[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81328-81358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32843]



[[Page 81327]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 248

December 27, 2011

Part VIII





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 63





 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp 
and Paper Industry; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 81328]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected]. 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: [email protected]. 
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: [email protected]. 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.

[[Page 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)    John Bradfield
                                   564-5391            (919) 541-3062
                                   [email protected]   bradfield.john@ep
                                   v..                 a.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

    Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 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
ft\3\ 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
m\3\ Cubic Meters
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
mg Milligrams
MIR Maximum Individual Risk
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAC/AEGL National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline 
Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
NRC National Research Council
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OAQPS EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODTP Oven-Dried Tons of Pulp
OECA EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
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
[mu]g 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

[[Page 81330]]

    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 
best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing sources 
can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be 
less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements.
    The EPA is then required to review these 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) expressly preserves our use of 
the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual 
risk and our

[[Page 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

[[Page 81332]]

Court held there is nothing on the face of the statute that limits the 
agency's section 112(f) assessment of risk to carcinogens. Id. at 1081-
82. In the NRDC case, the petitioners argued, among other things, that 
section 112(f)(2)(B) applied only to non-carcinogens. The D.C. Circuit 
rejected this position, holding that the text of that provision ``draws 
no distinction between carcinogens and non-carcinogens,'' Id., and that 
Congress' incorporation of the Benzene standard applies equally to 
carcinogens and non-carcinogens.
    In the ample margin of safety decision process, the agency again 
considers all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant 
factors. Considering all of these factors, the agency will establish 
the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 
38046.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of 
this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 of this 
preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this 
proposed action. This standard, and any changes considered in this 
rulemaking, would be directly applicable to affected sources. Federal, 
state, local and tribal government entities are not affected by this 
proposed action. As defined in the Source Category Listing Report 
published by the EPA in 1992, the pulp and paper production source 
category includes any facility engaged in the production of pulp and/or 
paper. This category includes, but is not limited to, integrated mills 
(where pulp and paper or paperboard are manufactured on-site), 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, semi-chemical and mechanical.

    Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NAICS code   MACT code
       Source category              NESHAP          \1\          \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

[[Page 81333]]

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 pre-consumer paper or paperboard 
stock products and convert them into other products (i.e., converting 
operations) are not part of the subpart S source category and are not 
affected by today's action.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Part II of the ICR will be available for download on the RTR 
Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The docket for this rulemaking contains the following 
document which provides more information on the risk assessment 
inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp and Paper 
Source Category.A27DE2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 81334]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information, see the memorandum in the docket 
titled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual 
Risk Modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ibid.
    \6\ A. Someshwar, NCASI. Compilation of ``Air Toxic'' and Total 
Hydrocarbon Emissions Data for Pulp and Paper Mill Sources--A Second 
Update. Technical Bulletin No. 973. February 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Ibid.A27DE2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 MACT-
Allowable 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 MACT-allowable and actual emissions in 
the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, 
April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final HON residual risk rules 
(71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 
respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that assessing the 
risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these 
risks reflect the maximum level at which sources could emit while still 
complying with the MACT standards. However, we also explained that it 
is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are 
available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the 
Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). It is reasonable to 
consider actual emissions 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 MACT-allowable to actual 
emissions for each source type for the facilities in the source 
category. This ratio is based on the level of control required by the 
subpart S MACT standards compared to the level of reported actual 
emissions and available information from the Part I survey on the level 
of control achieved by the emissions controls in use. For example, if 
survey data indicated that

[[Page 81335]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 MACT-allowable emissions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \15\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area 
for which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The IRIS information is available at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, the EPA determined that the CIIT cancer dose-response 
value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9 per [mu]g/m\3\) was based 
on better science than the IRIS dose-response value (1.3 x 
10-5 per [mu]g/m\3\), 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

