81328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0544; FRL–9609–8] 

RIN 2060–AQ41 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Pulp and Paper Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for the pulp and paper industry to 

address the results of the residual risk 

and technology review that the EPA is 

required to conduct under sections 

112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean Air Act. 

These proposed amendments include 

revisions to the kraft pulping process 

condensates standards; a requirement 

for 5-year repeat emissions testing for 

selected process equipment; revisions to 

provisions addressing periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction; 

additional test methods for measuring 

methanol; and technical and editorial 

changes. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 27, 2012. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget receives a copy of your 

comments on or before January 26, 

2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by January 6, 2012, a public 

hearing will be held on January 11, 

2012. 

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 Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web site. 

• 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 total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: In person 

or by courier, deliver comments to the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0544. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include two copies. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2007–0544. The EPA policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be confidential business 

information or otherwise protected 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

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

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0544. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on January 

11, 2012 and will be held at the EPA 

campus in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, or at an alternate facility 

nearby. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony or inquiring as to 

whether a public hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

Natural Resources Group (E143–03), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

4487. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. John Bradfield, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, (E143– 

03), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3062; fax number: (919) 541–3470; and 

email address: bradfield.john@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. 

James Hirtz, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants to a particular 

entity, contact the appropriate person 

listed in Table 1 to this preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81329 

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA Contact 1 OAQPS Contacts 2

Pulp and Paper .................................................. Sara Ayres (202) 564–5391 

ayres.sara@epa.gov..

John Bradfield (919) 541–3062 

bradfield.john@epa.gov. 

1EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

ADAF Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

AERMOD Air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BBDR Biologically-Based Dose-Response 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCA Clean Condensate Alternative 

CD ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEEL Community Emergency Exposure 

Levels 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ft Feet 

ft3 Cubic Feet 

FTE Full-Time Equivalents 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model version 3 

HI Hazard Index 

HON Hazardous Organic National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

hr Hour 

HVLC High Volume Low Concentration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

ISIS Industrial Sectors Integrated Solution 

Model 

km Kilometer 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

lb Pounds 

LVHC Low Volume High Concentration 

m3 Cubic Meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

mg Milligrams 

MIR Maximum Individual Risk 

MRL Minimal Risk Level 

NAC/AEGL National Advisory Committee 

for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NCASI National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS New Source Performance Standard 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards 

ODTP Oven-Dried Tons of Pulp 

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

ppm Parts Per Million 

ppmw Parts Per Million by Weight 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

QA Quality Assurance 

QC Quality Control 

RACT Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL Reference Exposure Level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC Reference Concentration 

RfD Reference Dose 

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCC Source Classification Code 

Sec Second 

SISNOSE Significant Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TRI Toxics Release Inventory 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TRIM.FaTE Fate, Transport and 

Environmental Exposure module of EPA’s 

Total Risk Integrated Modeling System 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF Uncertainty Factor 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

URE Unit Risk Estimate 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WWW Worldwide Web 

mg 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 information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the MACT standard regulate its HAP 

emissions? 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source category? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

D. What other issues are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

D. What other actions are we proposing? 

E. Compliance Dates 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities 

over broad areas. 

B. 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 Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, after the EPA 

has identified categories of sources 

emitting one or more of the HAP listed 

in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 

112(d) calls for us to promulgate 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit or have the 

potential to emit 10 tpy or more of a 

single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these technology-based standards must 

reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements and nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as MACT 

standards. 

Maximum achievable control 

technology standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

through the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems or 

techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that: (A) Reduce the 

volume of or eliminate pollutants 

through process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (B) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (D) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (E) 

are a combination of the above (CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E)). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines either that: (A) A pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutants, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (B) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations (CAA sections 

112(h)(1)–(2)). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this 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 (DC Cir., 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining 

‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks, and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– 

453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress 

did not act in response to the report, 

thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation 

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

and address residual risk. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

us to determine, for source categories 

subject to certain MACT standards, 

whether those emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. If the MACT 

standards apply to a source category 

emitting a HAP that is ‘‘classified as a 

known, probable, or possible human 

carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed to emissions from a source in 

the category or subcategory to less than 

one in one million,’’ the EPA must 

promulgate residual risk standards for 

the source category (or subcategory) as 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health (CAA 

section 112(f)(2)(A)). This requirement 

is procedural. It mandates that the EPA 

establish CAA section 112(f) residual 

risk standards if certain risk thresholds 

are not satisfied but does not determine 

the level of those standards. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The second 

sentence of CAA section 112(f)(2) sets 

out the substantive requirements for 

residual risk standards: Protection of 

public health with an ample margin of 

safety based on the EPA’s interpretation 

of this standard in effect at the time of 

the CAA amendments. Id. This refers to 

the Benzene NESHAP, described in the 

next paragraph. The EPA may adopt 

residual risk standards equal to existing 

MACT standards (or to standards 

adopted after the technology review 

required by CAA section 112(d)(6)) if 

the EPA determines that the existing 

standards are sufficiently protective, 

even if (for example) excess cancer risks 

to a most exposed individual are not 

reduced to less than 1 in 1 million. Id. 

at 1083, (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards 

provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

then the Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking’’). Section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA further authorizes the EPA to 

adopt more stringent standards, if 

necessary, ‘‘to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect.’’ 1

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

expressly preserves our use of the twostep process for developing standards to 

address any residual risk and our 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81331 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). The first step in this process is 

the determination of acceptable risk. 

The second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is required to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety and other relevant factors, 

an adverse environmental effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA 

concluded that the EPA’s interpretation 

of CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable 

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

(D. C. Cir. 2008), which says 

‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the 

Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

standard, complete with a citation to the 

Federal Register.’’ See also, A 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 

(Senate debate on Conference Report). 

We also notified Congress in the 

Residual Risk Report to Congress that 

we intended to use the Benzene 

NESHAP approach in making CAA 

section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by: (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

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

1 million] the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The agency also stated that, ‘‘The EPA 

also considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The agency 

went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

the EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but rather considers 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

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

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a 

judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable 

in the world in which we live’’ 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 

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

Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 

1165) recognizing that our world is not 

risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk as being 

‘‘the estimated risk that a person living 

near a plant would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledge that maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100 in 1 

million (1 in 10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. Id. 

Further, in the Benzene NESHAP, we 

noted that, ‘‘Particular attention will 

also be accorded to the weight of 

evidence presented in the risk 

assessment of potential carcinogenicity 

or other health effects of a pollutant. 

While the same numerical risk may be 

estimated for an exposure to a pollutant 

judged to be a known human 

carcinogen, and to a pollutant 

considered a possible human carcinogen 

based on limited animal test data, the 

same weight cannot be accorded to both 

estimates. In considering the potential 

public health effects of the two 

pollutants, the Agency’s judgment on 

acceptability, including the MIR, will be 

influenced by the greater weight of 

evidence for the known human 

carcinogen.’’ Id. at 38046. 

The agency also explained in the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP the following: ‘‘In 

establishing a presumption for MIR 

[maximum individual cancer risk], 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, 

the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious 

health effects within the exposed 

population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime 

risk range and associated incidence 

within, typically, a 50 km exposure 

radius around facilities, the science 

policy assumptions and estimation 

uncertainties associated with the risk 

measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health 

effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘‘acceptable’’ by the EPA in the 

first step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry 

are already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘‘ample margin 

of safety,’’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further.’’ 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties, and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the Agency will establish the standard 

at a level that provides an ample margin 

of safety to protect the public health as 

required by section 112.’’ 

In NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals 

held that section 112(f)(2) ‘‘incorporates 

EPA’s ‘interpretation’ of the Clean Air 

Act from the Benzene Standard, and the 

text of this provision draws no 

distinction between carcinogens and 

non-carcinogens.’’ Additionally, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 noncarcinogens. The D.C. Circuit rejected 

this position, holding that the text of 

that provision ‘‘draws no distinction 

between carcinogens and noncarcinogens,’’ Id., and that Congress’ 

incorporation of the Benzene standard 

applies equally to carcinogens and noncarcinogens. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated industrial source 

category that is the subject of this 

proposal is listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. This standard, and any 

changes considered in this rulemaking, 

would be directly applicable to affected 

sources. Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities are not affected by 

this proposed action. As defined in the 

Source Category Listing Report 

published by the EPA in 1992, the pulp 

and paper production source category 

includes any facility engaged in the 

production of pulp and/or paper. This 

category includes, but is not limited to, 

integrated mills (where pulp and paper 

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

pulp or paper/paperboard are 

manufactured on-site, but not both), and 

secondary fiber mills (where waste 

paper is used as the primary raw 

material). Examples of pulping methods 

include kraft, soda, sulfite, semichemical and mechanical. 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS 

code 1

MACT 

code 2

Pulp and Paper ................................................................. Pulp and Paper ................................................................ 322 1626–1 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

WWW through the EPA’s TNN. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web page at http:// 

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

This information includes source 

category descriptions and detailed 

emissions estimates and other data that 

were used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0544. 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the MACT standard regulate its HAP 

emissions? 

The pulp and paper production 

source category includes any facility 

engaged in the production of pulp and/ 

or paper. This category includes, but is 

not limited to, integrated mills (where 

pulp and paper or paperboard are 

manufactured on-site), non-integrated 

mills (where paper/paperboard or pulp 

are manufactured, but not both), and 

secondary fiber mills (where waste 

paper is used as the primary raw 

material). The pulp and paper 

production process includes operations 

such as pulping, bleaching, chemical 

recovery and papermaking. Different 

pulping processes are used, including 

chemical processes (kraft, soda, sulfite 

and semi-chemical) and mechanical, 

secondary fiber or non-wood processes. 

The NESHAP from the pulp and 

paper Industry (or MACT rule) was 

promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 

18504) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart S. As promulgated in 1998, the 

subpart S MACT standard applies to 

major sources of HAP emissions from 

the pulp production areas (e.g., pulping 

system vents, pulping process 

condensates) at chemical, mechanical, 

secondary fiber and non-wood pulp 

mills; bleaching operations; and 

papermaking systems. A separate 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM) 

applicable to chemical recovery 

processes at kraft, soda, sulfite and 

stand-alone semi-chemical pulp mills 

was promulgated on January 12, 2001 

(66 FR 3180). However, only subpart S 

is undergoing the RTR that is the subject 

of this proposal. 

This is the first in a series of rules 

being developed for the pulp and paper 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81333 

2Part II of the ICR will be available for download 

on the RTR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

3The docket for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides more 

information on the risk assessment inputs and 

models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp 

and Paper Source Category. 

industrial sector. This proposal includes 

both a risk assessment and a technology 

review of the emission sources in 

subpart S, as well as a risk assessment 

of the whole facility. The whole facility 

risk assessment includes emissions from 

the other sources in the pulp and paper 

industrial sector: boilers covered under 

subpart DDDDD, chemical recovery 

systems covered under subpart MM, 

various sources covered under the NSPS 

for kraft pulp mills (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BB), and other applicable 

MACT emission sources. In the future, 

we will also conduct a RTR for the 

subpart MM category, as well as a 

review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS, 

subpart BB. When we conduct the RTR 

for the subpart MM rule, subpart S 

emission sources will be included in the 

facilitywide risk assessment. 

According to results of the EPA’s 2011 

pulp and paper ICR, there are a total of 

171 major sources in the United States 

including: 

• 111 major sources that carry out 

chemical wood pulping (kraft, sulfite, 

soda or semi-chemical); 

• 33 major sources that carry out 

mechanical, groundwood, secondary 

fiber and non-wood pulping (without 

chemical wood pulping); 

• 94 major sources that perform 

bleaching; and 

• 156 major sources that manufacture 

paper or paperboard products. 

Facilities in the category perform at 

least one of several pulp and 

papermaking operations (e.g., chemical 

pulping, bleaching and papermaking; 

pulping and unbleached papermaking; 

etc.). 

Subpart S includes numerical 

emission limits for pulping system 

vents, pulping process condensates and 

bleaching system vents. The control 

systems used by most mills to meet the 

subpart S emission limits are as follows: 

• Pulping system vents—thermal 

oxidizers, power boilers, lime kilns and 

recovery furnaces. 

• Pulping process condensates— 

steam strippers, biological treatment 

and recycling to pulping equipment that 

is controlled by the pulping vent 

standards. 

• Bleaching system vents—caustic 

scrubbers (for chlorinated HAPs, other 

than chloroform) and process 

modifications to eliminate the use of 

chlorine and hypochlorite. 

Facilities that only purchase preconsumer 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. 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

In February 2011, the EPA issued an 

ICR, pursuant to CAA section 114, to 

United States pulp and paper 

manufacturers to gather information 

needed to conduct the regulatory 

reviews required under CAA sections 

112(d)(6) and (f)(2). The ICR was 

divided into three parts, with each part 

due on a different date. Part I requested 

available information regarding subpart 

S process equipment, control devices, 

pulp and paper production, bleaching 

and other aspects of facility operations, 

to support the subpart S technology 

review and a later review of the kraft 

pulp mills NSPS under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BB. Part II requested updated 

inventory data for all pulp and paper 

emission sources, to support the 

residual risk assessment for the pulp 

and paper sector (including subparts S 

and MM) and to both supplement and 

update the NEI for the source category. 

