SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)

(Amendments)

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) (Amendments), EPA ICR 

Number 2452.02, OMB Control Number 2060-NEW

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pulp and 

Paper Production were proposed on December 17, 1993, and promulgated on April 15, 1998. 

Amendments to the Pulp and Paper Production NESHAP are being promulgated as a result of the 

residual risk and technology review (RTR) required under by the Clean Air Act (as discussed 

further below). The Pulp and Paper Production NESHAP applies to facilities that produce pulp, 

paper, or paperboard by employing kraft, soda, sulfite, semi-chemical, or mechanical pulping 

processes using wood; or any process using secondary or non-wood fiber and that emits 10 tons 

per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination 

of hazardous air pollutants. Affected sources are all the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission 

points or the HAP emission points in the pulping and bleaching system for mechanical pulping 

processes using wood and any process using secondary or non-wood fiber. This information is 

being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 63, subpart S.

In general, all NESHAP require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic 

reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and 

duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any 

period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and 

records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to 

NESHAP.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these 

measurements, and retain the file onsite for at least two years following the date of such 

measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or 

local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent 

directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

The amendments to the rule eliminate the startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemption, 

remove the SSM plan requirement, add provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, add a requirement for 

electronic submittal of performance test data, and correct editorial errors. The remaining 
2

portions of the NESHAP remain unchanged. 

Of 171 major source mills, approximately 114 mills have equipment subject to the 

standard, and it is estimated that no new major sources will become subject to the standard in the 

next three years. These assumptions are based on the research conducted by EPA during the 

subpart S rule making, consultation with the industry, and an information collection request 

(ICR) conducted by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in 2011. 

EPA is also aware that this industry is undergoing widespread consolidation and corporate 

restructuring, and that no new major source facilities are being built, though approximately 15 

percent of the affected facilities will rebuild one or more process units in a given year.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active Information 

Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance."

2. Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish NESHAP for major 

sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source is a 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any 

single HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards. In the Administrator's judgment, HAPs from pulp and paper 

plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 

health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP for this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart S.

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review the technology-based MACT 

standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In addition, section 

112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to determine whether the MACT emissions limitations provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect public health. For MACT standards for HAP “classified as 

a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen" that "do not reduce lifetime excess cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to 

less than 1-in-1 million,” EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category 

(or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In 

doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards, if EPA determines that 

the existing standards are sufficiently protective. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, 

if necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect, but must consider cost, energy, safety, 

and other relevant factors in doing so. 

Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to confirm the compliance 

status of sources subject to NESHAP, identify any new or reconstructed sources subject to the 
3

standards, and confirm that the standards are being achieved on a continuous basis. These 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the Clean 

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414) and set out in the part 63 NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A). CAA Section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or 

operator subject to any requirement of this Act to: 

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; 

(C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use 

such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in 

accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at 

such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the 

Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control 

equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data 

when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit 

compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); 

and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may 

reasonably require.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of HAP from pulp and paper plants requires not only the 

installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that 

equipment. Emissions of HAP from pulp and paper plants are the result of operation of the 

affected facilities. These standards rely on the collection of HAP emissions in enclosed and 

closed vent collection. Then, the collected HAPs are incinerated in a boiler, recovery furnace, 

lime kiln, or thermal incinerator. HAPs associated with kraft pulping condensates are either 

treated with steam stripping (or equivalent technology) or in a wastewater treatment system. 

HAPs captured from bleaching systems are controlled with a chlorine gas scrubber. Equipment 

inspection, performance tests, and leak detection and repair procedures are critical components 

of the standards. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority 

when a source becomes subject to the standard. Then, the reviewing authority may inspect the 

source to ensure that the pollution control system is properly installed and operated, that leaks 

are being detected and repaired, and that the standard is being met. Performance test reports are 

needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the 

emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was 

achieved. Repeat performance tests (at 5-year intervals) are needed to ensure ongoing 

compliance. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source 

operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by 

the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the 

Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate their control 

equipment and achieve continuous compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as 

required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as 

evidence in court.
4

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S.

