

adopted by a source, 

associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position 

public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden 

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

the EPA has provided administrative 

assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 

adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification, 

The EPA’s 
exceedance of an 

document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 

source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and 

emissions limit. The estimate also includes 

to 

time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission 

the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

violation and a so

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 

urce chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions 

and freq

maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity 

could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and 

uency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for 

a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no 

records wo

would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that 

uld be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or 

emissions events rep

emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 

that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 

operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 

orted by source operators, only a small 
assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of 

occurrences for all sources subject to subp

For this reason, we estimate no more than 2 or 3 such 

themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. 

instances in which source operators might be expected to avail 

art S over the 3-year 

better information becomes available.

such events in the future and will revise this estimate as 

period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on 

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 

reading and understan

per year. This estimate includes reporting costs, such as 

ding the rule requirements, conducting 

required activities (e.g., stack testing, inspections), and 

The total burden for the 

costs associated with malfunctions, monitoring and inspections. 

preparing notifications and compliance reports and recordkeeping 

federal government is estimated to be 

6,870 hours per year at a total labor cost of $310,000 per year.

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
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 

methods for mini

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested 

mizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

ICR, under Docket ID 

established a public docket for this rule which includes this 

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 

Desk Office for 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR 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 
C.Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

Procedure Act

and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 

, 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 

jurisdictions.

small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 

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; 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organi

city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

zation 

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) 
economic impacton a substantial number of small entities.

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

entities.

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

(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 

economic impact on those 

estimate that this proposed action will not have a significant 

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 small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 

small entities. The proposed repeat testing requirement was

reporting while still providing the 

established in a way that minimizes the costs for testing and 

agency the necessary 

information needed to ensure continuous compliance with the 

requirement was designed to provide all pulp and paper 

proposed standards. The proposed malfunction recordkeeping 
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of 

D.

issues related to such impacts.

the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that 

sector in any 

local and tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private 

may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

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.

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

E.

will not impose any obligations upon them.

governments. This rule will not apply to such governments and 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.

It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 
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.

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 

responsibilities between the 

and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 

governments, on the relationship between the federal government 

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 
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 

Potowatomi and Leech Lake Band of Ojibewa on October 6, 2011.

held that consultation with the Nez Perce, Forest County 

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

G.

proposed action from tribal officials.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically 

, and because the 

agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety 

contained in sections III and IV of this preamble.

to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are 

risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 

The public is invited to submit comments or identify peerexposure to HAP from Pulp and Paper Production sources.

reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life 
it is not likely to have 

under Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not 

I.

distribution or use sectors.

create any new requirements for sources in the energy supply, 

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 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 
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 

alternativ

of measuring the content of the exhaust gas as an acceptable 

e to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2. This standard is 

available at http://www.asme.org or by mail at the American 

Fairfield, NJ 07007

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), P.O. Box 2900, 

–2900; or at Global Engineering Documents, 

Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.

While the EPA has identified __ VCS as being potentially 

these VCS in this rulemaking

applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use 

. The use of these VCS would be 

impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the 

rule for the reasons for these determinations.

standards cited in this rule. See the docket for this proposed 

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 
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

potentially applicable 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

VCS and to explain why such standards 

J.

should be used in this regulation.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

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 

activities 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

on minority populations and low income populations in 

the U

EPA has determined that this 

nited States.

proposed rule will not have 

environmental effects on 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

minority, low income, indigenous 

populations because it increases the level of environmental 
low income, or indigenous populations.

These proposed standards will improve public health and 

welfare, now and in the future, by reducing HAP 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 

levels of pollution

gives some indication of populations that may be exposed to 

that cause concern, it does not identify the 

individuals or communities.

demographic characteristics of the most highly affected 

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
The analysis of demographic data used proximity-to-a-source

as a surrogate for exposure to identify those populations 

considered to be living near affected sources, such that they 

The demographic data for this analysis 

have notable exposures to current emissions from these sources.

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 sociodemographic parameters used in the analysis included the 

American, Other or Multiracial, 

following categories: Racial (White, African American, Native

and All Other Races); Ethnicity 

(Hispanic); and Other (Number of people below the poverty line, 

with ages 

Number of people with ages between 0 and 18, Number of people

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 
5 km) is consistent with other demographic analyses focused on 

areas around potential sources.26,27,28,29 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 

pollutants being emitted for most sources, 

area with the highest ambient air levels of the primary 

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 

dispersion beyond 3 miles. To the extent 

because of various stack heights, there is the potential for 

may have more localized impacts, the EPA acknowledges that 

that any minority, low 

income, or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately 

26

 

of their homes to these sources, that subpopulation also stands 

impacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity 

U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living 

Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995. 27 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in 

Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 28 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze 

Analysis”. 

Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297. 29 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at 

Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping 

_______

Dated:

____________________________

requirements.