Part III requested available information 

on subpart MM chemical recovery 

combustion equipment, control devices, 

etc., to support a later subpart MM 

technology review (which will include 

a source category and a facilitywide risk 

assessment) and a subpart BB NSPS 

review. Responses to all three parts of 

the ICR have been received and data 

from the first two parts of the ICR have 

been compiled. The response rate for 

the subpart S ICR was 100 percent.2

III. Analyses Performed 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR for this 

source category. 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source category? 

The EPA conducted risk assessments 

that provided estimates of (1) the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from the 

171 pulp and paper mills in the source 

category, (2) the distribution of cancer 

and noncancer risks within the exposed 

populations, (3) the total cancer 

incidence, (4) estimates of the maximum 

TOSHI for chronic exposures to HAP 

with the potential to cause chronic 

noncancer health effects, (5) worst-case 

screening estimates of HQ for acute 

exposures to HAP with the potential to 

cause noncancer health effects, and (6) 

an evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects. The risk 

assessments consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below.3 The methods 

used to assess risks (as described in the 

seven primary steps below) are 

consistent with those peer-reviewed by 

a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009 and 

described in their peer review report 

issued in 2010; they are also consistent 

with the key recommendations 

contained in that report. 

1. Establishing the Nature and 

Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 

Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we used data from Part II of 

the pulp and paper ICR as the basis for 

the risk assessment. Part II of the ICR, 

which concluded in June 2011, targeted 

facilities that are major sources of HAP 

emissions and involved an update of 

pre-populated NEI data spreadsheets (or 

creation of new NEI datasets). The NEI 

is a database that contains information 

about sources that emit criteria air 

pollutants, their precursors and HAP. 

The NEI database includes estimates of 

actual annual air pollutant emissions 

from point and volume sources; 

emission release characteristic data such 

as emission release height, temperature, 

diameter, velocity and flow rate; and 

location latitude/longitude coordinates. 

The actual annual emissions data in 

the NEI database were based on data 

from actual emissions tests and 

estimates of actual emissions (based on 

emission factors) provided by subpart S 

sources surveyed in Part II of the ICR. 

We received a comprehensive set of 

emissions test data and emissions 

estimates that enabled us to conduct 

risk modeling of detectable HAP 

emissions for all major source facilities 

in the pulp and paper category. 

Two substantial QA efforts were 

conducted on the Part II data in order 

to create the modeling files needed for 

the residual risk assessment, which 

included: (1) QA of the updated 

inventory spreadsheets submitted by 

each mill prior to import into the 

compiled database; and (2) QA and 

standardization of the compiled 

database. 

We reviewed the NEI datasets to 

ensure that the major pulp and paper 

processes and pollutants were included 

and properly identified, to ensure that 

emissions from the various processes 

were allocated to the correct source 

category (e.g., MACT code 1626–1), and 

to identify emissions and other data 

anomalies that could affect risk 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4For more information, see the memorandum in 

the docket titled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper 

Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling. 5 Ibid. 

6A. Someshwar, NCASI. Compilation of ‘‘Air 

Toxic’’ and Total Hydrocarbon Emissions Data for 

Pulp and Paper Mill Sources—A Second Update. 

Technical Bulletin No. 973. February 2010. 7For more information, see the memorandum in 

the docket titled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper 

Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling. 8 Ibid. 

9 Ibid. 

10 Ibid. 

11 Ibid. 

estimates. We also standardized the 

various codes (e.g., SCCs, pollutant 

codes), eliminated duplicate records 

and checked geographic coordinates. 

We reviewed emissions release 

parameters for data gaps and errors, 

assigned the proper default parameters 

where necessary, segregated the 

emission points into logical emission 

process groups and ensured that fugitive 

release dimensions were specified or 

given default values where necessary. 

We made changes based on available 

information, including updated 

information voluntarily submitted by 

pulp and paper mills.4

We assigned emissions process groups 

to distinguish between processes with 

related SCCs. For mills with VOC 

emissions data but no HAP emissions 

data, we developed HAP-to-VOC ratios 

to estimate HAP emissions, using HAP 

and VOC emission factors provided by 

NCASI.5 However, as noted above, most 

emissions factors were based on actual 

tests or actual tests conducted at similar 

sources (see NCASI Technical Bulletin 

No. 973).6 Additionally, the largest HAP 

emission compound in the category, 

methanol, at approximately 86 percent 

of the HAP in the category, is required 

to be quantified in each compliance test 

referenced in the standard. 

Consequently, the greatest proportion of 

HAP emissions at each facility are based 

on emission factors derived from actual 

source specific tests. 

For purposes of risk modeling, we 

reviewed emissions data for chromium, 

mercury, POM and glycol ether in order 

to properly speciate emissions. 

Chromium emissions were speciated as 

hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) 

and trivalent chromium (chromium III).7

Mercury emissions were speciated as 

particulate divalent mercury, gaseous 

divalent mercury and elemental gaseous 

mercury.8 Total POM emissions were 

speciated differently for each emission 

unit type (e.g., gas- or oil-fired paper 

machine dryers) based on the most 

common POM compounds emitted from 

that unit (e.g., phenanthrene, fluorene, 

pyrene, fluoranthene and/or 2- 

methylnaphthalene). We speciated all 

total glycol ether records as 1,2- 

dimethoxyethane, since this pollutant 

represents 99 percent of all emissions 

reported under the glycol ether 

compounds category from pulp and 

paper emission sources.9 Acrolein 

emissions were removed from the 

subpart S modeling file due to 

uncertainty in the emissions 

estimates.10

In addition, we reviewed facilitywide 

data included in the NEI dataset from 

the EPA’s TRI to ensure that 

combustion-related dioxin/furan 

emissions were apportioned to the 

proper MACT code (0107 or 1626–2). As 

expected, there were no dioxin/furan 

emissions data for subpart S sources 

(MACT code 1626–1).11

The Part II NEI emissions dataset for 

the pulp and paper (subpart S) source 

category shows 45,000 tpy of total HAP 

emissions from the 171 mills in the 

dataset. Methanol, acetaldehyde, cresol/ 

cresylic acid (mixed isomers), phenol, 

chloroform, formaldehyde, hydrochloric 

acid, biphenyl, hexachloroethane, 

xylenes, propionaldehyde and 1,2,4- 

trichlorobenzene account for the 

majority of the HAP emissions reported 

for pulp and paper production 

(approximately 43,900 tpy, or 97 

percent). The remaining 3 percent of the 

HAP, reported in lesser quantities, 

include acetophenone, benzene, 

cumene, carbon disulfide, chlorine, 

methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene 

chloride (dichloromethane), 

naphthalene, styrene, 

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), 

toluene, trichloroethylene and 56 

others. Methanol, which accounts for 

about 86 percent of the total HAP mass 

emissions, is the HAP emitted by the 

largest number of facilities, with 

methanol reported for 166 out of 171 

mills in the dataset (or 97 percent). 

Emissions of the following PB–HAP 

were identified in the emissions 

inventory for the pulp and paper 

(subpart S) source category: cadmium 

compounds, lead compounds, mercury 

compounds and POM. As a standard 

practice in conducting risk assessments 

for source categories, the EPA conducts 

a two-step process: (1) Are PB–HAPs 

being emitted; and (2) are they being 

released above screening thresholds? If 

these releases are significantly above the 

screening thresholds and the EPA has 

detailed information on the releases and 

the site, a complete multipathway 

analysis of the site will be conducted to 

estimate pathway risks for the source 

category. Further information about the 

analysis performed for this category 

follows in section III.B.4 of this 

preamble. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACTAllowable Emissions Levels 

The available emissions data in the 

Part II NEI emissions dataset include 

estimates of the mass of HAP actually 

emitted during the 2009 time period 

covered under the survey. These 

‘‘actual’’ emissions levels are often 

lower than the emissions levels that a 

facility might be allowed to emit and 

still comply with the MACT standards. 

The emissions levels allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards are 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions levels. These represent the 

highest emissions levels that could be 

emitted by the facility without violating 

the MACT standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

HON residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level at which sources could emit while 

still complying with the MACT 

standards. However, we also explained 

that it is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989). It is reasonable to 

consider actual emissions because 

sources typically seek to perform better 

than required by emissions standards to 

provide an operational cushion to 

accommodate the variability in 

manufacturing processes and control 

device performance. Facilities’ actual 

emissions may also be significantly 

lower than MACT-allowable emissions 

for other reasons such as state 

requirements, better performance of 

control devices than required by the 

MACT standards or reduced production. 

As described earlier in this section, 

actual emissions were based on the Part 

II NEI emissions dataset. To estimate 

emissions at the MACT-allowable level, 

we developed a ratio of MACTallowable to actual emissions for each 

source type for the facilities in the 

source category. This ratio is based on 

the level of control required by the 

subpart S MACT standards compared to 

the level of reported actual emissions 

and available information from the Part 

I survey on the level of control achieved 

by the emissions controls in use. For 

example, if survey data indicated that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81335 

12 Ibid. 

13 Ibid. 

14U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

15A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

16The IRIS information is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/IRIS. 

17U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments 

that include carcinogens described in the 

Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic 

mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Work Group 

Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated 

June 14, 2006. 

18See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories 

document available in the docket for a list of HAP 

with a mutagenic mode of action. 

19U.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. 

an emission point type was being 

controlled by 92 percent, while the 

MACT standard required only 87 

percent control, we would estimate that 

MACT-allowable emissions from that 

emission point type could be as much 

as 1.6 times higher (13 percent 

allowable emissions compared with 8 

percent actually emitted), and the ratio 

of MACT-allowable to actual would be 

1.6:1 for this emission point type.12

After developing these ratios for each 

emission point type in this source 

category, we next applied these ratios 

on an emission process unit basis to the 

Part II actual emissions data to obtain 

risk estimates based on MACTallowable emissions.13

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the HEM–3 human 

exposure model. The HEM–3 performs 

three of the primary risk assessment 

activities listed above: (1) Conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

(2) estimating long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 km of the modeled 

sources, and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM– 

3 is AERMOD, which is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.14 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for 130 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library of United States Census 

Bureau census block 15 internal point 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. In 

addition, for each census block, the 

census library includes the elevation 

and controlling hill height which are 

also used in dispersion calculations. A 

third library of pollutant unit risk 

factors and other health benchmarks is 

used to estimate health risks. These risk 

factors and health benchmarks are the 

latest values recommended by the EPA 

for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

These values are available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/ 

summary.html and are discussed in 

more detail later in this section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were 

primarily used as a surrogate for the 

chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who 

reside in that census block. There were 

two exceptions to this. In those cases 

where we identified census block 

centroids which were located on-site, 

these centroids were re-assigned to a 

nearby residential location. In those 

cases where nearby census blocks were 

abnormally large, additional residential 

receptors were placed within those 

census blocks at observable residences 

to ensure an adequate representation of 

chronic risks to the nearby residences. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of an inhabited census block. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter) by its URE, which is an 

upper bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. In general, for 

residual risk assessments, we use URE 

values from the EPA’s IRIS.16 For 

carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using CalEPA URE values, where 

available. In cases where new, 

scientifically credible dose-response 

values have been developed in a manner 

consistent with EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process 

similar to that used by the EPA, we may 

use such dose-response values in place 

of, or in addition to, other values, if 

appropriate. 

In 2004, the EPA determined that the 

CIIT cancer dose-response value for 

formaldehyde (5.5 × 10¥9 per mg/m3) 

was based on better science than the 

IRIS dose-response value (1.3 × 10¥5 per 

mg/m3), and we switched from using the 

IRIS value to the CIIT value in risk 

assessments supporting regulatory 

actions. Based on subsequent published 

research, however, the EPA changed its 

determination regarding the CIIT model, 

and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using 

the 1991 IRIS value. The NAS 

completed its review of the EPA’s draft 

assessment in April of 2011 (http:// 

www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record 

id=13142), and the EPA has been 

working on revising the formaldehyde 

assessment. The EPA will follow the 

NAS Report recommendations and will 

present results obtained by 

implementing the BBDR model for 

formaldehyde. The EPA will compare 

these estimates with those currently 

presented in the External Review draft 

of the assessment and will discuss their 

strengths and weaknesses. As 

recommended by the NAS committee, 

appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty 

analyses will be an integral component 

of implementing the BBDR model. The 

draft IRIS assessment will be revised in 

response to the NAS peer review and 

public comments and the final 

assessment will be posted on the IRIS 

database. In the interim, we will present 

findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a 

primary estimate and may also consider 

other information as the science 

evolves. 

We note here that POM, a 

carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic 

mode of action, is emitted by some of 

the facilities in this category.17 For this 

compound,18 the ADAF described in the 

EPA’s Supplemental Guidance for 

Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life 

Exposure to Carcinogens 19 were 

applied. This adjustment has the effect 

of increasing the estimated lifetime risks 

for this pollutant by a factor of 1.6. In 

addition, although only a small fraction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated 

June 14, 2006. 

21These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

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

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of EPA’s NATA titled, NATA—Evaluating 

the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 

Data—an SAB Advisory, available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ 

ecadv02001.pdf. 

22NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

of the total POM emissions were not 

reported as individual compounds, the 

EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for 

compounds in this group in terms of 

benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on 

evidence that carcinogenic POM has the 

same mutagenic mechanism of action as 

does benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, 

the EPA’s Science Policy Council 20

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 sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 21) emitted by the modeled 

source. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of the 

source were also estimated for the 

source category as part of these 

assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) 

and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of noncancer health 

effects from chronic exposures, we 

summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or TOSHI). The HQ is the 

estimated exposure divided by the 

chronic reference value, which is either 

the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime,’’ or, in cases where a 

RfC is not available, the ATSDR chronic 

MRL or the CalEPA Chronic REL. The 

REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration 

level at or below which no adverse 

health effects are anticipated for a 

specified exposure duration.’’ As noted 

above, in cases where new, scientifically 

credible dose-response values have been 

developed in a manner consistent with 

EPA guidelines and have undergone a 

peer review process similar to that used 

by the EPA, we may use those doseresponse values in place of or, in 

addition to, other values. 

Worst-case screening estimates of 

acute exposures and risks were also 

evaluated for each of the HAP at the 

point of highest offsite exposure for 

each facility (i.e., not 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, shortterm dose-response value. These acute 

dose-response values include REL, 

AEGL and ERPG for 1-hour exposure 

durations. As discussed below, we used 

conservative assumptions for emission 

rates, meteorology and exposure 

location for our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Reference exposure 

level values are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the medical and 

toxicological literature. Reference 

exposure level values are designed to 

protect the most sensitive individuals in 

the population by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. Since margins of 

safety are incorporated to address data 

gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the 

REL does not automatically indicate an 

adverse health impact. 

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

were derived in response to 

recommendations from the NRC. As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),22 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—CEEL—was replaced by the term 

AEGL to reflect the broad application of 

these values to planning, response, and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ This document also states that 

AEGL values ‘‘represent threshold 

exposure limits for the general public 

and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 

hours.’’ The document lays out the 

purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating (page 21) that ‘‘the primary 

purpose of the AEGL program and the 

NAC/AEGL Committee is to develop 

guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, 

short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, highpriority chemicals.’’ In detailing the 

intended application of AEGL values, 

the document states (page 31) that ‘‘[i]t 

is anticipated that the AEGL values will 

be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by United 

States federal and state agencies, and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above 

which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81337 

23ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

24More 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. 

Association’s document titled, 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/ 

1documents/committees/ 

ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, 

‘‘Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health-based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 23

The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 

objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, the 

ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed; in these instances, 

higher severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG– 

2 values are compared to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential 

acute concerns. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

threshold (usually the AEGL–1 and/or 

the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures, we first developed 

estimates of maximum hourly emission 

rates by multiplying the average actual 

annual hourly emission rates by a factor 

to cover routinely variable emissions. 

An acute multiplication factor of 1.6 

was used for papermaking equipment 

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

repulping) based on a paper machine 

peak-to-mean analysis. Similarly, a 

peak-to-mean multiplier of 2 was used 

for pulp and paper wastewater 

treatment units based on analysis of 

data from pulp and paper primary 

clarifiers and aerated stabilization 

basins. Peak-to-mean multipliers 

ranging from 1 to 3.1 were developed for 

other types of pulp and paper 

equipment based on the routine annual 

emissions data and peak hourly 

emissions data obtained from Part II 

survey data.24

In cases where all acute HQ values 

from the screening step were less than 

or equal to 1, acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In the cases 

where an acute HQ from the screening 

step was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

The data refinements included using 

site-specific facility layouts, as 

available, to distinguish facility 

property from an area where the public 

could access and be exposed. These 

refinements are discussed in the draft 

risk assessment documents, which are 

available in the docket for this source 

category. Ideally, we would prefer to 

have continuous measurements over 

time to see how the emissions vary by 

each hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emission rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. However, we recognize that 

having this level of data is rare, and 

hence our use of the multiplier 

approach. 

4. Multipathway Exposure and Risk 

Screening 

The potential for significant human 

health risks due to exposures via routes 

other than inhalation (i.e., 

multipathway exposures) and the 

potential for adverse environmental 

impacts were evaluated in a three-step 

process. In the first step, we determined 

whether any facilities emitted any HAP 

known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB– 

HAP). There are 14 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 dibenzodioxins and furans, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, 

methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene and 

trifluralin. Emissions of four different 

PB–HAP were identified in the Part II 

NEI emissions dataset for the pulp and 

paper (subpart S) source category: 

cadmium compounds, lead compounds, 

mercury compounds and POM. These 

four compounds plus chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans were 

identified in the NEI dataset for the 

entire mill, which includes sources 

inside and outside the subpart S 

category (e.g., boilers, chemical recovery 

combustion sources). In the second step 

of the screening process, we determined 

whether the facility-specific emission 

rates of each of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential 

for significant non-inhalation human 

health or environmental risks. To 

facilitate this step, we have developed 

emission rate thresholds for each PB– 

HAP using a hypothetical screening 

exposure scenario developed for use in 

conjunction with the TRIM.FaTE model. 

The hypothetical screening scenario was 

subjected to a sensitivity analysis to 

ensure that its key design parameters 

were established such that 

environmental media concentrations 

were not underestimated (i.e., to 

minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that 

risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high), and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The 

facility specific emission rates of each of 

the PB–HAP in each source category 

were compared to the emission 

threshold values for each of the PB– 

HAP identified in the source category 

datasets. 

For all of the facilities in the source 

category addressed in this proposal, all 

of the PB–HAP emission rates were less 

than the emission threshold values, 

except for one facility with POM 

emissions as benzo(a)pyrene that 

exceeded the screening emission rate by 

a factor of 2. For POM, exceeding the 

screening emission rate relates to a 

potential for creating a cancer risk in 

excess of 1 in a million. In performing 

the screening for potential 

multipathway exposures and risks of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25A more thorough discussion of these 

uncertainties is included in the risk assessment 

documentation (Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Pulp and Paper Category) available in the 

docket for this action. 

26For more information, see the memorandum in 

the docket titled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper 

Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling. 

27Short-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. 

concern, we determined that emissions 

of POM were not significant enough to 

pose multipathway impacts of concern 

for human health or the environment. If 

the emission rates of the PB–HAP had 

been determined to be significant, the 

source category would have been further 

evaluated for potential non-inhalation 

risks and adverse environmental effects 

in a third step through site-specific 

refined assessments using the EPA’s 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

For further information on the 

multipathway analysis approach, see 

the residual risk documentation as 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering 

Emissions Control Options 

This rulemaking does not require the 

installation of any new emission 

controls to reduce risk; therefore, no risk 

modeling was conducted to estimate 

risk reductions following installation of 

emission controls for this proposal. 

6. Conducting Facilitywide Risk 

Assessments 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we also examine the risks from 

the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility 

includes all HAP-emitting operations 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control. In other words, we 

examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category of interest but 

also emissions of HAP from all other 

emissions sources at the facility. Nearly 

all 171 major sources in the subpart S 

category include boilers, and 111 of the 

171 major sources include chemical 

recovery combustion sources (e.g., 

recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, 

lime kiln). Pulp and paper mills also 

include paper coating, landfills, 

petroleum storage and transfer and other 

operations. Therefore, where data were 

available, we performed a facilitywide 

risk assessment for these major sources 

as part of today’s action. 

We estimated the risks due to the 

inhalation of HAP that are emitted 

‘‘facilitywide’’ for the populations 

residing within 50 km of each facility, 

consistent with the methods used for 

the source category analysis described 

above. For these facilitywide risk 

analyses, the modeled source category 

risks were compared to the facilitywide 

risks to determine the portion of 

facilitywide risks that could be 

attributed to the source categories 

addressed in this proposal. We 

specifically examined the facilities 

associated with the highest estimates of 

risk and determined the percentage of 

that risk attributable to the source 

category of interest. The risk 

documentation available through the 

docket for this action provides all the 

facilitywide risks and the percentage of 

source category contribution for all 

source categories assessed. 

The methodology and the results of 

the facilitywide analyses for each source 

category are included in the residual 

risk documentation as referenced in 

section IV.A of this preamble, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including that performed for the source 

category addressed in this proposal. 

Although uncertainty exists, we believe 

the approach that we took, which used 

conservative tools and assumptions to 

bridge data gaps, ensures that our 

decisions are health-protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 

inhalation exposure estimates and doseresponse relationships follows below.25

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

dataset involved QA/QC processes, the 

accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on: (1) The source of the 

data, (2) the degree to which data are 

incomplete or missing, (3) the degree to 

which assumptions made to complete 

the datasets are accurate, (4) whether 

and to what extent errors were made in 

estimating emissions values, (5) whether 

the emissions were based on or 

extrapolated from stack tests or 

estimates of fugitive emissions, and (6) 

miscellaneous other factors. 

The annual HAP emissions estimates 

used in the risk assessment are derived 

from data provided by mills in response 

to the Part II survey. Many of these 

emissions estimates are based on 

emission factors, developed from the 

most comprehensive dataset available 

for this industry, provided by NCASI. 

The uncertainties associated with 

emission factors include the 

uncertainties in the measurement of the 

data, limitations in the size and quality 

of the dataset, the presence of nondetects and outliers in the dataset, the 

emission factor calculations used, etc. 

As noted in section III.A.1 of this 

preamble, acrolein emissions were not 

modeled due to uncertainties in the 

emissions estimates.26

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

Although the analysis employed the 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. In circumstances where we 

had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, we selected 

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

depletion, chemistry) that provided an 

overestimate of ambient concentrations 

of the HAP rather than an 

underestimate. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., building downwash) 

have the potential in some situations to 

overestimate or underestimate ambient 

impacts. Despite these uncertainties, we 

believe that at offsite locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.27 The 

assumption of not considering short- or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, 

nor does it affect the estimate of cancer 

incidence since the total population 

number remains the same. It does, 

however, affect the shape of the 

distribution of individual risks across 

the affected population, shifting it 

toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

risk levels. 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81339 

28U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85. 

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

help_gloss.htm). 

30An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

31According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

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

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the agency; rather, the agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with the EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

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

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact for any one individual but is an 

unbiased estimate of average risk and 

incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the 

projected cancer inhalation risks 

associated with pollutant exposures 

over a 70-year period, which is the 

assumed lifetime of an individual. In 

reality, both the length of time that 

modeled emissions sources at facilities 

actually operate (i.e., more or less than 

70 years), and the domestic growth or 

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

increase or decrease in the number or 

size of United States facilities), will 

influence the future risks posed by a 

given source or source category. 

Depending on the characteristics of the 

industry, these factors will, in most 

cases, result in an overestimate both in 

individual risk levels and in the total 

estimated number of cancer cases. 

However, in rare cases, where a facility 

maintains or increases its emissions 

levels beyond 70 years, residents live 

beyond 70 years at the same location 

and the residents spend most of their 

days at that location, then the risks 

could potentially be underestimated. 

Annual cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by 

uncertainty in the length of time 

emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures for some 

HAP.28

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures since it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and noncancer effects from both chronic 

and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an agency 

policy, risk assessment procedures, 

including default options that are used 

in the absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective’’ 

(EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1– 

7). This is the approach followed here 

as summarized in the next several 

paragraphs. A complete detailed 

discussion of uncertainties and 

variability in dose-response 

relationships is given in the residual 

risk documentation which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).29 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.30 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and 

RfD) values represent chronic exposure 

levels that are intended to be healthprotective levels. Specifically, these 

values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an UF 

approach (EPA 1993, 1994) which 

considers uncertainty, variability and 

gaps in the available data. The UF are 

applied to derive reference values that 

are intended to protect against 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects. 

The UF are commonly default 

values,31 e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used in 

the absence of compound-specific data; 

where data are available, UF may also 

be developed using compound-specific 

information. When data are limited, 

more assumptions are needed and more 

UF are used. Thus, there may be a 

greater tendency to overestimate risk in 

the sense that further study might 

support development of reference 

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

because fewer default assumptions are 

needed. However, for some pollutants, it 

is possible that risks may be 

underestimated. While collectively 

termed ‘‘UF,’’ these factors account for 

a number of different quantitative 

considerations when using observed 

animal (usually rodent) or human 

toxicity data in the development of the 

RfC. The UF are intended to account for: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

32Although 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. 

(1) Variation in susceptibility among the 

members of the human population (i.e., 

inter-individual variability); (2) 

uncertainty in extrapolating from 

experimental animal data to humans 

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

uncertainty in extrapolating from data 

obtained in a study with less-thanlifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating 

from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); 

(4) uncertainty in extrapolating the 

observed data to obtain an estimate of 

the exposure associated with no adverse 

effects; and (5) uncertainty when the 

database is incomplete or there are 

problems with the applicability of 

available studies. Many of the UF used 

to account for variability and 

uncertainty in the development of acute 

reference values are quite similar to 

those developed for chronic durations, 

but they more often use individual UF 

values that may be less than 10. 