3(a) Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the 

appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated 

state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to 

implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can 

be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no 

duplication exists.

Some of the facilities subject to this NESHAP will also be subject to requirements under 

the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Kraft Pulp Mills, 40 CFR 60 subpart BB. 

The burden requested for this NESHAP does not duplicate any of the burden accounted for under 

NSPS subpart BB.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

The preamble to the proposed RTR (76 FR 81328, December 27, 2011) provided public 

notice of this ICR.

3(c) Consultations and Stakeholder Outreach

The amendments were developed in consultation with the Nez Perce, Forest County

Potowatomi and Leech Lake Band of Ojibewa.

Stakeholder outreach occurred with industry groups including American Forest and Paper 

Association (AF&PA), National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) and member 

companies of these organizations. Stakeholder meetings were also held with Sierra Club, Earth 

Justice, and with organizations that participated in EPA Environmental Justice outreach efforts.

Additionally, a public outreach webinar was conducted during the comment period on January 

31, 2012 to review the proposed rule. The webinar was coordinated with the tribal governments 

and the general public. Further stakeholder and public input was received through public 

comment and follow-up meetings with interested stakeholders.

In addition, EPA/OAQPS conducted a three-part ICR to gather data from the pulp and 

paper industry. The results from Part I of this ICR were used in updating the burden estimates 

contained in this supporting statement.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that 

facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering 

and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices 
5

are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was 

collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control 

equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3(e) General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations 

established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.5.

3(f) Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made 

will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, 

subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, 

September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 

1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Respondents included in the subpart S source category are owners/operators of mills that 

are “major sources” of HAP emissions and produce pulp, perform bleaching, or manufacture 

paper or paperboard products.1

• 111 major source mills that carry out chemical wood pulping (kraft [97], sulfite [5], soda

[1], or semi-chemical [8]),

 According to results of EPA’s 2011 pulp and paper ICR, there 

are a total of 171 major source mills in the U.S. including:

• 33 major source mills that carry out mechanical, groundwood, secondary fiber, and nonwood pulping, and

• 27 major source mills that produce paper or paperboard (but do not produce pulp)

Some mills perform multiple operations (e.g., chemical pulping, bleaching, and 

papermaking; pulping and unbleached papermaking; etc.). For example, 72 of the major source 

mills listed above bleach with chlorinated compounds, and 156 major source mills manufacture 

paper or paperboard products (including both integrated and non-integrated paper mills). Mills 

that only purchase pre-consumer paper or paperboard stock products and convert them into other 

 1 As defined in 40 CFR Part 63, subpart A, “Major source” means any stationary source or group of stationary 

sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit 

considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or

more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants, unless the Administrator establishes a lesser quantity, or in the 

case of radionuclides, different criteria from those specified in this sentence.
6

products (i.e., converting operations) are not part of the Subpart S source category and are not 

affected by Subpart S. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for 

respondents affected by the information collection include 32211 for pulp mills, 32212 for paper 

mills, and 32213 for paperboard mills.

Of the 171 major sources, 114 are estimated to be affected by the Subpart S standards

(including 111 chemical pulp mills, and 3 non-integrated paper mills that bleach with chlorinated 

compounds. Some major source mills (e.g., stand-alone mechanical pulp mills, non-integrated 

paper mills) are not affected because they do not have any emission sources with requirements 

under Subpart S.

