[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 394-433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23057]
[[Page 393]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing Plants; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2004 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 394]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052; FRL-7551-7]
RIN 2060-AG72
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the lime manufacturing source
category. The lime manufacturing emission units regulated will include
lime kilns, lime coolers, and various types of processed stone handling
(PSH) operations. The EPA has identified the lime manufacturing
industry as a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
including, but not limited to, hydrogen chloride (HCl), antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these substances has been
demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as cancer; irritation
of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous
system; and kidney damage. The final NESHAP will require all major
sources subject to the rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting
the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
Implementation of the final NESHAP will reduce non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP emissions from the lime manufacturing industry
source category by approximately 6.5 tons per year (tpy) and will
reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 5,900 tpy.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket
for this action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052 and Docket
ID No. A-95-41. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials
relevant to the final rule. The official public docket is available for
public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-
102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. For information concerning analyses
performed in developing the final NESHAP, contact Keith Barnett, U.S.
EPA, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals
Group, C504-05, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919)
541-5605, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established an official
public docket for this action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0052 and Docket ID No. A-95-41. The official public docket consists of
the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public
comments received, and other information related to this action. All
items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so interested
parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that they have
received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a part of
the official public docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. The docket is a dynamic file because
information is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to easily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket, excluding interagency review materials, will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related
to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket, or copies
may be mailed from the Air Docket on request by calling (202) 566-1742.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to access the index of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
this document.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for final rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32741 Commercial lime
manufacturing plants.
33111 Captive lime manufacturing
plants at iron and steel
mills.
3314 Captive lime manufacturing
plants at nonferrous metal
production facilities.
[[Page 395]]
327125 Producers of dead-burned
dolomite (Non-clay
refractory manufacturing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7081 of the
final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing were proposed in
December 20, 2002 (67 FR 78046). This action announces EPA's final
decisions on the NESHAP. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by March 5, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by the final NESHAP may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the Final NESHAP?
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
D. How Was the Final NESHAP Developed?
E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime
Manufacturing Industry?
F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime
Manufacturing Plant?
II. Summary of the Final NESHAP
A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Final
NESHAP?
B. How Do We Define the Affected Source and What Emissions Units
Are Included?
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Final NESHAP?
D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
E. When Must I Comply With the Final NESHAP?
F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Final
NESHAP?
G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance
With the Final NESHAP?
H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major
Source and Thus Subject to the Final NESHAP?
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
C. What Are the Water Impacts?
D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
V. Responses To Major Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
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. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the Final NESHAP?
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. We listed
Lime Manufacturing in the category of major sources on July 16, 1992
(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential
to emit, considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy
or more of any combination of HAP.
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires NESHAP to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the best system of emission reduction which
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator of EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated.
This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.
The CAA further provides that MACT standards must attain at least a
minimum level of stringency, known as the MACT floor. The MACT floor is
the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that
the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources
achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already
achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each
source category or subcategory. 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 standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the
category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) for which the
Agency has emissions information.
In developing MACT, we 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 cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
D. How Was the Final NESHAP Developed?
We used several resources to develop the final NESHAP, including
questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site
surveys of lime manufacturing facilities, operating and new source
review permits, permit applications, and comments on the proposed rule.
We researched the relevant technical literature and existing State and
Federal regulations and
[[Page 396]]
consulted and met with representatives of the lime manufacturing
industry, State and local representatives of air pollution agencies,
Federal agency representatives (e.g., United States Geological Survey)
and emission control and emissions measurement device vendors in
developing the final NESHAP. We also conducted an extensive emissions
test program. Industry representatives provided emissions test data,
arranged site surveys of lime manufacturing plants, participated in the
emissions test program, reviewed draft questionnaires, provided
information about their manufacturing processes and air pollution
control technologies, and identified technical and regulatory issues.
State representatives provided existing emissions test data, copies of
permits and other information.
E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime
Manufacturing Industry?
The HAP emitted by lime manufacturing facilities include, but are
not limited to, HCl, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these
compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when
present in concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient
air.
We have detailed data on each of the currently operating facilities
for emissions of HCl. Human exposures to ambient levels of HCl
resulting from lime manufacturing facilities' emissions were estimated
by industry as part of the risk assessment they conducted for purposes
of demonstrating, pursuant to section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, that HCl
emissions from lime kilns are below the threshold level of adverse
effects, within an ample margin of safety.
We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the
facilities that will be covered by the final NESHAP, and the people
living around the facilities, that will be necessary to conduct an
analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the metals HAP
emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health
effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse
health effects described below occur in the populations surrounding
these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur,
the final NESHAP will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
The HAP that will be controlled with the final NESHAP are
associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic
health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes; effects on the central nervous system; cancer; and damage to
the kidneys), and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and
congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects
on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified three of
the HAP--arsenic, chromium, and nickel--as human carcinogens and three
others--beryllium, cadmium, and lead--as probable human carcinogens.
F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
There are approximately 70 commercial and 40 captive lime
manufacturing plants in the U.S., not including captive lime
manufacturing operations at pulp and paper production facilities. About
30 of the captive plants in the U.S. produce lime that is used in the
beet sugar manufacturing process, but captive lime manufacturing plants
are also found at steel, other metals, and magnesia production
facilities. Lime is produced in about 35 States and Puerto Rico by
about 47 companies, which include commercial and captive producers
(except for lime manufacturing plants at pulp and paper production
facilities), and those plants which produce lime hydrate only.
G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime Manufacturing
Plant?
There are many synonyms for lime, the main ones being quicklime and
its chemical name, calcium oxide. High calcium lime consists primarily
of calcium oxide, and dolomitic lime consists of both calcium and
magnesium oxides. Lime is produced via the calcination of high calcium
limestone (calcium carbonate) or other highly calcareous materials such
as aragonite, chalk, coral, marble, and shell; or via the calcination
of dolomitic limestone. Calcination occurs in a high temperature
furnace called a kiln, where lime is produced by heating the limestone
to about 2000[deg] F, driving off carbon dioxide in the process. Dead-
burned dolomite is a type of dolomitic lime produced to obtain
refractory characteristics in the lime.
The kiln is the heart of the lime manufacturing plant, where
various fossil fuels (such as coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, and
fuel oil) are combusted to produce the heat needed for calcination.
There are five different types of kilns: rotary, vertical, double-shaft
vertical, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed. The most popular is the
rotary kiln, but the double-shaft vertical kiln is an emerging new kiln
technology gaining in acceptance because of its energy efficiency.
Rotary kilns may also have preheaters associated with them to improve
energy efficiency. As discussed further in this preamble, additional
energy efficiency is obtained by routing exhaust from the lime cooler
to the kiln, a common practice. Emissions from lime kilns include, but
are not limited to, metallic HAP, HCl, PM, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon dioxide. These emissions predominately originate
from compounds in the limestone feed material and fuels (e.g., metals,
sulfur, chlorine) and are formed from the combustion of fuels and the
heating of feed material in the kiln.
All types of kilns use external equipment to cool the lime product,
except vertical (including double-shaft) kilns, where the cooling zone
is part of the kiln. Ambient air is most often used to cool the lime
(although a few use water as the heat transfer medium), and typically
all of the heated air stream exiting the cooler goes to the kiln to be
used as combustion air for the kiln. The exception to this is the grate
cooler, where more airflow is generated than is needed for kiln
combustion, and consequently a portion (about 40 percent) of the grate
cooler exhaust is vented to the atmosphere. We estimate that there are
about five to ten kilns in the U.S. that use grate coolers. The
emissions from grate coolers include the lime dust (PM) and the trace
metallic HAP found in the lime dust.
Lime manufacturing plants may also produce hydrated lime (also
called calcium hydroxide) from some of the calcium oxide (or dolomitic
lime) produced. Hydrated lime is produced in a hydrator via the
chemical reaction of calcium oxide (or magnesium oxide) and water. The
hydration process is exothermic, and part of the water in the reaction
chamber is converted to steam. A wet scrubber is integrated with the
hydrator to capture the lime (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide)
particles carried in the gas steam, with the scrubber water recycled
back to the hydration chamber. The emissions from the hydrator are the
PM comprised of lime and hydrated lime.
Operations that prepare the feed materials and fuels for the kiln
and process the lime product for shipment or further on-site use are
found throughout a lime manufacturing plant. The equipment includes
grinding mills, crushers, storage bins, conveying systems (such as
bucket elevator, belt conveyors), bagging systems, bulk loading or
unloading systems, and screening operations. The emissions from these
operations include limestone
[[Page 397]]
and lime dust (PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the dust.
II. Summary of the Final NESHAP
A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?
The final NESHAP will regulate HAP emissions from all new and
existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located
with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories are not subject to the final NESHAP. Other captive lime
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills
and magnesia production facilities, will be subject to the final
NESHAP. See 67 FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations.
We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a lime
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous
material by calcination. However, we specifically exclude lime kilns
that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening
processes as the feedstock. Lime product means the product of the lime
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and
dead-burned dolomite.
B. How Do We Define the Affected Source and What Emissions Units Are
Included?
The final NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: each lime
kiln and its associated cooler, each individual PSH system. The
individual types of emission units in a PSH system are conveying system
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening
operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors--if they follow the
processed stone storage bin or storage pile in the sequence of PSH
operations. The materials processing operations (MPO) associated with
lime products (such as quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust
handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing operations, and
fuels are not subject to today's final NESHAP. Processed stone handling
operations are further distinguished in the final NESHAP as follows:
(1) Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, (2) whether
their emissions are fugitive emissions, (3) whether their emissions are
vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial
enclosure, and/or (4) whether the source is enclosed in a building.
Finally, lime hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not
included under the definition of affected source under the final
NESHAP.
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Final NESHAP?
The final NESHAP establishes PM emission limits for lime kilns,
coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. Particulate matter will be
measured solely as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile
metal HAP. (Particulate matter of course is not itself a HAP, but is a
typical and permissible surrogate for HAP metals. See National Lime
Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637-40 (D.C. Cir., 2000). The final NESHAP
also regulate opacity or visible emissions from most of the PSH
operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for non-volatile
and semi-volatile HAP metals.
D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
Emission Limits
The PM emission limit for the existing kilns and coolers is 0.12
pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air
pollution control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that
have installed and operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004
must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb/tsf. Kilns which meet the
criteria for the 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must continue to use a wet
scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet the
0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry
control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf PM emission
limit, regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The
PM emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As
a compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf
limit) may be applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns and
coolers (assuming the cooler(s) has a separate exhaust vent to the
atmosphere) at the lime manufacturing plant. In other words, the sum of
the PM emissions from all of the kilns and coolers at the lime
manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the production rates of the
kilns at the existing lime manufacturing plant, will be used to
determine compliance with the appropriate emission limit for kilns and
coolers. If the lime manufacturing plant has both new and existing
kilns and coolers, then the emission limit will be an average of the
existing and new kiln PM emissions limits, weighted by the annual
actual production rates of the individual kilns, except that no new
kiln may exceed the PM emission level of 0.10 lb/tsf. Kilns that are
required to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit must meet that limit
individually, and may not be included in any averaging calculations.
Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack will
be subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/
dscm) PM and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations
that are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g/dscm but
not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH
operations are subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations discussed above.
Otherwise, there must be no visible emissions from the building, except
from a vent, and the building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/
dscm and 7 percent opacity. For each fabric filter (FF) that controls
emissions from only an individual, enclosed processed stone storage
bin, the opacity must not exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple
processed stone storage bins with combined stack emissions, emissions
must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. Because the opacity
requirement for PSH operations is used as an indicator that a control
device is functioning properly, it is not appropriate, or meaningful,
to average the opacity readings from multiple PSH operations. The final
rule does not allow averaging of PSH operations.
We are not regulating HCl emissions from lime kilns in the final
NESHAP. Under the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we have
determined that no further control is necessary because HCl is a
``health threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns
are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. See
generally, 67 FR 78054-057. As explained there, the risk analysis
sought to assure that emissions from every source in the category
result in exposures less than the threshold level even for an
individual exposed at the upper end of the exposure distribution. The
upper end of the exposure distribution is calculated using the ``high
end exposure estimate,'' defined as a plausible estimate of individual
exposure for those persons at the upper end of the exposure
distribution, conceptually above the 90th percentile, but not higher
than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure. We
believe that assuring protection to persons at the upper end of the
exposure distribution is consistent with
[[Page 398]]
the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement in section 112(d)(4).
In the proposed rule, we published the results of the risk analysis
on which we based this decision. More information on the risk analysis
may be found in the published proposed rule (67 FR 78054-78057) and in
the docket. We received only one comment on our risk analysis.
We also are not establishing a limit for mercury emissions from
lime kilns. The only control technique would reflect control of the raw
materials and/or fossil fuels. This control is not duplicable or
replicable. We also determined that an emission limit for mercury based
on a beyond-the-MACT-floor option is not justified after consideration
of the cost, energy, and non-air environmental impacts. See 67 FR 78057
for additional discussion. We received no adverse comments on this
aspect of the rule as proposed.
Operating Limits
For lime kilns that use a wet scrubber PM control device, you are
required to maintain the 3-hour block average gas stream pressure drop
across the scrubber and the 3-hour block average scrubber liquid flow
rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were
established during the PM performance test.
For kilns using a FF or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) PM control
device, you must monitor opacity (as an operating limit) with a
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). You are required to
install and operate the COMS in accordance with Performance
Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and maintain the
opacity level of the lime kiln exhaust at or below 15 percent for each
6-minute block period. Facilities that installed COMS on or before
February 6, 2001, should continue to meet the requirements in effect in
40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, at the time of COMS installation unless
specifically required to re-certify the COMS by their permitting
authority.
As an alternative to a COMS, lime kilns that use ESP or FF PM
controls can elect to monitor PM levels with a PM detector that meets
the requirements in Sec. 63.7113(e) of the final rule. You must
maintain and operate the ESP or FF such that the PM detector alarm is
not activated, and the alarm condition does not exist for more than 5
percent of the operating time in each 6-month period.
For lime kilns that use a FF PM control device, you may install,
maintain and operate a bag leak detection system (BLDS) as an
alternative to a COMS or PM detector. The FF must be operated and
maintained so that the BLDS alarm is not activated, and an alarm
condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time
in each 6-month period. The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
For PSH operation emission points subject to a PM emission limit
and controlled by a wet scrubber, you are required to collect and
record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the
scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test. You are
required to continuously maintain the 3-hour average gas stream
pressure drop across the scrubber and the 3-hour average scrubber
liquid flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that
were established during the PM performance test.
You are required to prepare a written operations, maintenance, and
monitoring (OM&M) plan to cover all affected emission units. The plan
must include procedures for proper operation and maintenance of each
emission unit and its air pollution control device(s); procedures for
monitoring and proper operation of monitoring systems in order to meet
the emission limits and operating limits; standard procedures for the
use of a BLDS and PM detector; and corrective actions to be taken when
there is either a deviation from operating limits, or when PM detector
or BLDS alarms indicate corrective action is necessary.
E. When Must I Comply With the Final NESHAP?
The compliance date for existing affected sources is January 5,
2004. (Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit existing,
air pollution control equipment.) A new affected source (i.e., a kiln
or PSH system for which construction or reconstruction commenced after
December 20, 2002) must be in compliance upon initial startup or
January 5, 2007, whichever is later.
F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Final NESHAP?
Kiln and Coolers
For the kiln and cooler PM emission limit, you must conduct a PM
emissions test on the exhaust of each kiln at the lime manufacturing
plant and measure the stone feed rate to each kiln during the test.
Each individual kiln must meet their applicable PM emission limit
(0.10, 0.12, or 0.60 lb/tsf). Alternately, kilns subject to the 0.10
(new kilns) or 0.12 (existing kilns) lb/tsf PM emission limits are in
compliance if the sum of the emissions from these kilns at the lime
manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the stone feed rates
entering each of these kilns, do not exceed the applicable PM emission
limit, or if the facility has both new and existing kilns, it must not
exceed an average of the 0.12 and 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limits
weighted by individual kiln throughput. Kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/
tsf PM emission limit can not be included in any averaging scheme. If
you have a lime cooler(s) that has a separate exhaust to the
atmosphere, you must conduct a PM test on the cooler's exhaust
concurrently with the kiln PM test, and add the cooler emissions to the
appropriate kiln emissions. For kilns with a wet scrubber, you must
collect and record the applicable operating parameters during the PM
performance test and then establish the operating limits based on those
data.
Processed Stone Handling Operations
For PSH operations with stacks that are subject to PM emission
limits, you are required to conduct a PM emissions test on each stack
exhaust, and the stack emissions must not exceed the emission limit of
0.05 g/dscm. For PSH operations with stack opacity limits, you are
required to conduct a 3-hour test on the exhaust in accordance with
Method 9 in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and each of the 30
consecutive, 6-minute opacity averages must not exceed 7 percent. The
PSH operations controlled using wet scrubbers do not have an opacity
limit, but you are required to collect and record the wet scrubber
operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish
the applicable operating limits based on those data.
For PSH operations with fugitive emissions, you are required to
conduct a Method 9 test, and each of the consecutive 6-minute opacity
averages must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. These Method 9
tests are for 3 hours, but the test duration may be reduced to 1 hour
if certain criteria are met. Lastly, Method 9 tests or visible
emissions checks may be performed on PSH operations inside of
buildings, but additional lighting, improved access to equipment, and
temporary installation of contrasting backgrounds may be needed. For
additional guidance, see page 116 of the ``Regulatory and Inspection
Manual for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants,'' EPA report 305-B-
97-008, November 1997.
[[Page 399]]
G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance With
the Final NESHAP?
General
You are required to install, operate, and maintain each required
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) such that the CPMS
completes a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-
minute period. The CPMS will be required to have valid data from at
least three equally spaced data values for that hour during periods
that it is not out of control according to your OM&M plan. To calculate
the block average for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at
least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only
hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-
of-control periods). When required, the 3-hour block average value for
each operating parameter must be calculated as the average of each set
of three successive 1-hour average values.
You are required to develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the general
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
Kilns and Coolers
For kilns controlled by a wet scrubber, you are required to
maintain the 3-hour block average of the exhaust gas stream pressure
drop across the wet scrubber greater than, or equal to, the pressure
drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance
test. You are also required to maintain the 3-hour block average of the
scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate
operating limit established during the most recent performance test.
Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from an ESP with a PM
detector in lieu of monitoring opacity are required to maintain and
operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated, and
alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating
time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or
operator initiates corrective actions (per the OM&M plan) within 1 hour
of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of
the ESP demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm
time will be counted. The sensor on the PM detection system must
provide an output of relative PM emissions. The PM detection system
must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an
increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The PM
detection systems are required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and
maintained according to the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from a FF with a BLDS or PM
detector in lieu of monitoring opacity are required to maintain and
operate the FF such that the BLDS or PM detector alarm is not
activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent
of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm sounds
and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions (per the OM&M
plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted.
If inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective actions are
necessary, no alarm time will be counted. The sensor on the BLDS is
required to provide an output of relative PM emissions. The BLDS is
required to have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects
an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The
BLDS is required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
Standard operating procedures for the BLDS and PM detection systems
must be incorporated into the OM&M plan. We recommend that for
electrodynamic (or other similar technology) BLDS, the standard
operating procedures include concepts from EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
document may be found on the world wide web at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
For kilns and lime coolers monitored with a COMS, you are required
to maintain each 6-minute block average opacity level at or below 15
percent opacity. For COMS installed after February 6, 2001, the COMS
must be installed and operated in accordance with PS-1, 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B. Facilities that installed COMS on or before February 6,
2001, should continue to meet the requirements in effect in 40 CFR part
60, Appendix B, at the time of COMS installation unless specifically
required to re-certify the COMS by their permitting authority.
Processed Stone Handling Operations
For stack emissions from PSH operations which are controlled by a
wet scrubber, you are required to maintain the 3-hour average exhaust
gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than, or equal
to, the pressure drop operating limit established during the most
recent PM performance test. You are required to also maintain the 3-
hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than, or equal to, the
flow rate operating limit established during the most recent PM
performance test.
For PSH operations subject to opacity limitations that do not use a
wet scrubber control device, you are required to periodically
demonstrate compliance as follows. You must conduct a monthly 1-minute
visible emissions check of each emissions unit in the affected source.
If no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests
for any emission unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from
monthly to semiannually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions
are observed during any semiannual test, you must resume testing of
that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until
no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If
no visible emissions are observed during the semiannual test for any
emissions unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from
semiannually to annually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions
are observed during any annual test, you must resume visible emissions
testing of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that
schedule until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive
monthly tests.
If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions
check, you must conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in accordance with
Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test is
required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible
emissions, and the 6-minute opacity reading must not exceed the
applicable opacity limit.
H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major Source
and Thus Subject to the Final NESHAP?
The final NESHAP apply to lime manufacturing plants that are major
sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major sources.
Each lime facility owner/operator must determine whether their plant is
a major or area source since this determines whether the lime
manufacturing plant is an affected source under the final NESHAP.
Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source as a ``stationary source
or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons/yr or more of any HAP
or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' This definition
requires evaluation of the facility's potential to emit all HAP from
[[Page 400]]
all emission sources in making a determination of whether the source is
major or area. However, based on our data analysis, HCl is most likely
the HAP that will account for the largest quantity of HAP emissions
from a lime manufacturing plant. Although lime manufacturing plants
emit HAP metals from most of the emission units at the plant site and
organic HAP from the kiln, our analysis indicates that most likely the
metal and organic HAP emissions will each be well below the 10 tpy
criteria.