Uncertainty factors are applied based on 

chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some HAP 

continue to have no reference values for 

cancer or chronic noncancer or acute 

effects. Since exposures to these 

pollutants cannot be included in a 

quantitative risk estimate, an 

understatement of risk for these 

pollutants at environmental exposure 

levels is possible. For a group of 

compounds that are either unspeciated 

or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol 

ethers), we conservatively use the most 

protective reference value to estimate 

risk from individual compounds in the 

group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

the EPA IRIS review (e.g., 

formaldehyde), and revised assessments 

may determine that these pollutants are 

more or less potent than the current 

value. We may re-evaluate residual risks 

for the final rulemaking if these reviews 

are completed prior to our taking final 

action for this source category and if a 

dose-response metric changes enough to 

indicate that the risk assessment 

supporting this notice may significantly 

understate human health risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Effects Screening 

We generally assume that when 

exposure levels are not anticipated to 

adversely affect human health, they also 

are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB–HAP emissions to 

determine whether a full assessment of 

the multipathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Our screening 

methods use worst-case scenarios to 

determine whether multipathway 

impacts might be important. The results 

of such a process are biased high for the 

purpose of screening out potential 

impacts. Thus, when individual 

pollutants or facilities screen out, we are 

confident that the potential for 

multipathway impacts is negligible. On 

the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipollutant 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility. The 

site-specific PB–HAP emission levels 

were almost all far below levels which 

would trigger a refined assessment of 

multipathway impacts. The only PB– 

HAP to exceed the screening threshold 

was POM with emissions exceeding the 

screening threshold by a factor of 2. 

Thus, we are confident that these types 

of impacts are insignificant for the 

facilities in this source category. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in the previous section 

of this preamble, we apply a two-step 

process for determining whether to 

develop standards to address residual 

risk. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

level on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 32 of approximately 

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

million].’’ 54 FR 38045. In the second 

step of the process, the EPA determines 

what level of the standard is needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately one in 

one million, as well as other relevant 

factors, including costs and economic 

impacts, technological feasibility, and 

other factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

presented and considered a number of 

human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under 

review, including: the MIR; the numbers 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

and the maximum acute noncancer 

hazard. See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, 65072– 

74 (October 21, 2010) and 76 FR 22566, 

22575 (April 21, 2011). In estimating 

risks, the EPA considered sources under 

review that are located near each other 

and that affect the same population. The 

EPA developed risk estimates based on 

the actual emissions from the source 

category under review as well as based 

on the maximum emissions allowed 

pursuant to the source category MACT 

standards. The EPA also discussed and 

considered risk estimation 

uncertainties. The EPA is providing this 

same type of information in support of 

this action. 

The agency is considering all 

available health information to inform 

our determinations of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, as explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information’’ (54 FR 38046). 

Similarly, with regard to making the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

as stated in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘[in 

the ample margin decision, the agency 

again considers all of the health risk and 

other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81341 

33See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Summary of RBLC and Other Findings to Support 

Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulp and 

Paper NESHAP. 

34See the memoranda titled, Section 112(d)(6) 

Technology Review for Pulping and Papermaking 

Continued 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making determinations and 

how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of 

noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’’’ (54 FR at 38057). 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand should 

ordinarily be the upper end of the range 

of acceptability. As risks increase above 

this benchmark, they become 

presumptively less acceptable under 

CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors’’ (Id. at 38045). 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘* * * 

EPA believes the relative weight of the 

many factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category’’ (Id. at 38061). 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the 1998 NESHAP was 

promulgated. In cases where the 

technology review identified such 

developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. 

We then made decisions on whether it 

is necessary and appropriate to propose 

amendments to the regulation to require 

any of the identified developments. 

Based on specific knowledge of the 

source category, we began by identifying 

known developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

the purpose of this exercise, we 

considered any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the 1998 NESHAP; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the 1998 

NESHAP) that could result in significant 

additional emissions reductions; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

1998 NESHAP; and 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the 1998 NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes or control technologies that 

were not considered at the time we 

developed the 1998 NESHAP, we 

reviewed a variety of data sources in our 

evaluation of whether there were 

additional practices, processes or 

controls to consider for the pulp and 

paper industry. To aid in our evaluation 

of whether there were additional 

practices, processes or controls to 

consider, one of these sources of data 

was subsequent air toxics rules. Since 

the promulgation of the MACT 

standards for the source category 

addressed in this proposal, the EPA has 

developed air toxics regulations for a 

number of additional source categories. 

In these subsequent air toxic regulatory 

actions, we consistently evaluated any 

new practices, processes and control 

technologies. We reviewed the 

regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these 

subsequent regulatory actions to 

identify any practices, processes and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emission sources in the source category 

under this current RTR review. 

We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC to 

identify potential technology 

advances.33 Control technologies, 

classified as RACT, BACT or LAER 

apply to stationary sources depending 

on whether the sources are existing or 

new, and on the size, age and location 

of the facility. Best available control 

technology and LAER (and sometimes 

RACT) are determined on a case-by-case 

basis, usually by state or local 

permitting agencies. The EPA 

established the RBLC to provide a 

central database of air pollution 

technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific 

permits) to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. The RBLC 

contains over 5,000 air pollution control 

permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to 

mitigate many air pollutant emission 

streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether it contained any 

practices, processes or control 

technologies for the types of processes 

covered by the pulp and paper source 

category. We also further analyzed a 

number of BACT determinations listed 

in the RBLC to obtain further 

information. 

Additionally, we conducted a general 

search of the Internet and other sources 

for information on control technologies 

applicable to pulp and paper 

production. Finally, we conducted a 

search of the database containing the 

responses received from the Part I 

survey to obtain information on process 

and emission controls currently in use 

in pulp and paper production. 

Each of the evaluations listed above 

considered and reviewed the 

technologies suitable to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements listed 

in §§ 63.440 through 63.449 (subpart 

S).34

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Processes and Summary of Pulp Bleaching 

Technology Review, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

35The acute refined HQ values for this source 

category can be found in Appendix 6, Table 1 of 

the Risk Assessment report. A summary of the 

refined acute 1-hour HQ values that were greater 

than 1 for this source category are as follows: 

20,6,5,5,4,3,2,2,2,2,2. 

36The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

D. What other issues are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

In addition to the analyses described 

above, we also reviewed other aspects of 

the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. 

Based on this review, we have identified 

aspects of the MACT standards that we 

believe need revision. 

This includes proposing revisions to 

the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in 

order to ensure that they are consistent 

with the court decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In 

addition, we are proposing various 

changes based on our review of the rule 

for testing and monitoring sufficiency, 

including a requirement for 5-year 

repeat air emissions testing for selected 

equipment and additional test methods 

for measuring methanol. We are also 

proposing minor changes with regards 

to editorial errors. The analyses and 

proposed decisions for these actions are 

presented in section IV of this preamble. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

the results of our RTR for the pulp and 

paper source category and our proposed 

decisions concerning changes to the 

1998 NESHAP. 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

For the pulp and paper source 

category, we conducted an inhalation 

risk assessment based upon actual and 

allowable emissions for all HAP 

emitted, as well as a multipathway 

analysis. This assessment also included 

a whole-facility analysis to estimate 

inhalation risks from all source 

categories for the pulp and paper 

industry. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 3 provides an overall summary 

of the results of the inhalation risk 

assessment from the 171 modeled mills 

subject to this source category. We also 

conducted an assessment of facilitywide 

risk. Details of the risk assessments and 

analyses can be found in the residual 

risk documentation referenced in 

section IV.A of this preamble, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

TABLE 3—PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 1 

in 1 Million 

Estimated annual cancer incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Worst-case maximum refined screening 

Based on ac- acute noncancer HQ 4

tual emissions 

level 

Based on allowable emissions level Based on actual emissions 

level 

Based on allowable emissions level 

10 10 76,000 0.01 0.4 0.6 HQREL = 20 

HQERPG–1 = 0.4 

(acetaldehyde) 

HQREL = 6. 

HQERPG–1 = 0.004 (chloroform). 

HQREL = 5. 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.2 (formaldehyde) 

HQREL = 2. 

HQERPG–1 = 0.2 (methanol) 

1As noted in section III.A.1 of this preamble, acrolein emissions were not modeled due to uncertainties in the emissions estimates. 2Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the pulp and paper source category is the respiratory system. 

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

As shown in Table 3, the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment performed 

using actual emissions data indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be up to 10 in 1 million, 

primarily due to hexachloroethane 

emissions; the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.4, primarily due to acetaldehyde 

emissions; and the maximum offsite 

worst-case acute HQ value could be up 

to 20, based on the REL value for 

acetaldehyde. The HQ of 20 represents 

an upper-bound risk estimate and is 

located in an uninhabited location with 

limited public access or an offsite area 

that is owned by the facility. An acute 

noncancer HQ of 3 reflects the risk 

where people are living with access to 

a public road. This would then result in 

the next highest HQ of 6 for this source 

category based on the acute REL doseresponse value for chloroform. One 

hundred sixty-two of the 171 facilities 

in this source category had an estimated 

worst-case HQ less than or equal to 1; 

the remaining 9 facilities had an 

estimated worst-case HQ less than or 

equal to 6.35

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and 

in response to a key recommendation 

from the SAB’s peer review of EPA’s 

RTR risk assessment methodologies,36

we examine a wider range of available 

acute health metrics than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the acknowledgement that 

there are generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. By definition, the 

acute CalEPA REL represents a healthprotective level of exposure, with no 

risk anticipated below those levels, even 

for repeated exposures; however, the 

health risk from higher-level exposures 

is unknown. Therefore, when a CalEPA 

REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or 

ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at 

which mild effects are anticipated in the 

general public for a single exposure), we 

have used them as a second comparative 

measure. Historically, comparisons of 

the estimated maximum offsite 1-hour 

exposure levels have not been typically 

made to occupational levels for the 

purpose of characterizing public health 

risks in RTR assessments. This is 

because occupational ceiling values are 

not generally considered protective for 

the general public since they are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81343 

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

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

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

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

38National Institutes for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH). Occupational Safety and Health 

Guideline for Formaldehyde; http://www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf. 39ACGIH (2001) Formaldehyde. In 

Documentation of the TLVs® and BEIs® with Other 

Worldwide Occupational Exposure Values. ACGIH, 

1300 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240 

(ISBN: 978–1–882417–74–2) and available on-line 

at http://www.acgih.org. 40WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, in Air 

Quality Guidelines for Europe, second edition. 

World Health Organization Regional Publications, 

European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Available on-line at http://www.euro.who.int/_data/ 

assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. 

41We note that the MIR for this source category 

would not change if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde 

had been used in the assessment; however, the total 

cancer incidence would decrease by about 36 

percent. There is an ongoing IRIS reassessment for 

formaldehyde and future RTR risk assessments will 

use the cancer potency for formaldehyde that 

results from that reassessment. As a result, the 

current results many not match those of future 

assessments. 

42For more information, see the memorandum in 

the docket titled Inputs to the Pulp and Paper 

Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling. 

43For detailed facilityspecific results, see 

Appendix 6 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for Pulp and Paper in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

designed to protect the worker 

population (presumed healthy adults) 

for short-duration (less than 15-minute) 

increases in exposure.37 As a result, for 

most chemicals, the 15-minute 

occupational ceiling values are set at 

levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL–1, 

making comparisons to them irrelevant 

unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 levels are 

exceeded. Such is not the case when 

comparing the available acute 

inhalation health effect reference values 

for formaldehyde. 

The worst-case maximum estimated 

1-hour exposure to formaldehyde 

outside the facility fence line for the 

pulp and paper source category is 0.25 

mg/m3. This estimated worst-case 

exposure exceeds the 1-hour REL by a 

factor of 5 (HQREL=5) and is below the 

1-hour AEGL–1 (HQAEGL–1=0.2). This 

exposure estimate is below the AEGL– 

1, and exceeds the workplace ceiling 

level guideline for the formaldehyde 

value developed by NIOSH 38 ‘‘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 ACGIH 39 as 

‘‘not to be exceeded at any time’’ 

(ACGIH TLV-ceiling value of 0.37 mg/ 

m3; HQACGIH=1). Additionally, the 

estimated maximum acute exposure 

exceeds the Air Quality Guideline value 

that was developed by the World Health 

Organization 40 for 30-minute exposures 

(0.1 mg/m3; HQWHO=2.5). 

All other HAP and facilities modeled 

had worst-case acute HQ values less 

than 1, indicating that they carry no 

potential to pose acute concerns. The 

maximum HQ based on an ERPG–1 

dose-response value is 0.4 for 

acetaldehyde. In characterizing the 

potential for acute noncancer impacts of 

concern, it is important to remember the 

upward bias of these exposure estimates 

(e.g., worst-case meteorology coinciding 

with a person located at the point of 

maximum concentration during the 

hour) and to consider the results along 

with the uncertainties related to the 

emissions estimates and the screening 

methodology. However, it is 

acknowledged that the acute emission 

multipliers ranged from 1.4 to 3 and 

approached the annual hourly average 

emission rate for the facilities within the 

source category. 

The total estimated cancer incidence 

from these facilities based on actual 

emissions levels is 0.01 excess cancer 

cases per year, or 1 case in every 100 

years. The cancer incidence is primarily 

driven by emissions of acetaldehyde 

and formaldehyde from papermaking 

and kraft wastewater operations.41

There are 68 facilities with maximum 

individual cancer risks of 1 in 1 million 

or greater and two facilities with 

maximum individual cancer risks of 10 

in a million that represented the highest 

cancer risks for the source category. The 

MIR of 10 in a million for the source 

category was driven by emissions of 

hexachloroethane. 