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart S. Subpart S references 40 CFR part 63, subpart A for several general reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements that apply for all NESHAP.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Requirement Regulation Reference

(40 CFR part 63)

Construction/reconstruction 63.5

Construction or modification application 63.455(d)

Initial notifications 63.9(b)(2)

Anticipated startup 63.9(b)

Actual startup 63.9(b)(4)(v)

Performance test results 63.10(d)(2), 63.455(h)

Performance tests 63.7(b), 63.9(e)

Rescheduled initial performance test 63.7(b)(2)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 63.9(g)

Compliance status 63.9(h)

Physical or operational change 63.5(b)(4)

Periodic malfunction reports 63.455(g)

Source status report 63.10(e)(3)

Semiannual Control Strategy Update (thru 2006) 63.455(b)

Reports of malfunctions that result in an exceedances of the standard for the 

purpose of affirmative defense

63.456
7

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping

Requirement Regulation Reference

(40 CFR part 63)

Periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative 63.10(b)(2)

Records of malfunctions 63.454(g)

Emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions 63.454(a)

All reports and notifications 63.10(b)

Record of applicability 63.10(b)(3)

Records for sources with continuous monitoring systems 63.10(c)

Records are required to be retained for five years. Records must be kept 

onsite for the first two years, for the remaining three years records can be 

kept in a readily accessible off-site location.

63.454

Site Specific Inspection Plans for closed vent systems 63.454(b)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides automated parameter data in an 

automated way, e.g., inlet and outlet concentrations when determining percent efficiency. 

Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring 

equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. 

Modern pulp and paper facilities employ distributive controls on their manufacturing process and 

have integrated many of the compliance record keeping and reporting requirements into their 

systems. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to 

allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden. However, 

electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated 

that approximately 10 percent of the respondents currently use electronic reporting. As part of 

the RTR amendments, respondents would be required to report test results using EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) for test methods supported by the ERT.2

 2 As of mid-2012, Method 26A is the only test method referenced in subpart S that is included in the ERT.
8

(ii) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities are as follows: 

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, certify, maintain, and operate Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) for each of the

following affected units: 

1.1 Non-Sulfite Pulping Process choice of:

 a. provide documentation that vent streams are introduced to the flame zone of a boiler, lime 

kiln, or recovery furnace, or

 b. provide documentation that the control incinerator is operating at a minimum level of 

1600 F and 0.75 second residence time, or

 c. Performance test of control device using Method 308.

1.2. Sulfite Pulping Process - performance test of control device using test method 308.

2.1. Bleaching Process Vent Scrubber - performance test of scrubber or control device using test 

Method 26A.

3.1 Non-Sulfite Pulping Wastewater Treatment

 a. performance test of condensate segregation and control device using test method 305 or 

 b. performance test of biotreatment unit using test Method 304.

3.2 Sulfite Pulping Process

 a. performance test of control device using test Method 305.

Conduct performance tests using appropriate Reference Test Methods 26A, 304, 305, 308, and repeat 

performance tests if necessary.

Conduct initial and annual inspections of enclosures, closed vent and wastewater conveyance systems 

using test Method 21.

Write the notifications and reports for: initial notification; compliance status; initial compliance 

strategy report; compliance strategy report update; semiannual summary report; continuous 

monitoring/exceedance reports; notifications of performance tests, construction/ reconstruction, and 

actual startup.

Enter information required to be recorded for continuous monitoring for operating parameters, periodic 

inspections (monthly visual and annual Method 21), malfunctions, personnel training and time for 

audits.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for 

the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and 

maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and 

providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.
9

In addition to the respondent activities listed above, EPA is including an estimate of the burden 

associated with performing an affirmative defense. EPA is providing this as an illustrative 

example of the potential additional administrative burden a source may incur to assert in an 

Affirmative Defense in response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in the applicable 

subpart. See section 6(b)(iv) of this ICR for details.

5. The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and 

Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, 

storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial and repeat performance tests.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, 

required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to 

determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. 

Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial and ongoing 

capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions, such as, 

control device fire box temperature, gas and liquid flow rates, production volume, wood species, 

under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are 

tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual 

reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and 

for compliance determinations.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for 

five years.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

Approximately 5 percent of the affected HAP major source facilities are considered small 

business entities, defined as being independently owned and operated and not dominant in their 

field of operations. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the 

types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same 

for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed 

to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent 

that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will 

be reduced.
10

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this 

specific subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutants. The impact on small 

businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the 

burden on small businesses. However, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the 

same for small and larger businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of 

scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these 

requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and cannot reduce them further for 

small businesses.

5(d) Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is 

shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Pulp and Paper 

Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S), (Amendments).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements applicable to the industry for each of the subparts included in this ICR. 

The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with 

the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks 

and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are 

mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements is estimated to be 52,304 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These 

hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the 

standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the 

previously approved ICR and any comments received. No burden estimates are provided for 

new sources because no new facilities are expected to become affected sources during the 3-year 

period of this ICR.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates: 

Managerial $118.92 ($56.63 + 110%)

Technical $97.78 ($46.56 + 110%)
11

Clerical $48.76 ($23.22 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 

December 2010, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group,” available at 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm. The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.” 

The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to 

those employed by private industry.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

Since no new continuous emission or parameter monitors beyond those that may already 

be in place are used to comply with this rule, the only type of industry costs associated with the 

information collection activity in the standards are labor costs and emission testing costs 

described below.

(iii) Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Since this rule does not require any new continuous emission monitoring or electronic 

monitoring data submittal, total capital costs are zero. Continuous monitoring requirements are 

for parametric monitoring and these systems are already in place; therefore, no new equipment 

would be required by the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. It is assumed that all mills 

will contract a testing company to provide sampling and analytical services for air and water 

tests.

Based on EPA’s experience the testing methods required for this rule, the purchase of 

service for each method is estimated below. These estimates include labor, materials, and 

analytical costs. The number of mills assumed to contract testing companies for compliance is 

presented in Table 1. For the entire industry, the number of tests required annually for 

demonstrating compliance and the associated cost are estimated as follows:

Method Count Cost, $ Total, $

Method 308 9 $14,000 $126,000 

Method 26A 38 $10,000 $380,000 

Method 304 3 $11,000 $ 33,000 

Method 305 5 $16,000 $ 80,000 

Method 21 74 $ 3,000 $222,000 

TOTAL $841,000 

Based on these estimates for testing costs and the number of mills assumed to perform 

compliance tests, the total annual cost to the industry is $841,000.

(iv) Affirmative Defense, Root Cause Analysis, and Malfunction Costs 

EPA’s estimate for a affirmative defense and root cause analysis is based on general 

experience to calculate the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview 
12

plant employees, and reconstruct the events prior to a malfunction in order to determine primary 

and contributing causes. The level of effort also includes time to produce and retain the report in 

document form so that the source will have it available should EPA or state enforcement 

agencies ever request to review it. 

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated 

with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, EPA provides an 

administrative adjustment to this ICR that estimates the costs of the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. EPA’s 

estimate for the required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis, 

associated with a single incident totals approximately $3,258 and is based on the time and effort 

required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also 

includes time to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to EPA. EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has 

been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Of the number of excess emission events reported by source operators, only a small 

number would be expected to result from a malfunction, and only a subset of excess emissions 

caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. 

Thus we believe the number of instances in which source operators might be expected to avail 

themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no 

more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for all sources within a given category over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. For the purpose of this estimate, we are adding two (2) instances of 

affirmative defense. We expect to gather information on such events in the future and will revise 

this estimate as better information becomes available. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported 

information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the 

examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of 

emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be 

$310,058, see Table 2 in Section 6(e).
13

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6)

Technical $46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6)

Clerical $25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011 General Schedule”

(http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf) which excludes locality rates of pay. These 

rates were increased by 60 percent to include fringe benefits and overhead. Details upon which 

this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost. The only costs to the 

Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall 

compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records and 

reports maintained by the respondents, periodic evaluation of sources of emissions, and the 

analysis, publication and distribution of collected information. The only Federal costs are user 

costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the 

information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the 

respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's 

overall compliance and enforcement program.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately 114 existing sources 

currently subject to the standard, all of which will keep records and submit reports. It is 

estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. 