We are requiring that all lime manufacturing facilities potentially
subject to the final NESHAP demonstrate, with an emissions test, that
they emit less than 10 tpy of HCl if they wish to claim area source
status. We are allowing three HCl test methods to be used. These are
EPA Method 320 or 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, or ASTM Method D
6735-01. If ASTM Method D 6735-01 is used, we require that the paired-
train option in section 11.2.6 and the post-test analyte spike option
in section 11.2.7 be used.
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
We proposed a PM standard (as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP
metals) of 0.12 lb/tsf reflecting the performance of dry pollution
control systems (baghouses). We also solicited comment on having a
separate PM standard of 0.60 lb/tsf for kilns controlled with wet
scrubbers. In the final rule, we have decided to adopt these two
different standards for PM emissions from existing lime kilns. We are
also indicating that existing kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM
emission limit are not to be included in any averaging scheme for
demonstrating compliance with a PM standard.
In the proposed NESHAP, we required facilities using wet scrubbers
to monitor scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate. We have written
the final NESHAP to explicitly state that alternative monitoring
procedures are allowed under the procedures described in 40 CFR
63.8(f). However, we do not delegate that authority.
The proposed NESHAP stated that you must install, operate, and
maintain COMS as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General
Provisions, and according to PS-1 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. We
have stated in the rule that COMS installed, relocated, or
substantially refurbished after February 6, 2001, must meet the
requirements of PS-1 as revised on August 10, 2000. Any COMS installed
on or before February 6, 2001, should continue to meet the requirements
in effect at the time of installation unless specifically required by
the local regulatory agency to re-certify the COMS in question.
In the proposed NESHAP, we required you to monitor the performance
of FF with either a COMS or a PM detector. In the final NESHAP, we are
allowing existing facilities to monitor FF performance using daily EPA
Method 9, in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, visible emission readings if
the facility has a positive pressure FF with multiple stacks, or if it
is infeasible to install a COMS in accordance with PS-1 in Appendix B
to 40 CFR part 60.
In the proposed NESHAP, we allowed three alternatives for
monitoring ESP performance. These were a COMS, a PM detector, or
monitoring ESP voltage and current. In the final NESHAP, we are
allowing only two alternatives, a COMS or a PM detector. There are no
requirements to establish ESP voltage and current operating limits.
In the proposed NESHAP, we specified that EPA Method 9 in Appendix
A to 40 CFR part 60 should be used to determine opacity from fugitive
emissions. We have retained this requirement in the final NESHAP, but
we have added additional requirements on how EPA method 9 in Appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60 should be implemented to determine fugitive visible
emissions. This language was taken directly from 40 CFR 60.675(c)(1).
In the proposed NESHAP, Sec. 63.7120(b) could be interpreted to
imply that PSH operations must be continuously monitored. In the final
NESHAP, PSH operations are subject to monthly (not continuous) visible
emission testing.
In the proposed NESHAP, we required that lime kiln emission testing
be conducted at the highest production level reasonably expected to
occur. In the final NESHAP, we require that lime kilns be tested under
representative operating conditions.
In the proposed NESHAP, we required reporting of deviations from
operating, visible emissions, and opacity limits, including those
deviations that occur during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. In the final NESHAP, we require that reports are to be
made in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10(d).
In the proposed NESHAP, we required testing of all kilns in order
to claim area source status. In the final NESHAP, we have included a
provision that allows the permitting authority to determine if idled
kilns must be tested, and also to determine whether all kilns that use
identical feed materials, fuels, and emission controls must still all
be tested.
In the proposed NESHAP, the raw material storage bin was the first
emission unit in the sequence of lime manufacturing that was part of
the affected source. Materials processing operations between the
storage bin and the kiln were also covered. In the final NESHAP,
material stockpiles prior to the processed stone storage bin are not
covered, open processed stone piles are not covered, storage bins are
defined as manmade enclosures, and use the term processed stone
handling operations instead of materials processing operations.
In the proposed NESHAP, we included as an affected source lime
kilns that produced lime product from any calcareous substance. In the
final NESHAP, we have excluded lime kilns that produce lime from water
softening sludge that contain calcium carbonate.
In the proposed NESHAP, we excluded materials handling operations
associated with lime product. In the final NESHAP, we have specifically
stated that nuisance dust collectors are part of lime product handling
systems and, therefore, are not part of the affected source.
In the proposed NESHAP, we required that facilities use rolling 3-
hour averages to show compliance with wet scrubber operating limits. We
noted that in the proposed rule, we did not clearly state how to
calculate the rolling average. Based on compliance requirements of
other NESHAP, we determined that a rolling average was not necessary to
ensure compliance, but did increase the complexity of the average
calculation and recordkeeping process. Therefore, in the final NESHAP,
we require block 3-hour averages instead of rolling 3-hour averages,
which is consistent with the requirement to use block averaging
required for ESP that choose to monitor using COM.
In the proposed NESHAP, we allowed averaging among all lime kilns
and coolers at existing sources, and all new lime kilns and coolers at
new sources, but did not allow averaging of existing and new lime kilns
and coolers together. In addition, the averaging provisions and
equations applied whether or not the facility desired to average. We
have written the final NESHAP to state that each individual new lime
kiln and its associated cooler must meet a 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission
limit, and each individual existing lime kilns and its associated
cooler must meet a 0.12 lb/tsf PM emission limit. Averaging is
optional, so that if each individual kiln meets its emission limit,
averaging is not required. The exception to this is for existing kilns
which are subject to the
[[Page 401]]
0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit. These kilns are not eligible for
averaging.
If the lime manufacturing plant has multiple kilns and wants to
average kilns together to meet the PM emission limit, this is allowed
(with one limitation discussed below, and the exception for kilns
subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit noted above) and the
averaging equations in the final rule must be used. However, in no case
may a new kiln exceed a 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit. Where there are
both new and existing lime kilns at a facility, then the PM emission
limit will be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the
individual kilns. We believe that allowing averaging is appropriate
here because of the identity of the units (kilns and coolers in all
cases), and the emissions (same HAP in same type of emissions, since
all emissions result from kilns and coolers). Averaged emissions under
these circumstances would, thus, still reflect MACT for the affected
source. The averaging provisions are included in the final NESHAP as a
result of the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Panel
convened as required by section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) and improves the compliance flexibility options for small
businesses, which is the intent of the RFA.
The only limitation we are requiring on averaging is that any new
kiln, when considered alone, must meet the 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit.
We do not consider this to be a significant limitation because the most
likely averaging scenario involving new and existing kilns will be a
facility that erects a new kiln that is designed to meet a level below
the 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit. It is also appropriate to prevent a
situation where a new kiln could be erected that did not perform at the
same level as the best controlled facility.
We are not allowing kilns equipped with wet scrubbers for PM
emissions control to be eligible for averaging. As explained more fully
below, we are establishing a separate PM emissions standard for kilns
equipped with wet scrubbers to avoid potentially forcing wet scrubbers
to be replaced with dry systems, which could lead to less control of
SO2 emissions and atmospheric formation of sulfate PM (a
type of PM2.5). These considerations, however, do not justify allowing
averaging between kilns with such large differences in PM emission
limits. Our intent in allowing averaging was to avoid the situation
where some kilns at a facility were slightly above the 0.12 lb/tsf
emission limit would have to completely replace existing PM controls
for only a slight reduction on overall PM emissions. If we were to
allow averaging where some of the kilns only have to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf
emission limit, it could result in some kilns being allowed to emit PM
at levels significantly above the levels that have been determined to
be best control.
We are not allowing averaging for other emission sources. Processed
stone handling operations that exhaust through stacks have an emission
limit of 0.50 g/dscm. We did not see an advantage to allowing averaging
for these operations because they are small compared to the PM
emissions for the lime kilns. The other emission limits in the final
rule are for PSH operations, and the limits are expressed as opacity.
As stated previously, averaging opacity limits is not appropriate. No
commenter requested averaging for PSH operations.
In the proposed rule, we defined the affected source as the
collection of all of the lime kilns, lime coolers and materials
processing operations. We noted that this language could be
misinterpreted to imply that a new lime kiln erected at an existing
lime manufacturing plant would be considered existing, not new. In the
final NESHAP, we have written the language in 40 CFR 63.7082 to make
our intent clear. New lime kilns, whether or not they are built at an
existing lime manufacturing plant, must meet the PM emission limits for
new sources.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
We considered water, solid waste, and energy impacts as part of our
so-called beyond-the-floor analysis pursuant to section 112(d)(2) of
the CAA, which requires consideration of ``non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements,'' as well as ``the cost
of achieving such emissions reduction,'' in deciding whether or not to
adopt standards more stringent than the MACT floor. The following
section summarize portions of these analyses.
A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?
There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S.,
not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About
30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing
facilities which are not subject to the final rule. We estimate that 70
percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants will be major
sources co-located with major sources, or part of major sources, and,
thus, about 56 lime manufacturing plants will be subject to the final
rule. The other 24 facilities will incur a small, one-time cost for HCl
testing to demonstrate that they are area sources.
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that all sources (not including lime manufacturing
plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source
category collectively emit approximately 10,720 tpy of HAP. These HAP
estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals from existing sources
and projected new sources over the next 5 years. We estimate that the
final NESHAP will reduce HAP metals emissions from the lime
manufacturing source category by about 3.6 tpy, and will reduce HCl
emissions by about 235 tpy. In addition, we estimate that the final
NESHAP will reduce PM emissions by about 3,880 tpy from a baseline
level of 16,730 tpy, and the final NESHAP will reduce SO2
emissions by about 6,150 tpy from a baseline of 34,650 tpy. The roughly
14 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the
projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply
with the final PM standards.
Table 1 to this preamble summarizes the baseline emissions and
emissions reductions.
Table 1.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
Manufacturing Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP metals
Emissions PM (tpy) (tpy) HCl (tpy) SO2 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources............ 13,588 13.5 8,541 30,783
Baseline emissions--new sources................. 3,140 2.8 2,161 3,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 402]]
Total baseline emissions.................... 16,728 16.3 10,702 34,651
================================================================================================================
Emissions reductions--existing sources.......... 3,786 3.4 235 6,147
Emissions reductions--new sources............... 96 0.2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total emissions reductions.................. 3,882 3.6 235 6,147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final NESHAP will also result in some offsetting emissions
increases. These increases are due to additional emissions that will
occur at electricity generating facilities as a result of the need to
generate the electricity required to operate the control equipment, and
power the fans necessary to overcome control device pressure drop. We
estimate these emission increases to be 0.3 tpy for PM, 12.4 tpy for
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 6.1 tpy for nitrogen oxides
(NOX). It should be noted that these emissions increases are
insignificant when compared to the emissions decreases that result from
the final NESHAP.