As explained above, our analysis of 

potential differences between actual 

emissions levels and emissions 

allowable under the pulp and paper 

MACT standards indicate that MACTallowable emission levels are roughly 

equal to the actual emission levels.42

The risk results from the inhalation risk 

assessment indicate the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risks are the 

same at 20 in a million, and the 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value could be up to 0.6 at the MACTallowable emissions level. 

2. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

The results of a multipathway 

screening analysis showed that 

emissions of POM, cadmium and 

mercury were almost all below their 

respective screening emission rates, 

thereby indicating a negligible risk of 

adverse health effects associated with 

multipathway exposures. The only PB– 

HAP to exceed the screening threshold 

was POM, with emissions exceeding the 

screening threshold by a factor of 2. 

3. Facilitywide Risk Assessment Results 

A facilitywide risk analysis was also 

conducted based on actual emissions 

levels. Table 4 displays the results of the 

facilitywide risk assessment.43

TABLE 4—PULP AND PAPER FACILITYWIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed .................................................................................................................................................................. 171 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facilitywide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) .............................................................................................. 30 

Number of facilities with estimated facilitywide individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million or more ................................................... 7 

Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing 50 percent or more to facilitywide individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 

million or more .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Number of facilities with facilitywide individual cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or more ...................................................................... 99 

Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing 50 percent or more to facilitywide individual cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facilitywide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................. 2 

Number of facilities with facilitywide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more ............................................................................ 4 

Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing 50 percent or more to facilitywide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 

or more .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

44See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 

Residual Risk Modeling. 

45EPA’s IRIS Weight-of-Evidence 

Characterization for trivalent chromium http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0028.htm#refinhal. 

46See the docket memoranda titled, Section 

112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulping and 

Papermaking Processes and Summary of Pulp 

Bleaching Technology Review. 

47Additional details on our technology review are 

provided in docket memoranda titled, Section 

112(d)(6) Technology Review for Pulping and 

Papermaking Processes, and Summary of Pulp 

Bleaching Technology Review. 

The maximum individual cancer 

whole-facility risk from all HAP 

emissions at any mill is estimated to be 

30 in 1 million based on actual 

emissions. Of the 171 mills included in 

this analysis, seven have facilitywide 

maximum individual cancer risks of 10 

in 1 million or greater. At these mills, 

pulp and papermaking operations 

account for 30 percent of the total 

facilitywide risk. There are 99 facilities 

with facilitywide maximum individual 

cancer risks of 1 in 1 million or greater. 

Of these 99 mills, 57 have pulp and 

papermaking operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the 

facilitywide risks. The facilitywide 

cancer risks at these 57 mills, and at the 

7 mills with risks of 10 in a million or 

more, are primarily driven by emissions 

of arsenic compounds, chromium 

compounds and nickel compounds from 

boiler and lime kiln operations. 

However, we note that there are 

uncertainties in the amount and form of 

chromium emitted from these mills. For 

many of the mills, the emissions 

inventory used for the risk assessment 

included estimates for the two main 

forms of chromium (i.e., hexavalent and 

trivalent chromium). However, for other 

mills, we only had estimates of total 

chromium emitted. For those mills, we 

applied a hexavalent chromium 

speciation factor assigned by SCC for 

this source category.44 Although, 

hexavalent chromium is toxic and is a 

known human carcinogen, trivalent 

chromium is less toxic and is currently 

‘‘not classified as to its human 

carcinogenicity.’’ 45 Therefore, the 

relative emissions of these two forms 

can have a significant effect on the 

cancer risk estimates. 

The facilitywide maximum individual 

chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated 

to be 2 based on actual emissions. Of the 

171 mills included in this analysis, only 

four mills have a HI value greater than 

1, with all mills having an HI value less 

than or equal to 2. The chronic 

noncancer risks at these mills are 

primarily driven by acrolein emissions 

from industrial boilers and antimony 

emissions from smelt dissolving tank 

kraft process units, which are not 

regulated under the Pulp and paper 

source category. 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors and measures in our risk 

acceptability determination, including 

the MIR; the number of persons in 

various cancer and noncancer risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

noncancer HI; the maximum acute 

noncancer HQ; the extent of noncancer 

risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; distribution of 

cancer and noncancer risks in the 

exposed population; and risk estimation 

uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September 

14, 1989). 

For the pulp and paper source 

category, the risk analysis we performed 

indicates that the cancer risks to the 

individual most exposed could be up to 

10 in 1 million due to actual or MACTallowable 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 every 100 years); no potential for 

adverse environmental effects or human 

health multipathway effects; no 

potential for chronic noncancer impacts; 

and, while a potential exists for some 

acute inhalation impacts, they are likely 

to be minimal. 

Additional analysis of facilitywide 

risks showed that there are five mills 

with maximum facilitywide risks in 

between a cancer risk of 10 in 1 million 

and 30 in a million and four mills with 

a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

between 1 and 2; it also showed that the 

pulp and paper source category did not 

drive these risks. The number of people 

exposed to cancer risks of 1 in 1 million 

or greater due to emissions from the 

source category is relatively low 

(76,000). Considering these factors and 

the uncertainties discussed in section 

III.B of this preamble, we propose that 

the risks from the Pulp and paper source 

category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we evaluate the cost and 

feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures and 

costs reviewed under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks due to emissions of HAP identified 

in our risk assessment. 

As noted in our discussion of the 

technology review below in section 

IV.C, no technologies (beyond those 

already in place) were identified for 

reducing HAP emissions from pulp and 

paper production processes.46 We are 

proposing to amend the kraft 

condensate standards to reflect 

increased performance of existing 

controls observed in the technology 

review, resulting in an estimated HAP 

reduction of approximately 4,000 tpy. 

Incrementally increasing the stringency 

of the kraft condensate standards is 

expected to reduce risks from kraft 

wastewater operations. As a result, we 

conclude that the current standard, 

before the amendments proposed here 

are put in place, protects public health 

with an ample margin of safety. 

Though we did not identify any new 

technologies to reduce risk from this 

source category beyond incremental 

improvements in the performance of 

existing technology used to meet the 

kraft condensate standards, we are 

specifically requesting comment on 

whether there are additional costeffective control measures that may be 

able to reduce risks from the pulp and 

paper subpart S source category. In 

particular, we are requesting states to 

identify any controls they have already 

required for these facilities, any controls 

they are currently considering or any 

other controls of which they may be 

aware. 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

We evaluated developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies applicable to emission 

sources subject to the pulp and paper 

MACT. This included a search of the 

RBLC, the Internet and our database 

containing the 2011 Part I survey 

responses. For chemical pulping and 

bleaching, we have determined that 

there have been no advances in 

emission control measures since the 

subpart S standard was originally 

promulgated in 1998.47 For kraft 

pulping process condensates, we have 

determined that the technology has 

sufficiently advanced since the 1998 

MACT rule to warrant the development 

of an updated standard. The 1998 

MACT rule required kraft pulp mills to 

either: (1) Recycle the condensates back 

to equipment that meet the control 

standards for pulping system vents 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81345 

48Additional 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. 

(LVHC, HVLC), (2) treat the condensates 

to reduce or destroy the HAP by at least 

92 percent by weight, (3) treat the 

condensates to remove a specified 

amount of HAPs (at least 10.2 lb/ODTP 

at mills performing bleaching or 6.6 lb/ 

ODTP at mills without bleaching), or (4) 

treat the condensates to meet a specified 

HAP concentration at the control device 

outlet (330 ppmw at mills performing 

bleaching or 210 ppmw at mills without 

bleaching). The three control strategies 

expected to be used by most mills are 

recycling the condensates, biological 

treatment and steam stripping. 

Our technology review of kraft 

condensates did not yield any 

information about new technologies that 

could become the basis for regulatory 

options. We then reviewed the 2011 

pulp and paper ICR database. In our 

review of the database, we found that 

most kraft pulp mills chose the 92 

percent control option for compliance 

demonstration for kraft condensates 

rather than recycling. Only five mills 

use recycling, two mills use both 

recycling and steam stripping, and four 

mills use the aforementioned ppmw 

option to control kraft condensates. 

Consequently, the focus of our 

technology review was on the control 

efficiencies of wastewater treatment 

systems and steam stripping. 

We reviewed the 2011 pulp and paper 

ICR database to determine if, under the 

current control technologies, there were 

mills demonstrating greater than the 92 

percent minimum level of control (or 

any equivalent demonstrations). We 

found that all kraft pulp mills are 

performing at a higher level than the 92 

percent minimum level of control. 

For regulatory options, we developed 

an incremental scale of improvement 

over the minimum 92 percent control, 

set up by percent increments from 93 

percent to 98 percent. An estimated four 

mills would be impacted under the 93 

percent option, 15 mills under the 94 

percent option, 28 mills under the 95 

percent option, 41 mills under the 96 

percent option, 54 mills under the 97 

percent option and 66 under the 98 

percent option. 

We did not take the analysis beyond 

98 percent because that level was 

determined to be at the limit of control 

efficiency for one the major control 

techniques, steam stripping, and it was 

equivalent to the control level required 

for non-condensable gases ducted to 

controls from LVHC and HVLC sources 

in 40 CFR 63.443(d)(1). After setting up 

the percent increments, we established 

an equivalency between the different 

percent control options and the lb/ 

ODTP and ppmw options: 

Percent control, 

% 

lb/ODTP option ppmw option 

Annual cost, 

$million 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction, 

tpy 

Mills 

performing 

bleaching 

Mills without 

bleaching 

Mills 

performing 

bleaching 

Mills without 

bleaching 

93 ..................................................................................... 11.5 7.4 289 184 $0.99 2.0 

94 ..................................................................................... 12.8 8.3 248 158 4.1 4.1 

95 ..................................................................................... 14.0 9.1 206 131 9.0 6.1 

96 ..................................................................................... 15.3 9.9 165 105 16 8.2 

97 ..................................................................................... 16.6 10.7 124 79 25 10 

98 ..................................................................................... 17.9 11.6 83 53 34 12 

Finally, we estimated the costs and 

HAP emissions reductions associated 

with each percent control option. Total 

annual costs for the options ranged from 

$1 million to $34 million, and HAP 

emissions reductions ranged from 2,000 

to 12,000 tpy. Taking these costs and 

emissions reductions into consideration, 

we are proposing the 94 percent option 

for controlling kraft condensates 

emissions, which is estimated to cost $4 

million per year, with an emissions 

reduction of 4,000 tpy and a cost 

effectiveness of $1,000 per ton of 

HAP.48

D. What other actions are we proposing? 

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

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

(DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 

1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court 

vacated the SSM exemption contained 

in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘General 

Provisions Rule,’’ that the EPA 

promulgated under CAA section 112(d). 

When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. In its decision, the 

Sierra Club court held that CAA section 

112 and section 302(k) are properly read 

together to require continuous CAA 

section 112-compliant standards. 552 

F.3d at 1027–28. 

There are several provisions in the 

current regulations that include an 

exemption for SSM events, akin to the 

exemption in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 

CFR 63.6(h)(1). The DC Circuit vacated 

the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 

and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), and we are 

proposing to remove similar language in 

this rule. In addition, we are proposing 

to remove the parenthetical language 

excluding periods of startup, shutdown 

or malfunction from excess emissions 

calculations contained within 40 CFR 

63.443(e) and 40 CFR 63.459(b)(11)(ii) of 

this rule, because this language is 

inconsistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. 

The EPA is further proposing to 

eliminate the parenthetical language in 

40 CFR 63.446(g) that includes startup, 

shutdown and malfunction periods in 

excess emissions calculations because 

retaining such language may incorrectly 

suggest that other excess emissions 

provisions such as 40 CFR 63.443(e) that 

lack such language allow exclusion of 

such periods in excess emissions 

calculations. In sum, retaining the 

parenthetical concerning startup, 

shutdown and malfunction periods in 

40 CFR 63.443(g) is unnecessary and 

may create confusion. 

We are also proposing several 

revisions to Table 1 (the General 

Provisions Applicability table). For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source 

develop a SSM plan. We are further 

proposing to eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting that related 

to the SSM exemption. The EPA has 

attempted to ensure that we have not 

included in the proposed regulatory 

language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81346 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

Finally, we are requesting comment 

on whether to remove, or modify, the 

excess emissions provisions for LVHC, 

HVLC and steam strippers in 40 CFR 

63.443(e), 40 CFR 63.446(g), and 40 CFR 

63.459(b)(11)(ii). The basis for these 

provisions is discussed in the preamble 

to the final rule at 63 FR 18529–18530, 

April 15, 1998. The basis for these 

excess emission allowances (discussed 

in the preamble to the final rule at 63 

FR 18529–18530) was to approximate 

the level of backup control that exists at 

the best-performing mills and the 

associated periods of time when no 

control device is available. For LVHC 

systems, one percent of the operating 

hours on a semi-annual basis was 

determined to represent the best 

performers; for HVLC systems four 

percent was established to account for 

downtime due to flow balancing 

problems and unpredictable pressure 

changes inherent in the HVLC system; 

and for steam stripper systems ten 

percent was established to account for 

activities such as stripper tray damage 

or plugging, efficiency losses in the 

stripper due to contamination of 

condensate with fiber or black liquor, 

steam supply downtime, and 

combustion control downtime. We 

request comment on whether these 

provisions should be removed or 

modified in the final rule, as the 

provisions create time periods during 

which a source does not have to comply 

with a CAA section 112-compliant 

standard, which we believe is arguably 

at odds with Sierra Club. 