_____________________

Administrator.

Lisa P. Jackson,
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) 

* * * * *

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

and revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows:

(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.

(1) 

(i) * * *

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR 
(g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2

63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and 

63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 

63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 

)(i)(C), table 5 

Subpart S

* * * * *

this part, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

to subpart DDDDD of this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of 

—[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 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are indepen

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

dently 

*

proceeding.

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

* * * *
c. By 

b. By revising paragraph (e)(4);

a. By revising paragraph (e)(3);

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 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. After 

[INSERT DATE 2 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 2 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 
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 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] treat the pulping process condensates to 

(10.

remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram 

2 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP 

the outlet of the control device.

concentration of 330 parts per million or less by weight at 

After [INSERT DATE 2

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 

concentration of 

pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP 

248 parts per million or less by weight at 

*

the outlet of the control device.

* * * *

(g) [Reserved]
§ 63.453Monitoring requirements.

* * * * * 

(q) At all times, the owner or operator must operate 

pollution control equipm

and maintain any affected source, including associated air 

ent and monitoring equipment, in a 

being used will be based on information available to 

of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 

control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination 

manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 

the 

and inspection of the source.

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

7. Section 63.454 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 

§63.454

and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each affected source 

table 1

with the recordkeeping requirements of §63.10, as shown in 

subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply 

of this subpart, and the requirements specified in 
(g) Recordkeeping of malfunctions. The owner or 

ma

operator must maintain the following records of 

lfunctions:

(1) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

air pollution control and monitoring equipment.

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the 

(2) Records of actions taken during periods of 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

operation.

monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and 

§63.453(q), including corrective actions to restore 

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 

description for each type of malfunction which oc

report must include the number, duration, and a brief 

malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the 

curred 
source to mini

by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected 

mize 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 

the Administrator.

performance test, unless approved otherwise in writing by 

of business on the 60th day following the completion of the 

A performance test is “completed” when 

field sample collection is terminated. Unless otherwise 

determination of emissions, and raw data.

performance test shall include the analysis of samples, 

approved by the Administrator in writing, results of a 

A complete test 

process des

report must include the purpose of the test; a brief 

cription; a complete unit description, including 

standard procedures; quality assura

sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to 

site description; pollutants measured; description of 

a description of feed streams and control devices; sampling 

nce procedures; record 
la

sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and 

boratory analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; 

results, as applicable; and any other informa

emission rates, percent reduction rates, and analytical 

calculations of all applicable stack gas parameters, 

explanation of laboratory data qualifiers; example 

tion required 

by the test method and the Administrator.

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the 

to EPA’s Central Data Excha

performance test data, except opacity data, electronically 

date of completing each performance test, you must submit 

nge (CDX) by using the 

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

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

) and also 

appropriate permitting authority in the form and

report the results of the performance test to the 

-or format 

specified by the permitting authority. Only data collected 

requirement to be submitted electronically to EPA’s CDX. 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

(3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test, as defined in §63.2 and
to the appropriate permitti

section and also report the results of the performance test 

ng authority in the form and-or 

format specified by the permitting authority. Only data 

to EPA’s CDX.

subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically 

collected using test methods compatible with ERT are 

(4) All reports required by this subpart not subject 

appropriate address listed in §63.13.

section must be sent to the Administrator at the 

to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this 

The Administrator or 

suitable for the specif

the delegated authority may request a report in any form 

ic case (e.g., by electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 

section in paper format.

reports subject to paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this 

Administrator retains the right to require submittal of 

9. Section 63.456 is revised to read as follows:

§ 63.456 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission 

Limit During Malfunction.
§63.450(d) the owner or operator may assert an affirmative 

at 40 CFR 63.2.

such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden 

defense.

of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 

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 

that:

section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

(1) The excess emissions: 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

normal or usual manner, and 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 
(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 

exceeded. Off

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

-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 

emissions; and

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

severe 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

property damage; and

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

environment and human health; and

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

contemporaneous operating logs; and

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in

emissions; and

a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, 

excess emissions resultin

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

g from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the 

affected source experiencing an exceedance of its emission 

after the initial occurrence of the malfun

as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (FAX) transmission 

limit(s) during a malfunction shall notify the 

ction, if it 

wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 
initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 

paragraphs §§63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 

§63.450(d) 

63.445(b) and (c), 63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or 

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 

before the expiration of the 45 day period.

days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 

seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional 

Until a request 

for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, 

of the exceedance.

submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 

b

a. By revising paragraph (a);

10. Section 63.457 is amended as follows:

. 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);

e. By revising paragraph (d)(1);

d. By revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii);
(a) Performance tests. Initial and repeat performance 

emission sources controlled by a combustion device tha

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) on this section, except for 

tests are required for the emissions sources specified in

t is 

(d)(4).

designed and operated as specified in §63.443(d)(3) or 

(1) Conduct an initial performance test for all 

63.444, 63.445, 63.446, and 63.447.

emission sources subject to the limitations in §§63.443, 

(2) Conduct repeat performance tests at five year 

*

limitations in §§63.443, 63.444, and 63.445.

intervals for all emission sources subject to the 

* * * *

(1) 

(b) * * *

Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A-1, as

* * * * *

site as follows:

appropriate, shall be used for selection of the sampling 
(4) The moisture content of the vent gas shall be 

measured using Method 4 of part 60, appendix A-3.