C. What Are the Water Impacts?
We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to
increase by about 1,250 million gallons per year from current levels as
a result of the final rule. This estimate is based on the assumption
that sources will upgrade or replace about 30 percent of the existing
wet scrubbers to comply with the PM standards, and these new or
upgraded scrubbers will require a higher water flow rate that the
scrubbers currently installed. For new sources, we expect no additional
water consumption, as we do not expect new sources to install wet
scrubbers for PM control.
D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
As a result of the final rule, solid waste will be generated as
additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We
estimate that about 3,880 tpy of additional solid waste will be
generated as a result of today's final rule. This estimate does not
include consideration that some of this will most likely be recycled
directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material
(agricultural lime).
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by
about 4.0 million kilowatt-hours/yr (kWh/yr) as a result of the final
rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will
replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet
scrubbers (that require more electricity). For new sources, we expect
an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/yr as a
result of the final rule. This electricity demand is associated with
complying with the PM standards for new sources.
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The estimated total national capital cost of today's final rule is
$28.2 million. This capital cost applies to projected new and existing
sources and includes the cost to purchase and install emissions control
equipment (e.g., existing PM control equipment upgrades); monitoring
equipment; the costs of initial performance tests; and emissions tests
to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source, and,
hence subject to the final standards.
The estimated annualized costs of the final NESHAP are $18.0
million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs
of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance
costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and
annualized costs of the initial emissions testing.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
It should be noted that the economic impacts and social costs
described below slightly overestimate the impacts for today's action,
for they reflect the higher cost estimates ($22.4 million annualized
costs) associated with the proposed rule.
The results of our economic impact analysis indicate the average
price per ton for lime will increase by 2.1 percent (or $1.17 per
metric ton) as a result of the final standards for lime manufacturers.
Overall lime production is projected to decrease by 1.8 percent as a
result of the final standards. Because of the uncertainty of control
cost information for large firms, we accounted for these firms as a
single aggregate firm in the economic model, so it is not plausible to
estimate closures for large firms. However, among the 19 small firms in
this industry, we project that two firms are at risk for closure.
Based on the market analysis, we project the annual social costs of
the final rule to be $20.2 million. As a result of higher prices and
lower consumption levels, we project the consumers of lime (both
domestic and foreign) will lose $19.7 million annually, while domestic
producer surplus will decline by $0.8 million. Foreign producers will
gain as a result of the final rule with profit increasing by $0.2
million. For more information regarding the economic impacts, consult
the economic impact analysis in the docket for the final rule.
V. Responses to Major Comments
This section presents a summary of responses to major comments. A
summary of all comments received and our responses to those comments
may be found in Docket ID No. OAR 2002-0052.
Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA requested
comment on establishing a subcategory for existing kilns equipped with
wet scrubbers, if it could be demonstrated factually that there will
otherwise be significant environmentally counterproductive effects due
to increased emissions of acid gases, increased energy use, or
increased water use. Several commenters asked that a subcategory for
scrubber-equipped kilns be established since wet scrubbers cannot meet
the proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf for existing affected
kilns and, therefore, existing kilns with scrubbers will have to
replace them with baghouses. They also asserted that in most cases, wet
scrubbers have higher annualized costs than baghouses. Therefore, even
if a wet scrubber could meet a PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf,
facilities will opt to use baghouses due to cost considerations. This
will result in an increase in emissions of HCl (a HAP) and
SO2 (a non-HAP criteria pollutant) for a nominal decrease in
HAP metal emissions. In later discussions, this same commenter (the
industry trade association) pointed out that SO2 can undergo
chemical reactions
[[Page 403]]
in the atmosphere to form sulfate PM, which is a type of PM which is
less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (fine PM). In support of this
request, one commenter provided estimates that not establishing the
requested wet scrubber subcategory will result in a HAP metals
emissions decrease of 3 tpy nationwide, but will result in increased
emissions of 2,220 tpy for HCl and 2,475 tpy for SO2. They
also provided data indicating that 46 percent of the increased
SO2 emissions would react to form fine PM in the form of
sulfates. They estimate that this would result in an increase of 1,645
tpy of fine PM emissions. Other commenters provided site-specific
examples they claimed demonstrated the same effect. One commenter also
claimed that the higher operating temperatures of dry systems cause
metals to vaporize and pass through a particulate collector, resulting
in a lower metal concentration in the captured particulate. As a
result, they claimed that even though dry control equipment may reduce
HAP metals emissions, the reduction will be minimal, while the release
of HCl and SO2 emissions will increase significantly. The
commenter provided data which they claimed show the only conventional
pollutant that will be reduced with the installation of a dry control
system will be PM and, ``fugitive dust emissions from a dry system
could more than offset the improved particulate collection on the kiln
exhausts.''
Response: Standards implementing section 112(d) of the CAA must, of
course, be of a minimum level of stringency, usually referred to as the
MACT floor. For existing sources, this floor level of control cannot be
less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions information).'' In the final rule, EPA is
establishing section 112(d) standards to control emissions of HAP
metals, for which PM is a surrogate. None of the commenters challenged
that the level of PM emissions reflecting the average of the 12 percent
of the best performing sources (for HAP metals reduction) is 0.12 lb/
tsf. Notwithstanding, the commenters contended that EPA should
subcategorize on the basis of the type of air pollution control device
used and then separately determine the floor for each subcategory.
Although the CAA contemplates that EPA may establish subcategories
when promulgating MACT standards, subcategorization typically reflects
``differences in manufacturing process, emission characteristics, or
technical feasibility'' (67 FR 78058). A classic example, provided in
the legislative history to CAA section 112(d), is of a different
process leading to different emissions and different types of control
strategies, the specific example being Soderberg and prebaked anode
primary aluminum processes (see A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1 at 1138-39 (floor debates on Conference
Report)).
Normally, it is legally impermissible to subcategorize based on the
type of air pollution control device. See Chemicals Manufacturers
Association v. EPA, 870 F. 2d 177, 218-19 ( 5th Cir. 1989) modified on
different grounds on rehearing 884 F. 2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989) (rejecting
subcategorization based on type of control device for purposes of the
technology-based standards under the Clean Water Act, which are
analogous to the CAA section 112 standards). The problem with
subcategorizing on the basis of pollution control device, quite simply,
is that it leads to situations where floors are established based on
performance of sources that are not the best performing. For example,
suppose a source category consists of 100 sources using the same
process and having the same emission characteristics, but that 50
sources use control device A to control HAP emissions, and 50 use
control device B which is two orders of magnitude less efficient. If
one subcategorized based on the type of pollution control device, the
MACT floor for the 50 sources with control device B would reflect
worst, rather than best performance. Although the disparity in levels
of emission control between the best-performing sources here, and the
best-performing sources using wet scrubbers is not this dramatic, the
difference is nonetheless evident.
Commenters provided no technical data that would justify
subcategorizing. Nor are we aware of any. The commenters maintain
instead that the best performing sources with respect to HAP metal
reduction should not be considered ``best performing'' because that
performance (achieved by use of FF) comes at an environmental cost,
namely increased emissions of HCl and SO2 compared to what
lime kilns equipped with wet scrubbers will emit. There is some support
for the idea that if an ostensibly best-performing pollution control
device creates potentially significant and counterproductive
environmental effects, its performance need no longer be considered
best due to the counterproductive effects and could justify
differentiation in the form of separate standards. Commenters suggested
that the increased emissions of HCl and SO2 will inevitably
result (they maintain) if the owners of lime kilns replace wet
scrubbers with baghouses. (The commenters did not suggest, however,
that kilns with FF should replace them with a different type of control
system to avoid these impacts; they sought the result of separate
standards for FF-equipped kilns and wet system-equipped kilns.)
Although it is not clear that the commenters' starting premise,
that baghouses are either needed or will be used to achieve the PM
standard, is invariably correct (see Response to Comment Document where
EPA responds to comments regarding the performance capabilities of
venturi wet scrubber systems), EPA estimated at proposal and continues
to estimate that at least in some cases, kilns would replace wet
scrubbers with dry systems (for example, where it is more economical to
do so).
The commenters provided no data to refute that a PM emission limit
of a 0.12 lb/tsf represents best control of HAP emissions if we do not
create any kiln subcategories. (We note that as part of their comments,
they claimed that the higher temperatures of dry PM controls result in
metals vaporizing and passing through the PM control. However, the data
provided in their comment do not substantiate that claim, and studies
done for the Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP indicate that all but a
few percent of the metals in question exit the kilns as solid
particulate.) However, our analysis indicates that the extent to which
SO2 and HCl emissions actually increase may have been
overstated by the commenter. The EPA estimates that if all facilities
currently using wet scrubbers switched to dry controls, HCl emissions
would increase by approximately 1,310 tpy (vs. 1,800 tpy estimated by
the commenter), and SO2 emissions would increase by about
1,830 tpy (vs 2,900 tpy estimated by the commenter). (See the
memorandum ``Environmental Impacts of Decision on Best Control for Wet
Scrubber-Controlled Kilns' in the docket for the final rule.) We do not
regard either level of increased HCl emissions as significant. We
modeled this emission increase as part of our determination (pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(4)) that emissions of HCl from lime kilns are
below an HCl risk threshold within an ample margin of safety. See 67 FR
78054-78057 and the risk analysis in the docket for the final rule.
Given this determination, we cannot view these HCl increases as being
so significant as
[[Page 404]]
to raise a question whether the best-performing sources with respect to
HAP metal reductions are in fact best performing.
The commenters also cited projected increases in the criteria
pollutant SO2. They did not initially address the reductions
in PM emissions resulting from the decision not to subcategorize by
control device. The EPA estimates that nearly 1,080 tpy of additional
PM is removed if all existing kilns were to meet a standard of 0.12 lb/
tsf, of which approximately 1.6 tpy are metal HAP. Although EPA may not
promulgate standards for non-HAP under CAA section 112(d), Congress
expected reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants such as PM to
be a benefit of the MACT program. In comparison to estimates of
increased emissions of SO2 and HCl by either the commenter
or EPA, the decrease in captured PM emissions (and the attendant
decrease in capture of non-mercury metal HAP) is significant.
There is a further consideration, however. Based on the available
size distribution data from Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, 73 percent of the PM emitted directly by lime kilns is coarse
PM (PM in the size range of 10 to 2.5 micrometers). Some of the
SO2 emitted to the atmosphere undergoes chemical reactions
to form fine PM. (See generally the respective Criteria Documents for
PM (EPA/600/P-95/001aF-cF. 3v, 1996) and SO2 (EPA/600/8-82-
029aF-cF. 3v., 1982 and addenda)). Thus, in assessing whether some
potential factor might justify a decision that kilns with dry systems
are not best performing, some comparison of coarse v. fine PM emissions
here is needed.