We specifically solicit comment on a 

variety of issues and request that 

commenters provide data and 

information supporting their views. We 

first request comment and information 

on the circumstances under which such 

provisions have been relied upon in the 

past to remain in compliance with 

subpart S, and whether such 

circumstances meet the definitions of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction (as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.2), and if they do 

not, why not. We also seek information 

on the frequency with which these 

provisions are used. The annual 

emissions rates used in risk modeling 

for today’s proposal incorporated 

emissions that occur during excess 

emissions periods and the EPA has 

already collected information on the use 

of backup controls through Part I of the 

ICR. We are thus interested in 

additional information that 

distinguishes between routine releases 

for which a source may be using the 

excess allowance provisions and 

malfunction events. We request 

information on: (1) The typical reasons 

for the releases, including a description 

of the nature and cause of the release, 

(2) the frequency of the releases, (3) the 

duration of such releases, (4) the 

estimated amount of emissions that 

occurs during such periods, (5) any 

work practices employed during excess 

emissions periods to reduce emissions, 

and (6) any procedures currently used to 

monitor such releases. Further, the EPA 

is interested in knowing whether the 

excess emissions periods are necessary 

for technological reasons (e.g., 

equipment or operational), and the 

amount of time needed to switch 

between routine controls and any 

available backup controls (and whether 

venting is necessary during these times 

for technological reasons). 

As an alternative to removing the 

excess allowance provisions, we request 

comment on whether such provisions 

should be revised by, for example, (1) 

narrowing the provisions (such as 

limiting the circumstances to which 

they apply), (2) setting an alternative 

numerical emission limit during these 

periods, or (3) setting a work practice 

standard during such periods consistent 

with the requirements of CAA section 

112(h). Accordingly, we are requesting 

comments that would provide us 

information to evaluate these options, 

including sufficient supporting 

emissions data or other information. We 

also request comment on whether the 

current standard should be applied over 

a longer averaging period, and whether 

a longer averaging period would obviate 

the need for excess emissions periods. 

To the extent that any person suggests 

that a work practice is appropriate, they 

will need to provide support for the 

conclusion that work practices are 

permissible under section 112(h) 

because a numerical standard is ‘‘not 

feasible’’ within the meaning of section 

112(h)(2). This should include cost 

information regarding monitoring, 

testing and controlling of emissions 

from the sources during these periods. 

Finally, to the extent that any person 

suggests that the excess emissions 

periods should be retained in some 

form, they should explain how the 

revisions that they are suggesting are 

consistent with the CAA. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and is not 

proposing a different standard for those 

periods. Nothing in the record suggests 

that the operations (and attendant 

emissions) are significantly different 

during startup or shutdown than during 

normal operation. 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 

that directs the agency to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or 

best controlled sources when setting 

emission standards. Moreover, while the 

EPA accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards consistent with the 

section 112 case law, nothing in that 

case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. 

Section 112 uses the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ and ‘‘best performing’’ unit 

in defining the level of stringency that 

section 112 performance standards must 

meet. Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) 

(The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81347 

49Located in 11 states. 

50For information on the cost associated with the 

proposed repeat testing requirement, see the 

memorandum in the docket titled, Costs and 

Environmental and Energy Impacts for Subpart S 

Risk and Technology Review. 

51See 70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005. 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source, and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 

malfunction). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emission 

standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore 

proposing to add to the rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions. See § 63.456 for 

this proposed addition (and see § 63.441 

for a definition of ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

that means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof and the merits of which 

are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding.). We also are proposing 

other regulatory provisions to specify 

the elements that are necessary to 

establish this affirmative defense; the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in § 63.456. (See 40 

CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 

40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

* * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.456 and to prevent 

future malfunctions. For example, the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were 

made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded * * *’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize 

the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health * * *.’’ In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, 

the Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 

CFR 22.27). 

Specifically, we are proposing the 

following changes to the rule related to 

SSM: 

(1) Revise 40 CFR 63.443(e), 63.446(g), and 

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

periods of SSM; 

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

the general duty from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) to 

minimize emissions; 

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

63.455(g) to require reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated with 

periods of malfunction; 

(4) Add 40 CFR 63.456 (formerly reserved) 

to include an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emissions limits 

caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense; 

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

conditions for performance tests; and 

(6) Revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 

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

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

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

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

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

63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not 

apply. 

We have attempted to ensure that we 

have not included in the proposed 

regulatory language any provisions that 

are inappropriate, unnecessary or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

2. Repeat Testing 

As part of an ongoing effort to 

improve compliance with various 

federal air emission regulations, we 

reviewed the testing and monitoring 

requirement of subpart S and are 

proposing the following change. 

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.49 Further, 

we believe that requiring periodic repeat 

performance tests will help to ensure 

that control systems are properly 

maintained over time, thereby reducing 

the potential for acute emissions 

episodes.50

With today’s proposal, repeat air 

emissions testing would be required for 

mills complying with the kraft 

condensates standards in § 63.446 using 

a steam stripper (or other equipment 

serving the same function) since such 

equipment is, by definition, part of the 

LVHC system. 

Quarterly sampling for four HAPs 

(acetaldehyde, methanol, MEK and 

propionaldehyde) is currently required 

for biological treatment systems to 

demonstrate compliance with the kraft 

condensates standards in § 63.446(e)(2). 

We 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 2005.51 However, the 

subpart S equations were derived 

considering inclusion of MEK. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81348 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

request comment on the appropriateness 

of re-deriving these equations to 

eliminate MEK for the final rule. 

We are not proposing repeat air 

emissions testing for facilities 

complying with the CCA standards due 

to the complexity of this compliance 

approach (e.g., comparison to baseline 

emissions calculations) and the fact that 

it often involves both air and/or liquid 

sampling depending on the CCA 

technology being used. Nevertheless, we 

are requesting comment on whether 

repeat air emissions testing is 

appropriate (or overly burdensome) for 

the CCA. 

3. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA must have performance test 

data to conduct effective reviews of 

CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes 

including compliance determinations, 

emissions factor development and 

annual emissions rate determinations. 

In conducting these required reviews, 

the EPA has found it ineffective and 

time consuming, not only for us, but 

also for regulatory agencies and source 

owners and operators, to locate, collect 

and submit performance test data 

because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. 

In recent years, though, stack testing 

firms have typically collected 

performance test data in electronic 

format, making it possible to move to an 

electronic data submittal system that 

would increase the ease and efficiency 

of data submittal and improve data 

accessibility. 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

presenting a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of pulp and paper facilities 

submit electronic copies of required 

performance test reports to the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in 

developing emissions factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the ERT. The 

ERT would be able to transmit the 

electronic report through the EPA’s CDX 

network for storage in the WebFIRE 

database making submittal of data very 

straightforward and easy. A description 

of the ERT can be found at http:// 

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

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

would apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that 

will be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

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

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, the EPA would be able to develop 

improved emissions factors, make fewer 

information requests and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to the EPA at the 

time the source test is conducted is that 

it should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When the EPA has 

performance test data in hand, there 

will likely be fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and the EPA (in 

terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local and tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment, 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emissions factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emissions 

inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

Records must be maintained in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping 

and reporting is available for many 

records, and is the form considered 

most suitable for expeditious review if 

available. Electronic recordkeeping and 

reporting is encouraged in this proposal, 

and some records and reports are 

required to be kept in electronic format. 

Records required to be maintained 

electronically include the output of 

continuous monitors and the output of 

the bag leak detection systems. 

Additionally, standard operating 

procedures for the bag leak detection 

system and fugitive emissions control 

are required to be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval in electronic 

format. 

4. Other 

The following lists additional minor 

changes to the subpart S NESHAP and 

minor changes to the part 63 General 

Provisions that we are proposing. This 

list includes proposed rule changes that 

address editorial and other corrections. 

(1) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(1) to specify 

part 60, appendix A–1 for Method 1 or 1A; 

(2) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(b)(3) to specify 

part 60, appendix A–1 for Method 2, 2A, 2C, 

or 2D; 

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

four additional test methods—Method 320 of 

part 63, appendix A; Method 18 of part 60, 

appendix A–6; ASTM D6420–99; and ASTM 

D6348–03—for measuring methanol 

emissions from pulp and paper processes; 

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

part 60, appendix A–8 for Method 26A; 

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

60, appendix A–7 for Method 21; and 

(6) Revise 40 CFR 63.457(k)(1) to specify 

part 60, appendix A–2 for Method 3A or 3B, 

and include ASME PTC 19.10—Part 10 as an 

alternative to Method 3B; 

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

NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.02 with the 

more recent version of this method, NCASI 

Method DI/MEOH–94.03; 

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

by reference NCASI Method DI/MEOH– 

94.03; and 

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

by reference ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981. 

(10) Revise 40 CFR 63.14(b)(28) and (54) to 

incorporate by reference ASTM D6420–99 

and ASTM D6348–03, respectively. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81349 

E. Compliance Dates 

We are proposing that existing 

facilities must comply with all of the 

requirements in this action (other than 

affirmative defense provisions and 

electronic reporting, which are effective 

upon promulgation of the final rule) no 

later than 3 years after the effective date 

of this rule. All new or reconstructed 

facilities must comply with all 

requirements in this rule upon startup. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

The affected source for kraft, soda, 

sulfite or semi-chemical pulping 

processes is the total of all HAP 

emission points in the pulping and 

bleaching systems. The affected source 

for mechanical, secondary or non-wood 

pulping processes is the total of all HAP 

emission points in the bleaching system. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

Under the proposed amendments, an 

estimated 15 mills would have to 

upgrade their steam strippers or 

biological treatment systems to comply 

with the more stringent kraft 

condensates standard. The current 

proposal is estimated to reduce HAP 

emissions by approximately 4,000 tpy. 

The proposed amendments would 

require an estimated 114 mills to 

conduct repeat testing for pulping and 

bleaching operations and all 171 major 

sources in the category to operate 

without the SSM exemption. We were 

unable to quantify the specific 

emissions reductions associated with 

repeat emissions testing or eliminating 

the SSM exemption and excess 

emissions allowance. However, repeat 

testing would provide incentive for 

facilities to maintain their control 

systems and make periodic adjustments 

to ensure peak performance, thereby 

reducing emissions and the potential for 

periodic episodes of acute risk. 

Eliminating the SSM exemption would 

provide an incentive for facilities to 

minimize emissions during periods of 

SSM. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the proposed amendments, 

pulp and paper mills are expected to 

incur costs to upgrade their steam 

strippers or biological treatment systems 

to comply with the more stringent kraft 

condensates standard. These mills 

would also incur costs to conduct repeat 

testing and record malfunctions in 

support of the new affirmative defense 

in the rule. The total nationwide annual 

costs associated with these new 

requirements is $6.2 million. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA performed an EIA of the 

proposed rule. The EIA, which 

documents the data sources and 

methods used and provides detailed 

results, can be found in the docket for 

this proposed action. This section 

provides an overview of key results. 

The EPA performed a series of singlemarket partial-equilibrium analyses of 

national pulp and paper product 

markets to estimate the economic 

consequences of the proposal. The 

models predict how the regulatory 

program might affect prices and 

quantities for 10 paper and paperboard 

products that, aggregated, constitute the 

entire production of the papermaking 

industry. The EPA also conducted an 

economic welfare analysis that 

estimated the consumer and producer 

surplus changes associated with the 

regulatory program. The welfare 

analysis identifies how the regulatory 

costs are distributed across two broad 

classes of stakeholders: consumers and 

producers. 

The market analysis found that the 

proposal is likely to induce minimal 

changes in the average national price of 

paper and paperboard products. Paper 

and paperboard product prices are 

predicted to increase less than 0.01 

percent on average, while production 

levels decrease less than 0.01 percent on 

average, as a result of the proposal. The 

partial equilibrium models predict that 

consumers will see reductions in 

economic welfare of about $3.3 million 

as the result of higher prices and 

reduced consumption. Although 

producers’ welfare losses are mitigated 

to some degree by slightly higher prices, 

market conditions limit their ability to 

pass on all of the compliance costs. As 

a result, producers are also predicted to 

experience a loss in economic welfare of 

about $2.9 million. 

The EPA performed a screening 

analysis for impacts on small businesses 

by comparing estimated annualized 

engineering compliance costs at the 

company-level to company sales. The 

screening analysis found that the ratio 

of compliance cost to company revenue 

falls below 1 percent for the three small 

companies that are likely to be affected 

by the proposal. Based on this analysis, 

the EPA presumes there is no SISNOSE 

arising from the proposed NESHAP 

amendments. 