The average number of respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 114. The number of 

total annual responses (calculated based on section 3.E in Table 1) is 522. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the 

Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

(i) Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $4,939,270. Details regarding these estimates may be 

found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production 

(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) attached. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 100 hours per 

response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $841,000. 

The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and 

Maintenance (O&M) Costs.
14

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 

6,874 labor hours at a cost of $310,058. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, 

NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) attached.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This ICR is prepared for amendments to the Pulp and Paper Production NESAHP (40 

CFR, Part 63, Subpart S). These amendments: (1) adjusted references to the Part 63 General 

Provisions (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart A) to remove the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

exemption; (2) added affirmative defense reporting to subpart S; and (3) added repeat (5-year) air 

emissions testing requirements for selected equipment. Adjustments for these amendments are 

reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR. 

The number of affected mills changed because of: (1) continued consolidation and 

closures within the pulp and paper industry which reduced the number of mills previously 

affected by Subpart S; and (2) updates to the number of affected major source mills based on 

EPA’s 2011 pulp and paper sector survey. Further, the percentages of mills using various 

compliance options were refined based on the results of EPA’s 2011 pulp and paper sector 

survey.

Costs per labor hour increased due to increases in labor rates. In addition, some rows in 

the former Table 1 were consolidated to eliminate obsolete references to “MACT I” versus 

“MACT III” since subpart S covers MACT I and MACT III processes. This consolidation 

eliminates redundancy and the potential for double counting mills with both types of processes.

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 100 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information 

to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data 

sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose 

the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control 

Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggestions for minimizing respondent burden, including through the 
15

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544, which is available for online viewing at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

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

Air Docket is (202) 566-1927. An electronic version of the public docket is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the 

Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503, Attention Desk Officer for EPA. Please include Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0544 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any correspondence. 

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this 

information.
Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) - Amendments

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 

 Burden Item

Person-hours 

per 

occurrence

Number of 

occurrences 

per year

Emissions 

Testing Cost 

Per 

Occurrence

Person-hours 

per 

respondent 

per year 

(C=AxB)

Number of 

respondents per 

year (a) Note

Technical 

personhours per 

year 

(E=CxD)

Managem

person-h

per ye

(F=Ex0.

1. Applications Not applicable2. Surveys and Studies Not applicable3. Reporting Requirements

A. Read and Understand Rule Requirements 30 1 $0 30 171 b,d 5,130 

B. Required Activities

1.1) Pulping processes (Non-Sulfite) 

a. Provide documentation that vent streams are introduced to the flame zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or 24 1 $0 24 5 c,e 120 b. Provide documentation that the control incinerator is operating at a minimum level of 1600 F and 0.75 sec residence time, or 60 1 $0 60 1 c,f 60 c. Performance test of control device - test method 308 24 1 $14,000 24 1 c,f,g,n 24 

1.2) Pulping Processes (Sulfite) 24 1 $14,000 24 1 c,g,i,n 24  Performance test of control device - test method 3082.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber

Performance test of scrubber or control device - test method 26A 24 1 $10,000 24 5 c,g,j,n 120 

3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment (Non-Sulfite)

a. Performance test of condensate segregation and control device (test method 305), or 24 1 $16,000 24 4 c,h,k,n 96 

b. Performance test of biotreatment unit - test method 304 24 1 $11,000 24 3 c,h,l,n 72 

3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment (Sulfite)  Performance test of control device - test method 305 24 1 $16,000 24 1 c,h,m,n 24 