If we retain a single PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf for all
existing kilns, total PM emissions would be reduced (compared to
separate standards for kilns with wet scrubbers and dry controls) by an
additional 1,080 tpy. Of that number, 630 tpy is fine PM and 450 is
coarse PM. The potential amount of increased SO2 emissions
is 1,830. A portion of this 1,830 tpy of SO2 will be
converted in the atmosphere to produce 1,270 tpy of fine PM. Therefore,
the incremental impact of a single PM standard of 0.12 lb/tsf for both
wet scrubbers and dry controls would be an increase of 640 (1,270-630)
tpy in fine PM emissions, and a decrease of 450 tpy in coarse PM
emissions. This assumes that all facilities that currently have wet
scrubbers switch to dry controls, and that 46 percent of the
SO2 converts to fine PM. The 46 percent conversion estimate
used by the commenter is consistent with information in the respective
Criteria Documents for PM and SO2 discussed above.
As recently summarized by EPA (68 FR 28339, May 23, 2003),
scientific studies show ambient PM (both fine and coarse) is associated
with a series of adverse health effects. Fine PM is associated with
increases in daily mortality. Coarse PM is more strongly linked to
morbidity (e.g. hospital admissions). See generally the respective
Criteria Documents for PM (EPA/600/P-95/001aF-cF. 3v, 1996) and
SO2 (EPA/600/8-82-029aF-cF. 3v., 1982 and addenda).
Therefore, it is difficult to make comparisons between the relative
benefits of reducing emissions of fine and coarse PM.
The EPA views this situation as equivocal: It is unclear which of
these types of performance is best since on the one hand there is
reduced emissions of HAP metals and coarse PM but foregone control of
SO2 and sulfate (fine) PM, and, for kilns controlled with
wet systems, the converse. In this situation, and based on these facts,
which, with current analytic tools seem to us to be largely in
equipoise, we are not prepared to view either wet or dry systems as
best performing and instead are promulgating a separate PM standard for
each.
The EPA emphasizes that considerations of risk and relative
environmental benefits are normally irrelevant to MACT floor
determinations (unless expressly authorized by statute, as in CAA
section 112(d)(4) as applied in the final rule), since floor standards
must reflect the performance of the specified number of designated
sources. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640
(considerations of cost and de minimis risk cannot be considered in
making MACT floor determinations). We are considering these factors in
the final rule solely for the purpose of evaluating the commenters'
claim that sources using wet and dry control systems should be
evaluated separately for MACT floor purposes due to environmental
benefits and disbenefits associated with dry and dry control systems.
Comment: One commenter stated that wet scrubbers cannot meet the
proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf. They claimed that a wet
scrubber manufacturer will only guarantee this limit if less than 1
percent of the particles to be removed are less than 1 micrometer in
diameter. The commenter stated that EPA assumes that the average mass
diameter of particles in lime kiln gas effluent is 2 micrometers, and
that this assumption is based on a single reference, and that reference
was actually fugitive lime dust, not lime kiln particulate. They
further claimed that volatilization and homogenous nucleation of
potassium chloride particles in the gas stream generates particles in
the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers size range. ``As particle size decreases
below 1 micrometer, inertial compaction becomes decreasingly effective.
Above 0.1 micrometers, Brownian displacement is ineffective. In the
range between 0.1 and 0.5 micrometers, neither of these two main
particle capture mechanisms relied upon in wet scrubber design is very
effective.'' The commenter presented data from a recent scrubber
installation to demonstrate the point.
A second commenter claimed that a scrubber performance efficiency
of 99.9 percent will be required to meet the 0.0072 grain/dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf) particulate concentration which they claimed
corresponds to the proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf. The
commenter's environmental consultant advised that it is unlikely a wet
scrubber with a 35-inch pressure drop could achieve this level of
performance with the facility's current inlet exhaust particulate
loading.
Response: We have serious technical disagreements with this
comment, as set out in the Response to Comment Background Document.
However, because EPA feels that some kilns with wet systems would
replace them with dry systems to comply with a PM emission limit of
0.12 lb/tsf, the potential tradeoff between coarse PM/HAP metals and
fine PM/SO2 reductions likely will still occur.
Comment: One commenter contended that EPA asserts incorrectly that
lime plants will choose high-efficiency venturi scrubbers to replace
their current wet scrubbers because high-efficiency venturi scrubbers
have lower capital costs and sometimes lower annual costs than FF. They
further stated that five of the six model kilns the Agency examined had
much higher annualized costs for high-efficiency venturi scrubbers than
for FF. This commenter submitted a manufacturer's cost proposal that
shows a scrubber with a 35-inch pressure drop costs substantially more
than EPA estimates. They conclude from this that lime kilns will be
forced to use FF, with attendant increases in HCl and SO2
emissions. Another commenter stated that the cost for the installation
of a FF will be higher than EPA estimated due to the location of
existing equipment in the area where the collector should be located,
construction of the duct collector in a congested area with plant
operations,
[[Page 405]]
and accessibility to existing lime kiln dust handling systems.
Response: Regarding modeled high costs for scrubbers compared to
FF, individual models may show this characteristic. However, the
distribution of kiln sizes in the lime industry and the allocation of
model plants to those kilns shows that estimated nationwide total
annual costs for replacing existing wet scrubbers with high-efficiency
venturi scrubbers is $6.6 million. The total annual cost if the
existing wet scrubbers are replaced with FF is $7.0 million. So there
is essentially no cost difference on a nationwide basis.
For both types of control system, costs for any specific plant may
be more or less than the value shown by the model used to estimate
nationwide cost. The plant is expected to buy whatever system its
management believes is in the best business interests of the owners,
but in the aggregate, estimated annual cost for control systems is
about the same whether all plants replace existing equipment with
venturi scrubbers or with FF. It is for this reason that EPA is finding
that at least some kilns would replace wet systems with dry if required
to meet a uniform PM limit of 0.12 lb/tsf.
There were two comments where specific facilities claimed that
their costs will be higher than EPA estimated in our model plant
analysis. One was a vendor's actual cost proposal for a scrubber with
35-inch w.g. pressure drop, and one was for installation of a FF. Our
costs are based on model plants developed from industry responses to
questionnaires. Given that we do not have site specific information on
every facility, this is a reasonable approach to calculating costs. It
is always possible that there are site specific factors that will
result in any one facility having higher or lower costs than costs
estimated using model plants. Our methodology is based on estimates of
basic equipment costs, and factors to calculate direct and indirect
capital costs that constitute total capital investment. Unit costs are
applied to labor, utilities, waste disposal, and other operating and
maintenance costs to obtain direct annual costs. Indirect annualized
costs based on capital recovery and other service charges are also
estimated and added to direct annual costs to obtain total annual cost.
Costing based on a model plant gives an estimate that can be included
in an aggregate estimation of costs across all model plants weighted by
their representation in the nationwide population. This approach
necessarily will not address each specific case found in industry.
Therefore, one facility's reported costs not corresponding to our model
plant costs does not indicate that our costs are underestimated. We
also note that, except for a comment on flue gas flow which we
previously addressed, the commenters did not take exception to the
basic equipment costs, energy costs, or cost factors used by us in our
model plant assessment of the rule's cost analysis as proposed.
One commenter also mentioned the cost resulting from the location
of existing equipment and plant congestion. We have accounted for these
costs by including factors for demolition and salvage of existing
equipment that will have to be replaced by the new control system. A
retrofit factor is also included to account for difficulties in
replacing existing equipment with new equipment in an existing plant
(see ``Costing Algorithm for Venturi Scrubber on Lime Kilns with
Existing Scrubbers'').
Comment: Several commenters claimed that not establishing a
subcategory for scrubber-equipped kilns will adversely affect small
businesses. They stated that the annualized cost of upgrading all
scrubbers is $9.45 million, based on EPA's estimate of total annualized
costs. According to the commenter, EPA predicts that upgrading these
kilns will reduce HAP metals by 3.1 tpy, resulting in a cost
effectiveness of $3.0 million/ton of metal HAP. The commenter stated
that EPA's assumption that 30 percent of lime plants are area sources
and won't be affected by the final rule reduces the removal of metal
HAP attributed to upgrading scrubber-equipped kilns to 2.2 tpy
(although the commenter stated that EPA has provided no support for the
assumption that 30 percent of lime plants are area sources).
Another commenter noted that EPA's estimated annualized cost for
the commenter to install FF is $2,236,000, which equates to $9.3
million per ton of particulate HAP control.
Response: Section 112 of the CAA precludes us from considering cost
when calculating MACT floors. Therefore, none of the cost issues
discussed above are sufficient to support a separate subcategory for
existing kilns with wet scrubbers, or otherwise support a different
standard.
Though costs cannot be a consideration here, our estimate shows a
cost of $6.6 million to upgrade all scrubbers to meet the rule as
proposed, versus the $9.45 million figure provided by the commenter.
Our estimate assumed 70 percent of kilns are located at major sources,
and 90 percent of scrubbers would require an upgrade. This was probable
an overly conservative way to estimate costs. In reality, it is
reasonable to assume that, on average, the existing scrubbers have only
50 percent of their useful life remaining. Because we allocated all of
the capital cost of a new scrubber to the rule, our costs are
conservative.
However, we have written the final rule to allow separate PM
emission limits for kilns with wet versus dry controls. Therefore, the
premise of the comment, that not subcategorizing by control device will
adversely affect small business, is now moot. In the final costs, we
estimate that only 30 percent of existing wet scrubbers will require
upgrade or replacement. As noted previously, because we are allocating
all the capital replacement cost to the final rule, our costs are still
conservative.
Comment: One commenter objected to EPA's rationale of using PM as a
surrogate for controlling toxic metals emissions. The commenter stated
that if EPA has sufficient data to indicate that toxic emissions from
lime kilns are an ambient air problem, then the regulation should focus
on reducing gaseous emissions such as HCl.
Response: By limiting emissions of PM, the final rule will reduce
emissions of non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP, which are a
subset of PM, and are necessarily removed when PM is removed by air
pollution control equipment. As stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule, air pollution controls for HAP metals are the same as the PM
controls used by the lime manufacturing industry, i.e., FF, ESP, and
wet scrubbers. These controls capture non-volatile and semi-volatile
metal HAP non-preferentially along with other PM, thus making PM an
acceptable indicator of these HAP metals. Particulate matter control
technology, thus, indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other
particulate. Consequently, it is an appropriate indicator when the
technical basis of the standard is performance of back-end particulate
control technology.
Another reason for using a surrogate is the lower cost of emissions
testing and monitoring for PM as compared to the cost of emissions
testing and monitoring for multiple metal HAP that will be required to
demonstrate compliance. Because PM control devices control metal HAP to
the same efficiency and because of the associated cost savings
associated with emissions testing and monitoring, the Agency has
promulgated several other NESHAP where PM is a surrogate for non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP.
Regarding the commenter's second point concerning regulating
emission of
[[Page 406]]
HCl, the preamble to the proposed rule explained in detail the Agency's
decision not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns. To summarize
that discussion, the EPA determined that, under the authority of
section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, no further control was necessary because
HCl is a threshold pollutant, and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns
are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety to
humans and to the environment, and considering the possibility that
facilities that currently have wet scrubbers for PM emissions control
may switch to dry PM controls. (The CAA section 112(d)(4) analysis also
considered the potential for environmental harm posed by HCl emissions
from these sources.)