Additionally, the EPA estimated the 

annual labor required to comply with 

the requirements of the proposal. To do 

this, the EPA first estimated the labor 

required for emission control equipment 

operation and maintenance, then 

converted this number to FTEs by 

dividing by 2,080 (40 hours per week 

multiplied by 52 weeks). The annual 

labor requirement to comply with the 

proposal is estimated at about five fulltime-equivalent employees. The EPA 

notes that this type of FTE estimate 

cannot be used to make assumptions 

about the specific number of people 

involved or whether new jobs are 

created for new employees. 

While a series of partial equilibrium 

models was used to analyze the 

economic impacts of this proposal, the 

EPA notes that it is currently developing 

the ISIS model for the United States 

pulp and paper industry. When 

completed, the ISIS model for the pulp 

and paper industry will be a dynamic 

engineering-economic model that 

facilitates analysis of emissions 

reduction strategies for multiple 

pollutants, while taking into account 

plant-level economic and technical 

factors, such as the type of mill, 

associated capacity, location, cost of 

production, applicable controls and 

costs. By considering various emissions 

reduction strategies, the model, when 

completed, will provide information on 

optimal industry operation and 

determine the most cost-effective 

controls to meet the demand for pulp 

and paper products and the emissions 

reduction requirements for a given time 

period of interest. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The proposed rule is expected to 

result in a reduction of approximately 

4,000 tpy of HAP. We have not 

quantified the monetary benefits 

associated with these reductions. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. In 

addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested 

in any additional data that may help to 

reduce the uncertainties inherent in the 

risk assessments and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk analyses 

are available for download on the RTR 

web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

HAP emissions release point for each 

facility included in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern and provide any 

‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ................... Are control measures in place? (yes or no). 

Control Measure Comment .. Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete ................................... Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

Delete Comment .................. Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emissions Calculation Method Code For Revised 

Emissions.

Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEMS, material balance, stack test, etc. 

Emissions Process Group .... Enter the general type of emissions process associated with the specified emissions point. 

Fugitive Angle ...................... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured 

positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ..................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly referred to as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width ...................... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions ......... Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (tpy). 

North American Datum ........ Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment ................ Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address ............... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City ...................... Enter revised city name here. 

REVISED County Name ...... Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emissions Release Point Type.Enter revised Emissions Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date ............. Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow 

Rate.

Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature.Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (°F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category 

Code.

Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. 

REVISED Facility Name ...... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry 

Identifier.

Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions 

Performance Level Code.

Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude ................ Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ............. Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ........ Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ..... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions Enter revised routine emissions value here (tpy). 

REVISED SCC Code ........... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter .... Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ........ Enter revised Stack Height here (ft). 

REVISED Start Date ............ Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State .................... Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code .......... Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code .............. Enter revised Zip Code here. 

Shutdown Emissions ............ Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (tpy). 

Stack Comment .................... Enter general comments about emissions release points. 

Startup Emissions ................ Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (tpy). 

Year Closed ......................... Enter date facility stopped operations. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0544 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble).. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility, you need only submit one file 

for that facility, which should contain 

all suggested changes for all sources at 

that facility. We request that all data 

revision comments be submitted in the 

form of updated Microsoft® Access files, 

which are provided on the RTR web 

page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

rrisk/rtrpg.html. (Note: If you wish to 

compare your Pulp and paper ICR Part 

II submittal to the dataset available on 

the RTR web page, then you may find 

it useful to refer to the memorandum in 

the docket titled, ‘‘Inputs to the Pulp 

and Paper Industry October 2011 

Residual Risk Modeling,’’ since this 

memorandum describes how the Part II 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81351 

data were standardized for regulatory 

review.) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

The ICR document prepared by the EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2452.01. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The information 

requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 

which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to national emissions standards. 

These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

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

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

We are proposing new paperwork 

requirements to the pulp and paper 

source category in the form of repeat 

testing for selected process equipment, 

as described in 40 CFR 63.457(a)(2) and 

recordkeeping of malfunctions, as 

described in 40 CFR 63.454(g) 

(conducted in support of the affirmative 

defense provisions, as described in 40 

CFR 63.456). More specifically, we are 

proposing the addition of stack testing 

every 5 years for total HAP for chemical 

pulping operations and bleaching 

operations at pulp and paper mills. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is 

adding affirmative defense to the 

estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of 

the relative magnitude of the burden 

associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by 

a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$3,258 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant 

employees and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to the EPA. The 

EPA provides this illustrative estimate 

of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than 2 or 3 such 

occurrences for all sources subject to 

subpart S over the 3-year period covered 

by this ICR. We expect to gather 

information on such events in the future 

and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. 

The estimated recordkeeping and 

reporting burden associated with 

subpart S after the effective date of the 

proposed rule is estimated to be 52,300 

labor hours at a cost of $4.94 million per 

year, and total non-labor capital and 

O&M costs of $841,000 per year. This 

estimate includes reporting costs, such 

as reading and understanding the rule 

requirements, conducting required 

activities (e.g., stack testing, 

inspections), and preparing notifications 

and compliance reports and 

recordkeeping costs associated with 

malfunctions, monitoring and 

inspections. The total burden for the 

federal government is estimated to be 

6,870 hours per year at a total labor cost 

of $310,000 per year. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0544. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

December 27, 2011, a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect 

if OMB receives it by January 26, 2012. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB 

or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, or any other statute, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81352 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the SBA’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the general NAICS 

code 322 (i.e., Paper Manufacturing), the 

SBA small business size standard is 500 

to 750 employees (depending on the 

specific NAICS code) according to the 

SBA small business standards 

definitions. We have estimated the cost 

impacts of the proposed rule and have 

determined that the impacts do not 

constitute a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

(See the EIA in the docket for this 

proposed rule.) Only three of the 

companies affected are considered small 

entities per the definition provided in 

this section. We estimate that this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on those 

three companies. The impact of this 

proposed action will be an annualized 

compliance cost of less than 1 percent 

of each company’s revenues. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce 

the impact of this rule on small entities. 

The proposed repeat testing requirement 

was established in a way that minimizes 

the costs for testing and reporting while 

still providing the agency the necessary 

information needed to ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed standards. The proposed 

malfunction recordkeeping requirement 

was designed to provide all pulp and 

paper companies, including small 

entities, with a means of supporting an 

affirmative defense in the event of an 

exceedance occurring during a 

malfunction. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate or the private sector in 

any 1 year. This proposed rule is not 

expected to impact state, local or tribal 

governments. The nationwide annual 

cost of this proposed rule for affected 

sources is $6.2 million. Thus, this rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule will not apply to such governments 

and will not impose any obligations 

upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state 

governments, and, nothing in this 

proposal will supersede state 

regulations. The burden to the 

respondents and the states is less than 

$6.2 million for the entire source 

category. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have 

substantial direct effect on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. However, the EPA 

did outreach and consultation on this 

rule. The EPA presented this 

information to the tribes prior to 

proposal of this rule via a call with the 

National Tribal Air Association. In 

addition, the EPA presented the 

information on the sources and the 

industry at the National Tribal Forum in 

Spokane Washington. The EPA also 

offered consultation by letters sent to all 

tribal leaders. We held that consultation 

with the Nez Perce, Forest County 

Potowatomi and Leech Lake Band of 

Ojibewa on October 6, 2011. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

agency does not believe the 

environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in sections III and IV of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution or use of 

energy. This action will not create any 

new requirements for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution or use 

sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public 

Law No. 104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs the EPA to use VCS in its 

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 three VCS in this proposed rule. 

One VCS, ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ is cited in 

this proposed rule for its manual 

method of measuring the content of the 

exhaust gas as an acceptable alternative 

to EPA Method 3B of appendix A–2. 

This standard is available at http:// 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81353 

52U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

53Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and 

Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental 

Justice Research.’’ Demography. 2006;43(2): 383– 

399. 

54Mennis J. ‘‘Using Geographic Information 

Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces 

of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis.’’ Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1): 

281–297. 

55Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

www.asme.org or by mail at the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), P.O. Box 2900, 

Fairfield, NJ 07007–2900; or at Global 

Engineering Documents, Sales 

Department, 15 Inverness Way East, 

Englewood, CO 80112. 

The VCS, ASTM D6420–99 (2010), 

‘‘Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 

Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry’’ is cited as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 18. Also, 

ASTM D6348–03 (2010), ‘‘Test Method 

for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,’’ was determined to be an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

320. The EPA Methods 18 and 320 are 

proposed to be added as alternatives to 

EPA Method 308 for measurement of 

methanol emissions. These methods are 

available for purchase from ASTM, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; or 

ProQuest, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48106. 

While the EPA has identified another 

14 VCS as being potentially applicable 

to this proposed rule, we have decided 

not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. 

The use of these VCS would be 

impractical because they do not meet 

the objectives of the standards cited in 

this rule. See the docket for this 

proposed rule for the reasons for these 

determinations. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and 63.8(f) of the NESHAP General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and any amendments. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

J. 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 justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income, indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income, or indigenous 

populations. 

These proposed standards will 

improve public health and welfare, now 

and in the future, by reducing HAP 

emissions contributing to environmental 

and human health impacts. These 

reductions in HAP associated with the 

rule are expected to benefit all 

populations. 

Additionally, the agency has reviewed 

this rule to determine if there is an 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations near 

the sources such that they may face 

disproportionate exposure from 

pollutants that could be mitigated by 

this rulemaking. Although this analysis 

gives some indication of populations 

that may be exposed to levels of 

pollution that cause concern, it does not 

identify the demographic characteristics 

of the most highly affected individuals 

or communities. 

The demographic data show that 

while most demographic categories are 

below, or within, 2 percentage points of 

national averages, the African-American 

population exceeds the national average 

by 3 percentage points (15 percent 

versus 12 percent), or +25 percent. The 

facility-level demographic analysis 

results are presented in the November 

2011 memorandum titled Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts: Pulp 

and Paper, a copy of which is available 

in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0544). 

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 have 

notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. The demographic 

data for this analysis were extracted 

from the 2000 census data, which were 

provided to the EPA by the United 

States Census Bureau. Distributions by 

race are based on demographic 

information at the census block level, 

and all other demographic groups are 

based on the extrapolation of census 

block group level data to the census 

block level. The socio-demographic 

parameters used in the analysis 

included the following categories: 

Racial (White, African American, Native 

American, Other or Multiracial, and All 

Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and 

Other (Number of people below the 

poverty line, Number of people with 

ages between 0 and 18, Number of 

people with ages greater than or equal 

to 65, Number of people with no high 

school diploma). 

In determining the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the 

EPA focused on those census blocks 

within 3 miles of affected sources and 

determined the demographic 

composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of 

these census blocks and compared them 

to the corresponding compositions 

nationally. The radius of 3 miles (or 

approximately 5 km) is consistent with 

other demographic analyses focused on 

areas around potential sources.52 53 54 55

In addition, air quality modeling 

experience has shown that the area 

within 3 miles of an individual source 

of emissions can generally be 

considered the area with the highest 

ambient air levels of the primary 

pollutants being emitted for most 

sources, both in absolute terms and 

relative to the contribution of other 

sources (assuming there are other 

sources in the area, as is typical in 

urban areas). While facility processes 

and fugitive emissions may have more 

localized impacts, the EPA 

acknowledges that because of various 

stack heights, there is the potential for 

dispersion beyond 3 miles. To the 

extent that any minority, low income, or 

indigenous subpopulation is 

disproportionately impacted by the 

current emissions as a result of the 

proximity of their homes to these 

sources, that subpopulation also stands 

to see increased environmental and 

health benefit from the emissions 

reductions called for by this rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend Title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f)(5) and revising 

paragraphs (b)(28), (b)(54) and (i)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(28) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 

2004), Standards Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Organic 

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, 

IBR approved for §§ 60.485(g)(5), 

60.485a(g)(5), 63.457(b)(5)(i), 

63.772(a)(1)(ii), 63.2354(b)(3)(i), 

63.2354(b)(3)(ii), 63.2354(b)(3)(ii)(A), 

and 63.2351(b)(3)(ii)(B). 

* * * * * 

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for 

§ 63.457(b)(5)(i) of subpart S, 

§ 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL, and 

table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part as 

specified in the subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(5) NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.03, 

Methanol in Process Liquids and 

Wastewaters by GC/FID, May 2000, 

NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR 

approved for §§ 63.457(c)(3)(ii), 

63.459(b)(5)(iv)(A), 

63.459(b)(5)(iv)(A)(2), and 

63.459(b)(8)(iii) of subpart S of this part. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR 

approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 

63.457(k)(1), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 

63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 

63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 

63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 

63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 

63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 

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

63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 

63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 

63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), 

table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, 

table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, 

and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart S—[Amended] 

3. Section 63.441 is amended by 

adding a definition for ‘‘affirmative 

defense’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.441 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.443 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.443 Standards for the pulping system 

at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical 

processes. 