[[Page 81336]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments that include 
carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a 
mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Work Group Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated June 14, 2006.
    \18\ See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document 
available in the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of 
action.
    \19\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-
Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
    \20\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known 
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,'' 
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual 
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that 
was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's 
NATA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposures, 
we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ 
system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or TOSHI). The HQ 
is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic reference value, which 
is either the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that 
is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 
during a lifetime,'' or, in cases where a RfC is not available, the 
ATSDR chronic MRL or the CalEPA Chronic REL. The REL is defined as 
``the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects 
are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' As noted above, in 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone 
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use those 
dose-response values in place of or, in addition to, other values.
    Worst-case screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were 
also evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest offsite 
exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids) 
assuming that a person was located at this spot at a time when both the 
peak (hourly) emission rate and hourly dispersion conditions occurred. 
In general, acute HQ values were calculated using best available, 
short-term dose-response value. These acute dose-response values 
include REL, AEGL and ERPG for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed 
below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates, meteorology 
and exposure location for our acute analysis.
    As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference 
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the 
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Reference exposure 
level values are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health 
effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. Reference 
exposure level values are designed to protect the most sensitive 
individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety. 
Since margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and 
uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an 
adverse health impact.
    Acute Exposure Guideline Levels were derived in response to 
recommendations from the NRC. As described in Standing Operating 
Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),\22\ ``the NRC's previous name for acute exposure 
levels--CEEL--was replaced by the term AEGL to reflect the broad 
application of these values to planning, response, and prevention in 
the community, the workplace, transportation, the military, and the 
remediation of Superfund sites.'' This document also states that AEGL 
values ``represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and 
are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 
hours.'' The document lays out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by 
stating (page 21) that ``the primary purpose of the AEGL program and 
the NAC/AEGL Committee is to develop guideline levels for once-in-a-
lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely 
toxic, high-priority 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/
m\3\) 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

[[Page 81337]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1, 
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values 
include the similarly-defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many 
chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ More information supporting the use of these factors for 
Pulp and Paper production is presented in the memorandum, Inputs to 
the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling, 
which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 site-specific data were 
considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for 
acute impacts of concern. The data refinements included using site-
specific facility layouts, as available, to distinguish facility 
property from an area where the public could access and be exposed. 
These refinements are discussed in the draft risk assessment documents, 
which are available in the docket for this source category. Ideally, we 
would prefer to have continuous measurements over time to see how the 
emissions vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency 
distribution of hourly emission rates over a year would allow us to 
perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold 
exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could 
include a more complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and 
elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that 
having this level of data is rare, 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 bio-accumulative in the 
environment (PB-HAP). There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound classes 
identified for this screening in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment 
Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 
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

[[Page 81338]]

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 dose-response relationships 
follows below.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is 
included in the risk assessment documentation (Draft Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Pulp and Paper Category) available in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR dataset involved QA/QC 
processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on: (1) 
The source of the data, (2) the degree to which data are incomplete or 
missing, (3) the degree to which assumptions made to complete the 
datasets are accurate, (4) whether and to what extent errors were made 
in estimating emissions values, (5) whether the emissions were based on 
or extrapolated from stack tests or estimates of fugitive emissions, 
and (6) miscellaneous other factors.
    The annual HAP emissions estimates used in the risk assessment are 
derived from data provided by mills in response to the Part II survey. 
Many of these emissions estimates are based on emission factors, 
developed from the most comprehensive dataset available for this 
industry, provided by NCASI. The uncertainties associated with emission 
factors include the uncertainties in the measurement of the data, 
limitations in the size and quality of the dataset, the presence of 
non-detects and 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For more information, see the memorandum in the docket 
titled, Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual 
Risk Modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment 
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is 
movement from one residence to another over the course of a 
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 81339]]