Comment: One commenter stated that the PM emission limit for new
lime kilns should be 0.12 lb/tsf, the same as the emission limit for
existing kilns. The commenter noted that the proposed limit is based on
two 3-hour test runs at one plant. According to the commenter, EPA
recognized in the proposal preamble that 3-hour test results are just a
snapshot in time and should not be used as the basis for establishing
an enforceable standard, and that EPA expressly rejected such an
approach when establishing the MACT floor for existing kilns. The
commenter stated that data in the docket shows that 0.10 lb/tsf is not
continuously achievable by lime kilns, and EPA should not establish a
separate PM limit for new lime kilns.
Another commenter stated 0.10 lbs PM/ton stone feed for a new kiln
is too restrictive, and EPA does not have adequate data to determine
that a FF or scrubber-equipped kiln could achieve this low level of
emissions on a sustained basis.
Response: The approach to which the commenter refers whereby EPA
rejected the use of the ``average or mean'' in establishing the MACT
floor for existing sources did not refer to the average of individual
test runs as implied by the comment. Rather, it refers to EPA's
decision to use the median (instead of a simple mean) of the top-
performing 12 percent to set the MACT floor. Furthermore, as an
indication of the achievability of the technology over the long term,
EPA chose to rely on State-imposed permit limits (in conjunction with
emissions test data showing that those permit limits are representative
of actual performance) in arriving at the MACT floor emission limit.
In test data cited by the commenter, the three-run averages for two
sets of emissions tests for the kiln used to set the MACT new PM limit
are below (0.079 and 0.091 lb/tsf) the proposed PM limit of 0.1 lb/tsf
for new lime kilns. The commenter noted that one of the test runs was
at the proposed 0.1 lb/tsf PM limit and that the proposed 0.1 lb/tsf
limit was, therefore, inappropriate.
It is reasonable for EPA to establish a standard based on the same
methodology that will be used for complying with that standard. See,
e.g., Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 34 (D.C. Cir.
1992). We note that compliance with emission limits is normally based
on a three-run average which can accommodate occasional elevated
results as long as the average is at or below the established limit.
Furthermore, the emission test results for five of the six top
performing kilns were 0.0091, 0.013, 0.026, 0.027, and 0.091 lb/tsf.
These results adequately account for operating variability and indicate
that any new kiln using well designed and operated control devices can
meet the 0.1 lb/tsf limit. Based on this, we see no basis to state that
a 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limit is not achievable or appropriate.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the proposed NESHAP will
require the replacement of their two wet scrubbers with baghouses. They
claim there is no space for FF retrofit, and that converting to
baghouses will trigger prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
nonattainment review due to increased SO2 emissions.
Response: While we recognize that a facility may (or may not) have
site-specific space restrictions, we have, on average, adequately
accounted for these factors by incorporating cost analysis factors to
account for retrofit and equipment demolition. We have also allowed a
facility 3 years to comply with the final NESHAP. This should allow
sufficient time for facilities to replace or upgrade existing equipment
during scheduled outages. The averaging provisions in the final NESHAP
also provide facilities with additional flexibility concerning
replacement or upgrade of existing equipment.
Requiring an existing facility with a wet scrubber to upgrade their
PM controls to meet 0.12 lb/tsf will not necessarily trigger new source
review (NSR). First, as previously discussed, the facility can choose
to replace or upgrade their existing scrubbers, which means there will
be no SO2 (or other collateral pollutant) emissions increase
to trigger NSR requirements. Second, if they choose to use a baghouse,
they may be able to avoid NSR by qualifying for a pollution control
project exclusion (67 FR 80186).
Comment: One commenter stated the particulate matter emission
limits proposed for lime manufacturing kilns and coolers do not
represent the maximum achievable control technology and are much less
stringent than the limits actually required by the CAA. The commenter
noted that the proposed rule discredits performance test data which
demonstrate that particulate emissions of less than half the proposed
standard for existing plants are routinely achieved by claiming they
may not be consistently achievable, but EPA has provided no statistics.
The commenter claimed that EPA has chosen instead to base the standards
on permit limits, but has selectively eliminated from consideration
those permits calling for stringent controls which are currently in
place. The commenter gives the examples of Continental Lime which is in
compliance with a best available control technology (BACT) limit for PM
emissions of 0.05 lb/ton limestone, and Western Lime which is in
compliance with a permit limit for PM emissions of 0.06 lb/ton
limestone.
The commenter noted that if performance data do not represent
achievable emission limits, EPA should consider design standards based
on air-to-cloth ratios. The commenter also stated the proposed
particulate emission limits for grinders, conveyors, and bins are also
based on data which overstate emissions (in nearly all cases) and do
not represent MACT. The commenter stated EPA should examine actual
performance test data test or actual permit limitations.
Response: The EPA reviewed data on the kilns referred to in the
comment. The permit limits cited by the commenter were apparently
reported on the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN) website. The EPA
contacted the Montana Department of Environment and found that the
limit for one of these kilns is actually 0.5 lb/tsf and not 0.05 lb/tsf
as reported on the TTN website. Also, the complete permit for the other
kiln mentioned was located on the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources website, which showed the permit limit for the kiln in
question as being 0.12 lb/tsf rather than the 0.058 lb/tsf as reported
on the TTN website. Based on the correct PM permit limits for these two
lime sources, EPA's conclusions regarding MACT PM limits for existing
and new sources are still appropriate. As the response to the previous
question shows, these permit limits are also representative of actual
performance.
The floor for grinders, conveyors, and bins is based on the
existing new source performance standards (NSPS). We have no data to
support a different floor.
[[Page 407]]
Comment: One commenter stated that opacity does not correlate to PM
mass emissions. The commenter noted the EPA has stated on several
occasions that a COMS can determine opacity, but a COMS cannot
determine PM emissions. And if particle density changes but the
particle size remains the same, opacity will not change while the mass
emission rate will change in proportion to the density change. The
commenter agreed that PM is a technically sound surrogate for HAP
metals, but disagreed that opacity serves as a surrogate for HAP metals
as stated in the proposal preamble.
The commenter stated that a COMS can not be used to evaluate the
continuous compliance status of kilns, coolers, or PSH operations that
have a mass emission limit. The commenter was not aware of any data
that show a definitive link between opacity and mass emissions except
in very limited and controlled situations. In addition, the commenter
did not understand how a 15 percent 6-minute average opacity limit can
be correlated to a 3-hour rolling average PM emission limit of lb/ton
of stone feed.
The commenter stated a better alternative is to use a PM continuous
emissions monitor system (CEMS) that measures PM mass emissions in
units that are directly related to the mass emission limit. The
commenter noted that EPA's stated reluctance to use a PM CEMS in the
absence of performance specifications is inconsistent with the
remainder of the standard, since the use of BLDS and a PM detector are
proposed without performance specifications. The commenter also noted
that an extractive type PM CEMS designed to operate in wet exhaust
streams can provide a direct indication of compliance for wet
scrubbers.
Response: We agree that a COMS cannot directly measure PM
emissions. However, a properly calibrated and maintained COMS is
sufficient to demonstrate long term PM control device performance. The
purpose of the monitor is to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that
the PM control device is operating as well as it did during the PM
emission test used to demonstrate compliance.
We also note that PM CEMS are significantly more expensive to
purchase and maintain than a COMS or PM detector. Also, PM CEMS measure
concentration, while the basis of the standard is mass per unit of feed
input. Because the standard is not based on PM concentration, and no PM
CEMS are currently installed and operating on the best controlled
kilns, we have no data to develop a PM standard based on the use of PM
CEMS.
Comment: Several commenters stated EPA Method 9 in Appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 should be allowed for a positive pressure baghouse.
According to one commenter, the bag leak detector guidance document
recognizes that requiring BLDS will be very costly, and stated that the
document does not apply to this type of baghouse (EPA's ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997, pg 2).
This commenter gave the example of a small business that will be
required to have a bag leak detector for each of the eight compartments
in its baghouse under the final rule, and whose title V permit allows
Method 9 monitoring for the baghouse. According to one commenter, the
associated costs of installing a separate bag leak detector or PM CEM
sensor on each discharge or new common stack could easily exceed
$1,000,000. The commenter noted that, ``baghouse pressure differential
readings, together with fan amperage and daily visible emission
notations will provide the necessary performance assurance with ample
and timely indication of baghouse failures or malfunctions.''
Response: We acknowledge that there are precedents for the use of
alternatives to COMS, BLDS, and PM detectors on positive pressure
baghouses that have multiple stacks. The NESHAP for portland cement, an
industry that has similarities to the lime manufacturing industry,
allows the use of opacity monitoring using Method 9 in Appendix A of 40
CFR part 60 for kilns having control devices with multiple stacks.
Based on this analogous situation, we have decided that existing lime
kilns controlled by control devices having multiple stacks will have
the option of using Method 9 in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 for daily
opacity monitoring.
Comment: One commenter stated that a single excursion from
operating parameters recorded during a 3-hour compliance test should
not constitute a violation. The commenter stated that, ``the new source
performance standard (NSPS) kilns are the lime industry's top
performers, and their monitoring regime should be the benchmark against
which monitoring under the MACT rule is prescribed.'' Since a violation
under the NSPS does not occur unless the parameter is greater than 30
percent below the rates established during the performance test, the
commenter recommends a 30 percent ``buffer'' between the permit limit
and the 3-hour average recorded during the compliance test. Or,
``alternatively, like the Pulp and Paper MACT, the rule should specify
that a violation of the standard does not occur unless 6 or more 3-hour
average parameter values are recorded outside the established range
within the 6 month reporting period.''
The commenter noted that EPA's compliance assurance monitoring
(CAM) guidance document states, ``Use of only 3 hours of parameter data
may not be sufficient to fully characterize parameter values during
normal operation.'' The commenter also noted that language in the
proposal preamble cautions against developing enforceable emission
standards based on 3-hour compliance tests. The commenter also noted
that none of the CAM plans for scrubbers base a permit limit on the 3-
hour average reading that occurred during a compliance test, and two of
the plans allow a 15 percent buffer to account for variability.
The commenter provided gas pressure drop readings and concurrent PM
test data for three kilns, and noted that for each of them, gas
pressure drop during one or more 1-hour runs was below the proposed 3-
hour average. The commenter stated that under the proposed rules, these
readings below the 3-hour average would constitute a violation.
The commenter also stated the final rule should provide an
exemption from the PM emission limit during performance testing. The
commenter stated, ``plant operators may need to conduct a series of
performance tests to determine the minimum pressure drop and liquid
flow rate levels that will assure compliance for each set of operating
conditions used for a particular kiln. Results for these tests are not
available until post-test laboratory analyses are completed.''