* * * * * 

(e) Periods of excess emissions 

reported under § 63.455 shall not be a 

violation of § 63.443(c) and (d) provided 

that the time of excess emissions 

divided by the total process operating 

time in a semi-annual reporting period 

does not exceed the following levels: 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.446 is amended as 

follows: 

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

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

c. By revising paragraph (e)(5); and 

d. By revising 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 [DATE 3 

YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. After [DATE 3 YEARS 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], treat pulping process 

condensates to reduce or destroy the 

total HAPs by at least 94 percent or 

more by weight; or 

(4) At mills that do not perform 

bleaching, on or before [DATE 3 YEARS 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] treat the pulping process 

condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or 

more of total HAP per megagram (6.6 

pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a 

total HAP concentration of 210 parts per 

million or less by weight at the outlet of 

the control device. After [DATE 3 

YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], treat the pulping process 

condensates to remove 4.2 kilograms or 

more of total HAP per megagram (8.3 

pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a 

total HAP concentration of 158 parts per 

million or less by weight at the outlet of 

the control device; or 

(5) At mills that perform bleaching, on 

or before [DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] treat the 

pulping process condensates to remove 

5.1 kilograms or more of total HAP per 

megagram (10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, 

or achieve a total HAP concentration of 

330 parts per million or less by weight 

at the outlet of the control device. After 

[DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], treat the 

pulping process condensates to remove 

6.4 kilograms or more of total HAP per 

megagram (12.8 pounds per ton) of ODP, 

or achieve a total HAP concentration of 

248 parts per million or less by weight 

at the outlet of the control device. 

* * * * * 

(g) For each control device (e.g. steam 

stripper system or other equipment 

serving the same function) used to treat 

pulping process condensates to comply 

with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(5) of this 

section, periods of excess emissions 

reported under § 63.455 shall not be a 

violation of paragraphs (d), (e)(3) 

through (e)(5), and (f) of this section 

provided that the time of excess 

emissions divided by the total process 

operating time in a semi-annual 

reporting period does not exceed 10 

percent. The 10 percent excess 

emissions allowance does not apply to 

treatment of pulping process 

condensates according to paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section (e.g. the biological 

wastewater treatment system used to 

treat multiple (primarily noncondensate) wastewater streams to 

comply with the Clean Water Act). 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.453 is amended by 

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows: 

§ 63.453 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81355 

(q) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

7. Section 63.454 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 63.454 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator of each 

affected source subject to the 

requirements of this subpart shall 

comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.10, as shown in 

table 1 of this subpart, and the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (g) of this section for the 

monitoring parameters specified in 

§ 63.453. 

* * * * * 

(g) Recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

The owner or operator must maintain 

the following records of malfunctions: 

(1) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(2) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.453(q), including corrective actions 

to restore malfunctioning process and 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

8. Section 63.455 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.455 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Malfunction reporting 

requirements. If a malfunction occurred 

during the reporting period, the report 

must include the number, duration, and 

a brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.453(q), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(h) You must submit performance test 

reports as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (4). 

(1) The owner or operator of an 

affected source shall report the results of 

the performance test before the close of 

business on the 60th day following the 

completion of the performance test, 

unless approved otherwise in writing by 

the Administrator. A performance test is 

‘‘completed’’ when field sample 

collection is terminated. Unless 

otherwise approved by the 

Administrator in writing, results of a 

performance test shall include the 

analysis of samples, determination of 

emissions, and raw data. A complete 

test report must include the purpose of 

the test; a brief process description; a 

complete unit description, including a 

description of feed streams and control 

devices; sampling site description; 

pollutants measured; description of 

sampling and analysis procedures and 

any modifications to standard 

procedures; quality assurance 

procedures; record of operating 

conditions, including operating 

parameters for which limits are being 

set, during the test; record of 

preparation of standards; record of 

calibrations; raw data sheets for field 

sampling; raw data sheets for field and 

laboratory analyses; chain-of-custody 

documentation; explanation of 

laboratory data qualifiers; example 

calculations of all applicable stack gas 

parameters, emission rates, percent 

reduction rates, and analytical results, 

as applicable; and any other information 

required by the test method and the 

Administrator. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, you must submit 

performance test data, except opacity 

data, electronically to EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

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

ert_tool.html) and also report the results 

of the performance test to the 

appropriate permitting authority in the 

form and-or format specified by the 

permitting authority. Only data 

collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically to EPA’s 

CDX. 

(3) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and 

required by this subpart, you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into EPA’s CDX by 

using the ERT as mentioned in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section and also 

report the results of the performance test 

to the appropriate permitting authority 

in the form and-or format specified by 

the permitting authority. Only data 

collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically to EPA’s 

CDX. 

(4) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this 

section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 

Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to 

paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section 

in paper format. 

9. Section 63.456 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.456 Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraphs 

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

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

63.447(b) or § 63.450(d) the owner or 

operator may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if the owner or 

operator fails to meet the burden of 

proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owner or operator must timely 

meet the notification requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section, and must 

prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile (FAX) 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in paragraphs §§ 63.443(c) 

and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and 

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

§ 63.450(d) to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

10. Section 63.457 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a); 

b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), 

(b)(4), (b)(5)(i), and (b)(5)(ii); 

c. By revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii); 

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

e. By revising paragraph (k)(1); and 

f. By adding paragraph (o). 

§ 63.457 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) Performance tests. Initial and 

repeat performance tests are required for 

the emissions sources specified in 

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

except for emission sources controlled 

by a combustion device that is designed 

and operated as specified in 

§ 63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4). 

(1) Conduct an initial performance 

test for all emission sources subject to 

the limitations in §§ 63.443, 63.444, 

63.445, 63.446, and 63.447. 

(2) Conduct repeat performance tests 

at five year intervals for all emission 

sources subject to the limitations in 

§§ 63.443, 63.444, and 63.445. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, 

appendix A–1, as appropriate, shall be 

used for selection of the sampling site 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

(3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate 

shall be determined using Method 2, 

2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A– 

1, as appropriate. 

(4) The moisture content of the vent 

gas shall be measured using Method 4 

of part 60, appendix A–3. 

(5) * * * 

(i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this 

part; Method 320 in Appendix A of this 

part; Method 18 in appendix A–6 of part 

60; ASTM D6420–99 (incorporated by 

reference in § 63.14(b)(28) of subpart A 

of this part); or ASTM D6348–03 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 63.14(b)(54) of subpart A of this part) 

shall be used to determine the methanol 

concentration. If ASTM D6348–03 is 

used the conditions specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A) though 

(b)(5)(i)(B) of this section must be met. 

(A) The test plan preparation and 

implementation in the Annexes to 

ASTM D6348–03, Sections A1 through 

A8 are required. 

(B) In ASTM 6348–03 Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent (%) R must be determined for 

each target analyte (Equation A5.5 of 

ASTM 6348–03). In order for the test 

data to be acceptable for a compound, 

%R must be between 70 and 130 

percent. If the %R value does not meet 

this criterion for a target compound, the 

test data is not acceptable for that 

compound and the test must be repeated 

for that analyte following adjustment of 

the sampling or analytical procedure 

before the retest. The %R value for each 

compound must be reported in the test 

report, and all field measurements must 

be corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound using the 

following equation: Reported Result = 

Measured Concentration in the Stack × 

100)/%R. 

(ii) Except for the modifications 

specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(A) 

through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section, 

Method 26A of part 60, appendix A–8 

shall be used to determine chlorine 

concentration in the vent stream. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) For determining methanol 

concentrations, NCASI Method DI/ 

MEOH–94.03, Methanol in Process 

Liquids and Wastewaters by GC/FID, 

May 2000, NCASI, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. This test method is 

incorporated by reference in 

§ 63.14(f)(5) of subpart A of this part. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix 

A–7; and 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) The emission rate correction factor 

and excess air integrated sampling and 

analysis procedures of Methods 3A or 

3B of part 60, appendix A–2 shall be 

used to determine the oxygen 

concentration. The samples shall be 

taken at the same time that the HAP 

samples are taken. As an alternative to 

Method 3B, ASME PTC 19.10–1981– 

Part 10 may be used (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14(i)(1)). 

* * * * * 

(o) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

11. Section 63.459 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(11)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 81357 

§ 63.459 Alternative standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(11) * * * 

(ii) Periods of excess emissions shall 

not constitute a violation provided the 

time of excess emissions divided by the 

total process operating time in a semiannual reporting period does not exceed 

one percent. All periods of excess 

emission shall be reported, and shall 

include: 

* * * * * 

12. Table 1 to subpart S of part 63 is 

revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a

Reference Applies to subpart S Comment 

63.1(a)(1)–(3) ..... Yes.

63.1(a)(4) ........... Yes .......................................... Subpart S (this table) specifies applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to subpart S. 

63.1(a)(5) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.1(a)(6)–(8) ..... Yes.

63.1(a)(9) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.1(a)(10) ......... No ........................................... Subpart S and other cross-referenced subparts specify calendar or operating day. 

63.1(a)(11)–(14) Yes.

63.1(b)(1) ........... No ........................................... Subpart S specifies its own applicability. 

63.1(b)(2)–(3) ..... Yes.

63.1(c)(1)–(2) ..... Yes.

63.1(c)(3) ............ No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.1(c)(4)–(5) ..... Yes.

63.1(d) ................ No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.1(e) ................ Yes.

63.2 .................... Yes.

63.3 .................... Yes.

63.4(a)(1) ........... Yes.

63.4(a)(3).

63.4(a)(4) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.4(a)(5) ........... Yes.

63.4(b) ................ Yes.

63.4(c) ................ Yes.

63.5(a) ................ Yes.

63.5(b)(1) ........... Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.5(b)(3) ........... Yes.

63.5(b)(4)–(6) ..... Yes.

63.5(c) ................ No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.5(d) ................ Yes.

63.5(e) ................ Yes.

63.5(f) ................. Yes.

63.6(a) ................ Yes.

63.6(b) ................ No ........................................... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S. 

63.6(c) ................ No ........................................... Subpart S specifies compliance dates for sources subject to subpart S. 

63.6(d) ................ No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ........ No ........................................... See § 63.453(q) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ....... No.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) ....... Yes.

63.6(e)(2) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) ........... No.

63.6(f)(1) ............ No.

63.6(f)(2) ............ Yes.

63.6(f)(3) ............ Yes.

63.6(g) ................ Yes.

63.6(h) ................ No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.6(i) ................. Yes.

63.6(j) ................. Yes.

63.7 .................... Yes, except for 63.7(e)(1). ...... Section 63.7(e)(1) is replaced with § 63.457(o) which specifies performance testing conditions under Subpart S. 

63.8(a)(1) ........... Yes.

63.8(a)(2) ........... Yes.

63.8(a)(3) ........... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.8(a)(4) ........... Yes.

63.8(b)(1) ........... Yes.

63.8(b)(2) ........... No ........................................... Subpart S specifies locations to conduct monitoring. 

63.8(b)(3) ........... Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(i) ........ No ........................................... See § 63.453(q) for general duty requirement (which includes monitoring equipment). 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........ Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ....... No.

63.8(c)(2) ............ Yes.

63.8(c)(3) ............ Yes.

63.8(c)(4) ............ No ........................................... Subpart S allows site specific determination of monitoring frequency in § 63.453(n)(4). 

63.8(c)(5) ............ No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.8(c)(6) ............ Yes.

63.8(c)(7) ............ Yes.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

81358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a—Continued 

Reference Applies to subpart S Comment 

63.8(c)(8) ............ Yes.

63.8(d) ................ Yes, except for last sentence, 

which refers to an SSM plan.

SSM plans are not required. 

63.8(e) ................ Yes.

63.8(f)(1)–(5) ...... Yes.

63.8(f)(6) ............ No ........................................... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy test for CEMs. 

63.8(g) ................ Yes.

63.9(a) ................ Yes.

63.9(b) ................ Yes .......................................... Initial notifications must be submitted within one year after the source becomes subject to 

the relevant standard. 

63.9(c) ................ Yes.

63.9(d) ................ No ........................................... Special compliance requirements are only applicable to kraft mills. 

63.9(e) ................ Yes.

63.9(f) ................. No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.9(g)(1) ........... Yes.

63.9(g)(2) ........... No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.9(g)(3) ........... No ........................................... Subpart S does not specify relative accuracy tests, therefore no notification is required for 

an alternative. 

63.9(h) ................ Yes.

63.9(i) ................. Yes.

63.9(j) ................. Yes.

63.10(a) .............. Yes.

63.10(b)(1) ......... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i) ...... No.

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..... No ........................................... See § 63.454(g) for recordkeeping of (1) occurrence and duration and (2) actions taken during malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv) .... No.

63.10(b)(2)(v) ..... No.

63.10(b)(2)(vi) .... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(vii)– 

(ix).

Yes.

63.10(b)(3) ......... Yes.

63.10(c)(1)–(7) ... Yes.

63.10(c)(8) .......... Yes.

63.10(c)(9) .......... No ........................................... Section reserved. 

63.10(c)(10)–(11) No ........................................... See § 63.454(g) for malfunction recordkeeping requirements. 

63.10(c)(12)–(14) Yes.

63.10(c)(15) ........ No.

63.10(d)(1) ......... Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ......... Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ......... No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.10(d)(4) ......... Yes.

63.10(d)(5) ......... No ........................................... See § 63.455(g) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

63.10(e)(1) ......... Yes.

63.10(e)(2)(i) ...... Yes.

63.10(e)(2)(ii) ..... No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.10(e)(3) ......... Yes.

63.10(e)(4) ......... No ........................................... Pertains to continuous opacity monitors that are not part of this standard. 

63.10(f) ............... Yes.

63.11–63.15 ....... Yes.

aWherever subpart A specifies ‘‘postmark’’ dates, submittals may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier). Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not required. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32843 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4