farther from the facility and under-predict exposures for people in the 
census block who live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census 
block centroid to predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential 
understatement or overstatement of the true maximum impact for any one 
individual but is an unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence.
    The assessments evaluate the projected cancer inhalation risks 
associated with pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the 
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time 
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e., 
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the 
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size 
of United States facilities), will influence the future risks posed by 
a given source or source category. Depending on the characteristics of 
the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 
overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total estimated 
number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility 
maintains or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 years, residents 
live beyond 70 years at the same location and the residents spend most 
of their days at that location, then 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. 
EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case 
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to be worst-
case actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be 
located at the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case 
impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and 
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a 
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is 
brought out in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the 
primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, 
as an agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default 
options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 
contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the 
next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of 
uncertainties and variability in dose-response relationships is given 
in the residual risk documentation which is available in the docket for 
this action.
    Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit).\29\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be 
greater.\30\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to 
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective 
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 
adequate health protection, the EPA typically uses the upper bound 
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our 
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses 
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
    \30\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. 
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 
exposure (RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human population 
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive 
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the 
methodology relies upon an UF approach (EPA 1993, 1994) which considers 
uncertainty, variability and gaps in the available data. The UF are 
applied to derive reference values that are intended to protect against 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default 
values,\31\ e.g., factors of 10 or 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:

[[Page 81340]]

(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-than-lifetime 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 effect-specific 
information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not vary appreciably 
between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is typically used), or 
based on the purpose for the reference value (see the following 
paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value derivation include: 
(1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from 
animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest observed adverse effect 
(exposure) level to no observed adverse effect (exposure) level 
adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an incomplete 
database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional adjustments 
are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from 
observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an 
acute reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk 
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches, 
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the 
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC 
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis 
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the 
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 
default options are not rules that bind the agency; rather, the 
agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a 
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In 
keeping with 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose, 
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute 
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or 
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the 
lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity 
should be factored into the risk characterization as potential 
uncertainties.
    Although every effort is made to identify 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 site-specific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level 
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 81341]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec. Sec.  63.440 through 63.449 (subpart S).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the memoranda titled, Section 112(d)(6) Technology 
Review for Pulping and Papermaking Processes and Summary of Pulp 
Bleaching Technology Review, in the docket for this rulemaking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 81342]]

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                                     Maximum chronic noncancer
      (in 1 million) \2\           Estimated       Estimated               TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------  population at   annual cancer --------------------------------    Worst-case
   Based on        Based on     increased risk     incidence       Based on        Based on      maximum refined
    actual         allowable    of cancer >= 1    (cases per        actual         allowable     screening acute
   emissions       emissions     in 1 Million        year)         emissions       emissions    noncancer HQ \4\
     level           level                                           level           level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            10              10          76,000            0.01             0.4             0.6  HQREL = 20
                                                                                                HQERPG	1 = 0.4
                                                                                                (acetaldehyde)
                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............   HQREL = 6.
                                                                                                HQERPG	1 = 0.004
                                                                                                 (chloroform).
                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............   HQREL = 5.
                                                                                                HQAEGL	1 = 0.2
                                                                                                 (formaldehyde)
                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............   HQREL = 2.
                                                                                                HQERPG	1 = 0.2
                                                                                                 (methanol)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted in section III.A.1 of this preamble, acrolein emissions were not modeled due to uncertainties in
  the emissions estimates.
\2\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the pulp and paper source category is the
  respiratory system.
\4\ See section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.