Response: Each owner/operator is required to define the compliance
parameters to be monitored in their OM&M plan. Then, during the initial
performance tests, they are required to monitor and establish the value
or range of the parameters. The 30 percent buffers referred to by the
commenters refer to NSPS, which, in general, predate NESHAP. In
developing various NESHAP, we determined that the 30 percent buffers
were not necessary. For this reason, most NESHAP specify that exceeding
an operating parameter over the specified averaging period is a
deviation. The commenters also mentioned the Pulp and Paper MACT.
However, the Pulp and Paper MACT would appear to be unusual in regards
to the allowance for exceedances. The commenters did not provide any
rationale why we should add provisions similar to the Pulp and Paper
MACT
[[Page 408]]
when other MACT standards do not allow exceedances.
The commenters also referred to a statement in the CAM proposal and
guidance document. The CAM rule only applies to emission limitations or
standards proposed by the Administration on or before November 15,
1990. Monitoring and control technology have progressed significantly
since the technology available when these older rules were developed.
Also, facilities have 3 years to install control equipment and learn
their processes' operating parameters and set up compliance test
conditions that result in operating limits that both result in
compliance with the PM emission limit and can be met on a continuous
basis. For these reasons, we do not agree that the CAM applies here.
Most operating parameters are required to be calculated as 3-hour
averages. This is generally consistent with performance test times.
Thus, a 1-hour period of insufficient gas pressure drop will not, by
itself, be considered an excursion.
Facilities must complete their performance tests prior to the
compliance date. Therefore, they are not required to be in compliance
with the emission limits during testing, and there is no reason to
provide an exemption.
Comment: In response to EPA's request for comments on the
appropriate opacity limit (EPA was considering an opacity limit of 10
to 15 percent), several commenters stated that the opacity standard for
lime kilns should be 15 percent, as proposed. One commenter provided
additional data in the form of opacity data from four kilns. According
to this commenter, the opacity data for selected kilns are not reliable
for establishing an opacity standard because they are from visible
emission data collected for brief periods of time under poor viewing
conditions.
Response: Based on information considered prior to proposal as well
as additional information supplied by commenters, EPA is retaining the
15 percent opacity limit for sources controlled using FF and ESP.
Information considered by EPA in proposing the opacity limit suggested
that the average opacity permit limit of the top performing lime kilns
was 15 percent. Information provided by the commenters supporting the
proposed opacity limit indicated that opacity levels may vary between
10 and 15 percent even for well operated and maintained kilns. No
information was provided supporting a more stringent, or more lenient
opacity limit than the one proposed. Therefore, EPA is retaining the
proposed 15 percent opacity limit in the final NESHAP.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the final rule specify a
time period during which opacity readings greater than 15 percent are
not considered a violation. One commenter requested at a minimum that
the final rule state that opacity readings greater than 15 percent for
less than 1 percent of the reporting period are not considered to be a
violation.
Another commenter noted that they operate two of the top six
performers in the industry, and it is impossible not to have occasional
readings that would be violations if there were no allowances for them.
The commenter's State permits allow 1 percent of operating time per
quarter to exceed the opacity limit.
Another commenter suggested other time frames for allowable
exceedances. Two commenters referred to the Pulp and Paper MACT as an
example of an existing rule with such an exemption.
Response: We find no justification to support allowing excursions
above the 15 percent opacity limit. Well operated and maintained
control devices will typically operate at opacity levels much lower
than 15 percent. Other NESHAP, including the portland cement NESHAP,
contain opacity limits for which no exceedances are allowed. Data from
limes kilns, cited below, support this. Because we have industry
specific data, the Pulp and Paper MACT example is not applicable.
In response to the commenters' concerns about occasional excursions
above the opacity limit, there are times when opacity levels above 15
percent are not considered to be a violation of the final rule. These
include periods when a control device malfunctions, or is in a period
startup or shutdown (as long as the facility follows its SSMP). If
opacity levels exceed 15 percent as a result of a control device
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, it will not be considered a
violation of the opacity limit (see Sec. 63.7121(b)of the final rule).
The same is true during periods when a monitoring system malfunctions
or is being calibrated (see Sec. 63.7120(b) of the final rule).
Information supplied by one commenter showed opacity readings for
several kilns over several days. Nearly all of the readings were well
below the 15 percent limit with just a few exceptions for each kiln.
The commenter who supplied the opacity readings was asked to supply
additional information regarding the opacity excursions above 15
percent. In each instance, the high opacity reading was explained by a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the control device or by a
malfunctioning monitor or a monitoring system that was undergoing
calibration, none of which will be considered a violation of the
opacity limit as long as the facility follows its SSMP. Well run and
maintained control devices can meet the opacity limit and the
occasional excursion above the limit due to control device or
monitoring system malfunction will not be a violation of the operating
limit.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the economic impacts analysis
(EIA) neglected to include some significant costs of implementing the
rule, including the cost of dismantling existing equipment, lost sales
during downtime, and the cost of re-hiring personnel after plant
modifications if scrubbers must be replaced. The commenter also noted
that maintenance and supervisory personnel currently do not work
evening and weekend shifts, but will likely be required in the event of
failure of the recommended monitoring equipment.
A second commenter stated EPA's estimated $1.17 per ton of lime
cost estimate for control costs is low, and the cost to a typical lime
producer will be significantly higher. In particular, the commenter
noted that the additional power required for high pressure drop
scrubbers alone would be approximately $1.30 per ton of produced lime.
In addition, EPA's estimated equipment costs appear to be low.
Response: As discussed in the response to comments regarding a
separate subcategory for scrubbers, estimated implementation costs used
for the EPA model plants include costs for demolition of existing
equipment and credits for salvage value. Because plants have a 3-year
period in which to comply with the final NESHAP, it is expected that
scheduled downtime will be used for disconnecting an existing scrubber
and connecting a new scrubber. As a general practice, building a new
scrubber while the existing scrubber remains in operation is preferable
to taking the associated kiln out of service for an extended period of
time and losing production from the kiln. The plant is expected to use
its labor force in the manner normally found for planned downtime. Such
labor costs (or savings) would not be attributable to compliance with
the final NESHAP.
Power costs for new scrubbers are calculated incrementally, i.e.,
costs are estimated for the difference between 35-inch. w.g. (new
scrubbers) and 14 inch w.g. (existing scrubbers). For individual model
kilns, summing the power costs and dividing by the model's production
rate gives estimated incremental power
[[Page 409]]
costs ranging from $0.82 to $1.47/ton of lime. On a nationwide basis,
aggregating the model kiln costs apportioned among the affected kiln
population provides average costs as estimated by EPA.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the EIA is seriously flawed
because it assumes lime producers can pass control costs through to
consumers. The commenter maintained that lime producers cannot raise
prices. The reasons cited included a highly competitive market due to
overcapacity, competition from unregulated sources, the existence of
competitive substitutes for most key markets, and significant market
resistance. The commenter also claimed that recent history proves that
prices cannot be increased. Finally, the commenter stated that because
the price increase assumed by EPA is erroneous, EPA's prediction that
only two lime plants will close seriously understates the impact. One
other commenter also stated that they could not increase prices.
Response: We conducted an economic analysis primarily as part of
the Executive Order 12866 analysis and partly to ascertain impacts on
small businesses for purposes of compliance with the Small Business
Regulatory and Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The analysis is also
used to determine economic impacts of any beyond-the-floor
considerations under section 112(d)(2) of the CAA. However, as provided
by section 112(d)(3), and confirmed by the D.C. Circuit in the National
Lime case, considerations of costs are simply irrelevant to
determinations of MACT floors. Thus, EPA did not consider any of the
economic analysis as part of its floor determinations, and that context
should be understood in all of the responses to comments relating to
the Agency's economic impact analysis.
The fact that many lime plants are currently operating at less than
full capacity implies that their supply curves should be relatively
elastic (flat) at current production levels because lime producers can
fairly easily change output without running into capacity constraints.
Assuming that the lime industry is very competitive (as stated by
the commenter) and has substantial overcapacity implies that the
industry marginal cost curve (and the market supply curve) should be
relatively flat at current production levels. To the extent that the
costs of the lime manufacturing MACT standards increase the marginal
costs of lime production, having a very elastic (flat) supply curve is
a textbook case where the majority of the costs are passed on to
consumers. A highly competitive market implies, by definition, that
individual producers cannot unilaterally increase their prices without
losing most, if not all, of their customers. It does not imply that the
market price will not increase in response to a general increase in the
cost of lime production due to environmental regulations.
It is certainly true that foreign lime suppliers (including
suppliers located in Mexico) gain because the final rule applies only
to domestic lime producers. However, imports of lime account for an
extremely tiny share of the lime market prior to the final rule (about
1 percent nationally), and even a fairly large percentage increase in
imports shows up as a very small change in absolute terms. High
transportation costs are expected to prevent significant replacement of
domestic lime with imported lime.
To examine the historical supply responsiveness in the lime market,
we estimated the supply elasticity for lime using data from 1983-2001.
These estimates capture the overall change in the quantity of lime
supplied in response to a change in the real (inflation-adjusted) price
of lime, including any entry or exit of captive suppliers from the
market. Based on estimates obtained from the econometric model, the
domestic lime supply elasticity was 1.24 at the average price and
quantity for the period and 0.98 using the lime price and quantity for
1997, the baseline year for the EIA. The value for the baseline year
implies that a 1 percent increase in price would lead lime producers to
increase their lime production by 0.98 percent, other things being
equal.
For the lime price to remain constant due to entry into the
commercial market by captive suppliers, that entry would need to be
sufficient that it led to the market supply curve being perfectly
elastic. There is no evidence for a perfectly elastic market supply
curve due to large-scale entry based on historical estimates of the
responsiveness of lime supply to changes in real price.
There are substitutes for lime in many of the markets in which it
competes, such as crushed limestone, caustic soda, soda ash, and other
products. However, unless the alternatives are perfect substitutes,
this does not imply that the price of lime will not increase in
response to an increase in production costs.
The fact that lime prices have not increased in recent years
despite plant closures and increases in real prices in no way implies
that those events do not exert upward pressure on prices. The relevant
comparison is the price with and without those events, not before and
after they occur. It is expected that prices would have been even lower
if there had not been closures and increases in input prices.
As outlined in the responses to these comments, there is no
evidence to support the claim that the assumption that lime price will
increase is erroneous, and that the estimated economic impact of the
final rule is understated.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA economic model for the
lime market assumes a nationally perfectly competitive market, but lime
prices are primarily dictated by large producers who sell capacity
regardless of price.
Response: This comment suggests that large lime producers have
market power and, therefore, face a downward sloping demand curve and
have some ability to set prices. If large lime producers do possess
market power, then profit-maximizing behavior would imply that they
would restrict output below the levels expected under perfect
competition in order to increase market price to the point that their
marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. The large producers
may have lower marginal costs such that the resulting price makes it
difficult for the small producers that take the market price as given
to remain in business. However, the presence of market power in the
lime industry would tend to increase prices relative to the perfectly
competitive case, not decrease them.