(i) 

(5) * * *

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 

section, Method 26A of part 6

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(A) through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this 

0, appendix A-8 shall be used 

*

to determine chlorine concentration in the vent stream.

* * * *

(ii) For determining methanol concentrations, NCASI 

(3) * * *

(c) * * *

Method DI/MEOH–94.03, Methanol in Process Liquids and 

Wastewaters by GC/FID, May 2000, NCASI, Research Triangle 

§63.14(f)

Park, NC. This test method is incorporated by reference in 

(5) of subpart A of this part.

* * * * *

(d) * * *
(1) The emission rate correction factor and excess air 

or 3B of part 60, 

integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Methods 3A 

appendix A-2 shall be used to determine 

same time that the HAP samples are taken.

the oxygen concentration. The samples shall be taken at the 

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 

operator based on representative performance

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

of the 

the conditions of performance tests.

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine 

the owner or operator shall make available to the 

affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, 

11. Section 63.459 is amended by revising paragraphs

(b)(11)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:

§ 63.459 Alternative standards.

* * * * * 

(b) * * *
** * * *

(iii) Any excess emissions that present an imminent 

constitute a violation.

serious harm to public health or the environment, shall 

threat to public health or the environment, or may cause 

12. Table 1 to subpart S is revised to read as 

Table 1 to Subpart S of Part 63

follows:

—General Provisions 

Applicability to Subpart Sa

Reference

Applies to 

Subpart S Comment

63.1(a)(1)–(3) Yes

63.1(a)(4) Yes 

subpart A to subpart S.

applicability of each paragraph in 

Subpart S (this table) specifies 

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 

operating day.

subparts specify calendar or 

63.1(a)(11)–(14) Yes

63.1(b)(1) No 

applicability.

Subpart S specifies its own 

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)(4)

63.4(a)(3)

No Section reserved.

63.4(a)(5) 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 

for sources subject to subpart S.

Subpart S specifies compliance dates 

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

requirement

See §63.453(q) for general duty 

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 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

Pertains to continuous opacity 

63.6(i) Yes

63.6(j) Yes

63.7

63.7(e)(1). 

for 

Yes, except 

§63.457(o) wh

Section 63.7(e)(1) is replaced with 

ich specifies 

Subpart S.

performance testing conditions under 

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 

conduct monitoring.

Subpart S specifies locations to 

63.8(b)(3) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(i) No

monitoring equipment)

requirement (which includes 

See §63.453(q) for general duty 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(iii) No

63.8(c)(2) Yes
63.8(c)(5) No 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

Pertains to continuous opacity 

63.8(c)(6) Yes

63.8(c)(7) Yes

63.8(c)(8) Yes

63.8(d)

plan. 

to an SSM 

which refers 

sentence, 

for last 

Yes, except SSM plans are not required.

63.8(e) Yes

63.8(f)(1)–(5) Yes

63.8(f)(6) No 

accuracy test for CEMs.

Subpart S does not specify relative 

63.8(g) Yes

63.9(a) Yes

63.9(b) Yes 

relev

source becomes subject to the 

submitted within one year after the 

Initial notifications must be 

ant standard.

63.9(c) Yes

63.9(d) No 

only applicable to kraft mills.

Special compliance requirements are 

63.9(e) Yes

63.9(f) No 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

Pertains to continuous opacity 

63.9(g)(1) Yes

63.9(g)(2) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

63.9(g)(3) No 

alternative.

notification is required for an 

accuracy tests, therefore no 

Subpart S does not specify relative 

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.

actions taken during malfunction.

(1) occurrence and duration and (2) 

See §63.454(g) for recordkeeping of 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes
(ix)

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

recordkeeping requirements.

See §63.454(g) for malfunction 

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 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

Pertains to continuous opacity 

63.10(d)(4) Yes

63.10(d)(5) No

reporting requirements.

See §63.455(g) for malfunction 

63.10(e)(1) Yes

63.10(e)(2)(i) Yes

63.10(e)(2)(ii) No Pertains to continuous opacity 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

63.10(e)(3) Yes

63.10(e)(4) No 

standard.

monitors that are not part of this 

Pertains to continuous opacity 

63.10(f) Yes

63.11–63.15 Yes a

Wherever subpart A specifies “postmark” dates, submittals may be sent 

required.

Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not 

by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).