4.1) Repeat of performance test (5-yr intervals) a. Test method 308 - pulping 24 1 $14,000 24 7 g,n,t 168 

 b. Test method 26A - bleaching 24 1 $10,000 24 33 g,n,t 792 4.2) Inspection of enclosures, closed vent, wastewater conveyance system

a. Initial/Annual inspection - test method 21 8 1 $3,000 8 74 o 592 b. Monthly visual inspection 4 12 $0 48 111 o 5,328 

C. Create Information Included in 3.BD. Gather Information Included in 3.B

E. Report Preparation

1) Initial Notification Report (<45 days after promulgation) 16 1 $0 16 0 c,d 0 

2) Notification of compliance status 16 1 $0 16 0 c,d 0 

3) Initial Compliance Strategy Report 40 1 $0 40 0 c,p 0 

4) Compliance Strategy Report Update 16 1 $0 16 0 p 0 

5) Semi-annual summary report 16 2 $0 32 114 d 3,648 

6) Continuous monitoring/Exceedance reports 24 2 $0 48 17 q 816 

7) Notification of performance test (>75 days before test) 4 1 $0 4 129 c,r 516 8) Notification of construction/reconstruction (>180 days beforehand) 4 1 $0 4 17 c,s 68 

9) Notification of actual startup (<150 days after startup) 4 1 $0 4 17 c,s 68 

10) Affirmative defense 30 1 $0 30 228 u 6,840 

4. Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Read Instructions Included in 3.AB. Plan Activities Included in 3.B

C. Implement Activities Included in 3.BD. Develop Record System 40 1 $0 40 114 c,d,v 4,560 

E. Record information

 Records of continuous monitoring for operating parameters 2 52 $0 104 114 d 11,856 
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 

 Burden Item

Person-hours 

per 

occurrence

Number of 

occurrences 

per year

Emissions 

Testing Cost 

Per 

Occurrence

Person-hours 

per 

respondent 

per year 

(C=AxB)

Number of 

respondents per 

year (a) Note

Technical 

personhours per 

year 

(E=CxD)

Managem

person-h

per ye

(F=Ex0.

 Records of periodic inspections (monthly visual inspections and annual method 21) Included in 3.B Record of malfunctions 2 12 $0 24 114 d 2,736 

F. Personnel Training Not applicable

G. Time for audits 8 2 $0 16 114 d 1,824 

Total: 45,482 2,

TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN SUMMARY: 

Total annual responses (based on 3.E) 522

Total annual labor hours 52,304

Average hours per response 100

Annual costs in dollars $4,939,270

Footnotes

a Values are rounded up to the nearest whole number.b MACT I Mills include kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical operations. MACT III Mills include mechanical, non-wood, and secondary fiber operations; along with papermaking at 

Only major sources are subject to Subpart S.

c One-time activity. In out years, after initial compliance date, assume that 5% of mills affected as a result of unexplained exceedances.