    As shown in Table 3, the results of the inhalation risk assessment 
performed using actual emissions data indicate the maximum lifetime 
individual cancer risk could be up to 10 in 1 million, primarily due to 
hexachloroethane 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 dose-response 
value for chloroform. One hundred sixty-two of the 171 facilities in 
this source category had an estimated worst-case HQ less than or equal 
to 1; the remaining 9 facilities had an estimated worst-case HQ less 
than or equal to 6.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The acute refined HQ values for this source category can be 
found in Appendix 6, Table 1 of the Risk Assessment report. A 
summary of the refined acute 1-hour HQ values that were greater than 
1 for this source category are as follows: 20,6,5,5,4,3,2,2,2,2,2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
health-protective 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

[[Page 81343]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
    \37\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference 
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific 
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, and available on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/m\3\. 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/m\3\; 
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/m\3\; 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/m\3\; HQWHO=2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH). Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Formaldehyde; 
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf.
    \39\ ACGIH (2001) Formaldehyde. In Documentation of the 
TLVs[reg] and BEIs[reg] 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.
    \40\ WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, in Air Quality 
Guidelines for Europe, second edition. World Health Organization 
Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark. 
Available on-line at http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ We note that the MIR for this source category would not 
change if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde had been used in the 
assessment; however, the total cancer incidence would decrease by 
about 36 percent. There is an ongoing IRIS reassessment for 
formaldehyde and future RTR risk assessments will use the cancer 
potency for formaldehyde that results from that reassessment. As a 
result, the current results many not match those of future 
assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 68 facilities with maximum individual cancer risks of 1 
in 1 million or greater and two facilities with maximum individual 
cancer risks of 10 in a million that represented the highest cancer 
risks for the source category. The MIR of 10 in a million for the 
source category was driven by emissions of hexachloroethane.
    As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between 
actual emissions levels and emissions allowable under the pulp and 
paper MACT standards indicate that MACT-allowable emission levels are 
roughly equal to the actual emission levels.\42\ The risk results from 
the inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risks are the same at 20 in a million, and the maximum chronic 
noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.6 at the MACT-allowable 
emissions level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For more information, see the memorandum in the docket 
titled Inputs to the Pulp and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual 
Risk Modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For detailed facilityspecific results, see Appendix 6 of 
the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp and Paper in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

      Table 4--Pulp and Paper Facilitywide Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed..............................          171
Cancer Risk:
    Estimated maximum facilitywide individual cancer risk             30
     (in 1 million)........................................
    Number of facilities with estimated facilitywide                   7
     individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million or more.....
    Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing             2
     50 percent or more to facilitywide individual cancer
     risk of 10 in 1 million or more.......................
    Number of facilities with facilitywide individual                 99
     cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or more.................
    Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing            57
     50 percent or more to facilitywide individual cancer
     risk of 1 in 1 million or more........................
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
    Maximum facilitywide chronic noncancer TOSHI...........            2
    Number of facilities with facilitywide maximum                     4
     noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more..........................
    Number of pulp and papermaking operations contributing             0
     50 percent or more to facilitywide maximum noncancer
     TOSHI of 1 or more....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 81344]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Inputs to the Pulp 
and Paper Industry October 2011 Residual Risk Modeling.
    \45\ EPA's IRIS Weight-of-Evidence Characterization for 
trivalent chromium http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0028.htm#refinhal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 MACT-allowable 
emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100 in 1 million, 
which is the presumptive upper limit of risk acceptability. The risk 
analysis also shows generally low cancer incidence (1 case 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See the docket memoranda titled, Section 112(d)(6) 
Technology Review for Pulping and Papermaking Processes and Summary 
of Pulp Bleaching Technology Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though we did not identify any new technologies to reduce risk from 
this source category beyond incremental improvements in the performance 
of existing technology used to meet the kraft condensate standards, we 
are specifically requesting comment on whether there are additional 
cost-effective control measures that may be able to reduce risks from 
the pulp and paper subpart S source category. In particular, we are 
requesting states to identify any controls they have already required 
for these 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

[[Page 81345]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Additional 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         lb/ODTP option              ppmw option
                                   ----------------------------------------------------    Annual        HAP
        Percent control,  %            Mills        Mills        Mills        Mills        cost,      emissions
                                     performing    without     performing    without      $million    reduction,
                                     bleaching    bleaching    bleaching    bleaching                    tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Additional details on our kraft condensate technology 
review and cost analysis are provided in the memoranda, Summary of 
Kraft Condensate Control Technology Review, and Costs and 
Environmental and Energy Impacts for Subpart S Risk and Technology 
Review, in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 81346]]