d Performed by all major source mills. (111 major MACT I Category Mills, 60 major stand-alone MACT III category mills) All MACT I category mills are affected by this rule. The only MACT III category mills affected by this rule are those bleaching with chlorinated compounds (3 mills). Total number of mills affected by this rule is 111 + 3 = 114e Approximately 85% of mills use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for control of pulping vents. There are 106 non-sulfite pulping mills. (85% of 106 = 90)f Approximately 15% of mills use incineration for pulping lines (assuming half of these provide acceptable design specs (8), and half conduct performance tests (8)) g Estimate includes test plan, test report, and parametric monitoring setup. Method 308 tests for pulping lines and method 26A tests for bleaching lines.h Estimate includes test plan, test report, and parametric monitoring setup. Method 304 and 305 are for wastewater streams.i Assume that all 5 sulfite pulping mills will conduct performance tests.j 69 MACT I and 3 MACT III category mills have bleaching lines that use chlorinated compounds. k Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device, with 60% of mills using stream strippers (60% of 97 = 58). Per footnote "c," 5% of 58= 3. Facilities with steam strippers are assumed to perform initial condensate segregation and performance tests.l Approximately 40% of kraft mills use biotreatment. (40% of 97 = 39) Per footnote "c," 5% of 39 = 2. Facilities with biotreatment control will perform initial performance tests.m Assume sulfite mills will monitor gas scrubber parameters and use Water-9 Model for emission estimates.n Assumed that 15% of performance tests are failed and need to be repeated.o Initial and annual activity. Assumed that EPA is notified each year of the testing. Assumed 2/3 of all MACT I mills have positive pressure points in their vent systems and will have to test using method 21 (2/3 x 111 = 74). Monthly visual inspections are to be conducted by chemical pulp mills (111).p The requirement for a compliance strategy report is now obsolete (required before 2006 only).q Assumed that 15% of all affected mills during any one quarter will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to the summary report. (15% of 115 = 17)r EPA must be notified of all tests including out-year repeat performance tests and tests conducted at 5-year intervals.s Assumed 15% of all affected mills conduct construction or reconstruction per year. (15% of 114 = 17)t Kraft/soda/semichemical mills using compliance options requiring testing (8 mills) are likely to have 3 emission points that would require 5-year repeat testing (LVHC, HVLC, and s Sulfite mills (5) are likely to have 1 emission point to be tested. Total no. M308 tests = [(8 mills x 3 points) + (5 mills x 1 point)] x 1.15 = 33. Annual no. of 5-year repeat M308 tests  Mills bleaching with chlorinated compounds (72 mills) are likely to have two emission points requiring M26A testing. Total no. of M26A tests = (72 x 2) x 1.15 = 166. Annual no. of  repeat M26A tests = 166/5=33 tests. u Assumes all affected mills (114) will have 2 malfunctions per year requiring affirmative defense review.v For this amendment ICR, includes time for reevaluating previously developed SSM-record system at 114 mills according to rule changes. [This time may be eliminated in future 3-y
Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost of the NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) - Amedments

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 

 Burden Item

Number of 

Respondents 

Per Year (a) Note

EPA Hours 

Per 

Respondent

Tech Hours 

Per Year 

(CxB)

Management 

Hours Per Year 

(D=Cx0.05)

Clerical Ho

Per Yea

(E=Cx0.1

1. Applications Not applicable2. Surveys and Studies Not applicable3. Reporting Requirements

A. Read and Understand Rule Requirements 171 a 6 1026 51 1

B. Required Activities

Initial performance tests:1.1) Pulping processes (Non-Sulfite) - Choice of:

a. Review Documentation that vent streams are introduced to the flame zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace, or 5 b,c 8 40 2 b. Review documentation that the control incinerator is operating at a level of at least 1600 F and 0.75 sec residence time, or 1 b,d 8 8 0 c. Review performance test of control device 1 b,d,i 8 8 0 

1.2) Pulping Processes (Sulfite) 1 b,e,i 8 8 0  -Revew performance test of control device2.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber

 -Review performance test of control device 5 b,f,i 8 40 2 

3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment system (Non-Sulfite) - Choice of:

a. Review performance test of condensate segregation and control device, or 4 b,g,i 8 32 2 

b. Review performance test of biotreatment unit 3 b,h,i 8 24 1 

3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment (Sulfite) -Review performance test of control device 1 b,e,i 8 8 0 4.1) Review repeat performance tests (5-yr intervals) a. Test method 308 - pulping 7 i,q 8 56 3 

 b. Test method 26A - bleaching 33 i,q 8 264 1 

4.2) Inspection of enclosures, closed vent, wastewater conveyance system

a. Initial/Annual inspection - test method 21 74 j 0 0 0 b. Monthly visual inspection 111 j 0 0 0 

C. Create Information Included in 3.BD. Gather Information Included in 3.B

E. Report Preparation

 Review Initial Notification Report 0 b 4 0 0 

 Review Notification of compliance status 0 b 4 0 0 

 Review initial compliance strategy report 0 b,p 4 0 0 

 Review compliance strategy report update 0 b,p 4 0 0 

 Review Semi-annual summary report 114 k 2 228 11 

 Review Continuous monitoring/Exceedance reports 17 m 8 136 7 

 Review Notification of performance test 129 b,n 8 1032 52 1 Review Notification of construction/reconstruction 17 b,o 4 68 3  Review Notification of actual startup 17 b,o 4 68 3  Review Affirmative Defense 228 r 8 1824 91 1

4. Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Read Instructions Included in 3.AB. Plan Activities Included in 3.B

C. Implement Activities Included in 3.BD. Develop Record System 114 b,k 0 0 0 

E. Record information

Review records of monitoring parameters 114 k 1 114 6 
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 

 Burden Item

Number of 

Respondents 

Per Year (a) Note

EPA Hours 

Per 

Respondent

Tech Hours 

Per Year 

(CxB)

Management 

Hours Per Year 

(D=Cx0.05)

Clerical Ho

Per Yea

(E=Cx0.1

Review records of periodic inspections (monthly visual inspections and annual method 21) Included in 3.BReview records of malfunctions 114 k 1 114 6 

F. Personnel Training Not applicable

G. Time for audits 114 k 8 912 46 

Total: 6010 288 5TOTAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN SUMMARY:Total hours per year 6,874Annual costs in dollars $310,058

Footnotes

a Values are rounded up to nearest whole number. There are 171 majour source mills (111 MACT mills producing chemical pulp, and 60 stand-alone MACT III catego All MACT I category mills are afftected by this rule. The only MACT III category mills affected by this rule are those bleaching with chlorinated compounds (3 mills). Total number of mills affected by this rule is 111 + 3 = 114b One-time activity. After initial compliance date, assume that 5% of mills affected as a result of unexplained exceedances.c Approximately 85% of mills use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for control of pulping vents. There are 106 non-sulfite pulping mills. (85% of 106 = 90)d Approximately 15% of mills use incineration for pulping lines (assuming half of these provide acceptable design specs (8), and half conduct performance tests (8))e Assume that all 5 sulfite pulping mills will conduct performance tests.f 69 MACT I and 3 MACT III category mills have bleaching lines that use chlorinated compounds.g Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device, with 60% of mills using stream strippers (60% of 97 = 58).  Facilities installing new biotreatment control will perform initial performance tests.h Approximately 40% of kraft mills use biotreatment. (40% of 97 = 39)i Assumed that 15% of performance tests are failed and need to be repeated.j Initial and annual activity. Assumed that EPA is notified each year of the testing. Assumed 2/3 of all MACT I mills have positive pressure points in their vent systems and will have to test using method 21 (2/3 x 111 = 74). Monthly visual inspections are to be conducted by chemical pulp mills (111).k Performed for all affected mills. (114)l Performed for all kraft mills. (97)m Assumed that 15% of all mills during any one quarter will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to the summary report. (15% of 114 = 17)n EPA must be notified of all tests including out-year repeat performance tests and tests conducted at 5-year intervals.o Assumed 15% of mills conduct construction or reconstruction per year. (15% of 114 = 17)p The requirement for a compliance strategy report is now obsolete (required before 2006 only).q Kraft/soda/semichemical mills using compliance options requiring testing (8 mills) are likely to have 3 emission points that would require 5-year repeat testing (LVHC Sulfite mills (5) are likely to have 1 emission point to be tested. Total no. M308 tests = [(8 mills x 3 points) + (5 mills x 1 point)] x 1.15 = 33. Annual no. of 5-year repe Mills bleaching with chlorinated compounds (72 mills) are likely to have two emission points requiring M26A testing. Total no. of M26A tests = (72 x 2) x 1.15 = 166.  repeat M26A tests = 166/5=33 tests. r Assumes all affected mills (114) will have 2 malfunctions per year requiring affirmative defense review.