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

[[Page 81347]]

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 non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions is consistent with section 112 and is a reasonable 
interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive 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 Sec.  63.456 for 
this proposed addition (and see Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  63.443(a)); 
sulfite processes (Sec.  63.444); and bleaching systems (Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Located in 11 states.
    \50\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With today's proposal, repeat air emissions testing would be 
required for mills complying with the kraft condensates standards in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 81348]]

request comment on the appropriateness of re-deriving these equations 
to eliminate MEK for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 single-market 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 
full-time-equivalent employees. The EPA notes that this type of FTE 
estimate cannot be used to make assumptions about the specific number 
of people involved or whether new jobs are created for new employees.
    While a series of partial equilibrium models was used to analyze 
the economic impacts of this proposal, the EPA notes that it is 
currently developing the ISIS model for the United States pulp and 
paper industry. When completed, the ISIS model for the pulp and paper 
industry will be a dynamic engineering-economic model that facilitates 
analysis of emissions reduction strategies for multiple pollutants, 
while taking into account plant-level economic and technical factors, 
such as the type of mill, associated capacity, location, cost of 
production, applicable controls and costs. By considering various 
emissions reduction strategies, the model, when completed, will provide 
information on optimal industry operation and determine the most cost-
effective controls to meet the demand for pulp 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

[[Page 81350]]

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 description of the method used to
 Code For Revised Emissions.    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      Enter revised Emissions Release Point
 Point Type.                    Type here.
REVISED End Date.............  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate...  Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
                                (ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature.  Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here
                                ([deg]F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity....  Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/
                                sec).
REVISED Facility Category      Enter revised Facility Category Code
 Code.                          here, which indicates whether facility
                                is a major or area source.
REVISED Facility Name........  Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry      Enter revised Facility Registry
 Identifier.                    Identifier here, which is an ID assigned
                                by the EPA Facility Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions          Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance
 Performance Level Code.        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[supreg] 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[supreg] 
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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 81352]]

    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-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the general 
NAICS code 322 (i.e., Paper Manufacturing), the SBA small business size 
standard is 500 to 750 employees (depending on the specific NAICS code) 
according to the SBA small business standards definitions. We have 
estimated the cost impacts of the proposed rule and have determined 
that the impacts do not constitute a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (See the EIA 
in the docket for this proposed rule.) Only three of the companies 
affected are considered small entities per the definition provided in 
this section. We estimate that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on those three companies. The impact of 
this proposed action will be an annualized compliance cost of less than 
1 percent of each company's revenues.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of 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://

[[Page 81353]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \53\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research.'' Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \54\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis.'' Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1): 281-297.
    \55\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

[[Page 81354]]

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:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.457(b)(5)(i) of subpart S, Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  63.443  Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and 
semi-chemical processes.

* * * * *
    (e) Periods of excess emissions reported under Sec.  63.455 shall 
not be a violation of Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-condensate) wastewater streams to comply with the Clean 
Water Act).
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.453 is amended by adding paragraph (q) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.453  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

[[Page 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  63.456  Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit 
During Malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
paragraphs Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 81356]]

    (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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4).
    (1) Conduct an initial performance test for all emission sources 
subject to the limitations in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.14(b)(28) of subpart A of this 
part); or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
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 x 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 81357]]

Sec.  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 semi-annual 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Applies to
      Reference            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 Sec.   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   Section 63.7(e)(1) is replaced
                        63.7(e)(1)..      with Sec.   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 Sec.   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 Sec.
                                          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.............

[[Page 81358]]

 
63.8(c)(8)...........  Yes.............
63.8(d)..............  Yes, except for   SSM plans are not required.
                        last sentence,
                        which refers to
                        an SSM plan.
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 Sec.   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 Sec.   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 Sec.   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.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever 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