Comment: One commenter was concerned over EPA's use of the Acute
Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL) in assessing the health risk associated
with HCl. While not directly objecting to the conclusions reached by
EPA, the commenter noted that the intended use of the AEGL, according
to the National Research Council, is in conjunction with ``once in a
lifetime'' exposures for emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to
8 hours. Because the AEGL values are intended to be used in conjunction
with a single lifetime exposure, they can be higher than short term
limits recommended for populations with repeated exposures. It is not
clear in the description of the industry analysis, if in their use of
AEGL they were contemplating a once in a lifetime exposure or whether
exposures would be occurring repeatedly. The commenter stated that EPA
should explicitly state how they believe AEGL values should be used in
their risk assessment process and what are the possible exposure levels
to the public. The commenter was also troubled by the use in the
rationale of
[[Page 410]]
both the reference concentration (estimated daily exposure that over a
lifetime is not likely to result in significant noncancer effect in
humans) and the AEGL (once in a lifetime exposure).
The commenter asked that EPA clarify their position on the use of
AEGL values for environmental risk assessments, and whether its use
represents a ``reasonable methodology'' and ``consistent with EPA
methodology'' as claimed in the preamble.
Response: In order to evaluate short-term exposure to hydrochloric
acid, EPA reviewed the available acute dose-response values for this
compound. Among these, the Calliope reference exposure level (REL) and
AEGL-1 values (2.1 and 2.7 mg/M\3\, respectively) were found to be the
most health protective. Since these benchmarks were effectively the
same, and AEGL values are products of a Federal effort in which EPA
participates, we gave priority to the AEGL. Therefore, the AEGL-1
selected for analysis represented the most appropriate value.
Comment: Several commenters stated the final rule should not
require HCl testing of all kilns. The commenters note that in recent
years, many lime plants have been forced to idle or infrequently
operate kilns at operating plants due to increased fuel cost, reduced
customer demand, etc., and start up of every kiln for the purpose of
conducting HCl testing will require significant expenditures. This will
also result in PM and other emissions that otherwise would not be
generated. As a result, it was requested the final rule be written to
provide state agencies with the discretion to determine whether testing
of all kilns at a lime plant is necessary in order to demonstrate that
a plant is an area source.
Response: In the final NESHAP, we have included language allowing
the permitting authority discretion concerning whether idle kilns must
be tested.
Comment: Several commenters stated that performance testing should
be conducted under ``representative'' conditions rather than under the
``highest production level reasonably expected to occur.'' One
commenter noted inconsistencies between what is proposed in Table 4 in
the proposed rule and what is required under the General Provisions at
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1). The EPA has recently amended the Cement MACT to fix
similar inconsistencies, and the commenter suggested the lime MACT be
similarly revised.
Response: We have written the requirement in the final rule to
require testing under representative conditions, which is in agreement
with the language in the General Provisions.
Comment: Two commenters stated the final rule should provide a
risk-based exemption from the entire rule (not just from HCl standards)
for plants at which modeled risks are below health based thresholds.
One commenter noted that EPA recently solicited comment on providing
risk-based exemptions in proposed MACT standards for several source
categories. This commenter strongly supported the view that such
exemptions should be provided in MACT standards that impose substantial
costs while achieving negligible reductions in risks to public health
and stated the lime MACT fits this description.
Response: Other than the decision to not regulate emissions of HCl
from lime manufacturing, EPA did not consider and did not request
comments on providing risk-based exemptions for lime manufacturing
facilities. Although EPA is aware that risk-based exemptions were being
discussed in other proposed rules, no decisions have been made by the
Agency regarding risk-based exemptions and application to industry
groups or individual plants. Due to the uncertainty of how these
exemptions would be structured, it would not be appropriate to include
these site specific risk-based exemptions in the final rule. Including
such a substantive statement change in the final rule without allowing
the general public an opportunity to comment would be a violation of
the notice and comment requirements found in section 307(d) of the CAA,
especially in light of the fact that their inclusion in other proposed
rules have generated significant negative public comment.
Comment: One commenter stated the benefits analysis is based on
inaccurate assumptions, and presented conclusions regarding reductions
in metal HAP that are greatly overstated.
The commenter also claimed that the emission factor for existing
uncontrolled stone handling operations is also overstated; it was
derived using AP-42 emission factors with ``E'' ratings. The commenter
stated that it presented to the SBREFA Panel a more reliable emission
factor for these units that is rated ``C'' and was revised in 1995.
In addition, the commenter claimed that EPA overstated the amount
of new capacity and the emissions from new rotary kilns. The commenter
stated, ``EPA should either reflect (our) estimates in the preamble to
the final rule, or provide a reasoned response to our comments that
EPA's estimates are overstated'' * * * we believe the best estimate of
metal HAP reductions is 3.5 tons (7,000 pounds) per year. Based on the
56 lime plants predicted to be subject to the MACT rule, this
translates into an annual reduction in metal HAP per lime plant of 124
pounds.
Response: We reviewed the new information on PM emissions presented
by the commenter, as well as their calculations of baseline emissions
and emission reductions resulting from the final rule. In the case of
baseline emissions from kilns and coolers, the information provided by
the commenter is a more reasonable estimate than the emission factors
we used at proposal. Therefore, we revised our baseline PM emissions
estimates to incorporate this new information. In the case of emissions
from PSH operations, we based our emission estimates on a mass balance
approach. This method is reasonably accurate, and we did not revise
baseline emission estimates for PSH operations. This resulted in our
estimate of metal HAP emission reductions to be changed to 14.4 tpy,
compared to an estimate of 23 tpy.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we are
required to determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA at
proposal that it considered this rulemaking a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted
the
[[Page 411]]
proposed rule to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented and included in the
public record. The OMB has informed EPA that it considers this final
action nonsignificant. Therefore, it is not subject to further OMB
review. The OMB was briefed on the responses to major comments, and was
provided a copy of the regulation and preamble prior to publication.
However, they did not request any changes in the final rule.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an
Information Collection Request (ICR) document (2072.01), and a copy may
be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective 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 emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (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.
The final rule will require development and implementation of an
OM&M plan, which will include inspections of the control devices but
will not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the rule) is estimated to be 7,800 labor hours per year, at a total
annual cost of $621,600. This estimate includes notifications that
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests;
notifications of compliance status, including the results of
performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do
not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction
reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total
capital/startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the
ICR are estimated to be $1,000,000, with annualized costs of $377,900.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. When the
OMB approves the information collection requirements of the final rule,
the EPA will amend the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
in connection with the final rule. For purposes of assessing the
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is
defined as (1) a small business as a lime manufacturing company with
less than 500 employees; (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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite the
determination that the final rule will have no significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA prepared a Small Business
Flexibility Analysis that has all the components of a FRFA. An FRFA
examines the impact of the final rule on small entities. The Small
Business Flexibility Analysis (which is included in the economic impact
analysis) is available for review in the docket, and is summarized
below.
It should be noted that the small business impacts described below
slightly overestimate the impacts for today's action, for they reflect
the higher cost estimates ($22.4 million) associated with the proposed
rule.
Based on SBA's size definitions for the affected industries and
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 45
companies owning potentially affected facilities as small businesses.
Eight of these 45 companies manufacture beet sugar (which will not be
subject to the final NESHAP), three of which are small firms. Further,
an additional 3 of the 19 small companies will not be subject to the
final NESHAP because they do not manufacture lime in a kiln (e.g., they
are only depot or hydration facilities), and/or we do not expect them
to be major sources. It is, therefore, expected that 13 small
businesses will be subject to the final NESHAP. Although small
businesses represent 40 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur 30 percent of the total industry
annual compliance costs of $18.0 million.
The economic impact analysis we prepared for the final NESHAP
includes an estimate of the changes in product price and production
quantities for the firms that the final NESHAP would affect. The
analysis shows that of the facilities owned by potentially affected
small firms, two may shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance
with the final rule. Because of the nature of their production
processes and existing controls, we expect these two firms will incur
significantly higher compliance costs than the other small firms.
Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be
noted that in general, the burden on most small firms is low when
compared to that of large firms. The average annual compliance costs
for all small firms is $358,000, compared to $592,000 per year for
large firms. If the two small firms expected to incur significantly
higher control costs are excluded, the average annual compliance cost
for the remaining firms
[[Page 412]]
will be $205,000, which is much less than the average control costs for
large firms.
The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have
materially improved today's final rule. Economic analysis of provisions
under earlier consideration prior to the rule's proposal indicated
greater impacts on small businesses than those in today's final rule.
For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the average
total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $567,000 per small
company (compared with $358,000 in today's final rule). About 85
percent (11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur
compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1
percent of sales (compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in
today's final rule). And, 77 percent (10 firms) of those small
businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced
impacts greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 31 percent of
those small businesses in today's final rule).
Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's
final rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small
entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609(b) of the RFA
to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the
small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule
requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised
of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small
Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel
solicited advice from eight small entity representatives (SER),
including the National Lime Association (NLA) and member companies and
non-member companies of the NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel
distributed a package of descriptive and technical materials explaining
the rule-in-progress to the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met
with the SER to hear their comments on preliminary options for
regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received
written comments from the SER in response to both the outreach
materials and the discussions at the meeting.
Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the
elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in
the docket for the final rule.
The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls.
These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses:
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl
work practice standard, invoking section 112(d)(4) of CAA.
Response: The proposed rule did not include an emission standard
for HCl. The final rule also contains no emission standard for HCl.
[sbull] Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry
should not be considered as emission units under the definition of
affected source.
Response: The MPO in the quarry were excluded from the definition
of affected source in the proposed rule. They are also excluded in the
final rule.
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the ``bubbling''
of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant,
such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime
plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each
individual kiln and cooler.
Response: The proposed rule defined the affected source as
including all kilns and coolers (among other listed emission units) at
the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average
emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination. In
the final rule we have retained averaging provisions with the following
modifications. New kilns and existing kilns may be averaged together,
new kilns must individually meet the 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limit, and
existing kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit may not be
included in any averaging scheme. Due to other changes in the rule, the
changes in the averaging provisions do not increase the stringency of
the final rule compared to the proposed rule.
[sbull] Recommend that we request comment on establishing a
subcategory for existing kilns that currently have wet scrubbers for PM
control because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl
emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard in the
proposed rule.
Response: We requested comment on this issue in the proposed rule.
Based on the comments received, we determined that a separate
subcategory for scrubber equipped kilns was not appropriate. However,
we have included in the final rule separate standards for kilns with
dry PM emissions control systems, and wet scrubbers. This change
addresses the underlying concern of the original comment.
[sbull] Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and
emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the
results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment
on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial
constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD.
Response: We requested comment on these issues in the proposed rule
and presented said analysis. We responded to all comments on these
issues in the final rule.
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the
ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source
determinations.
Response: The proposed rule included this provision. This provision
has been retained in the final rule.
[sbull] Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed
rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP
to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area
source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues.
Response: The preamble of the proposed rule contained this
language. In the final rule, we do not specify that testing for all HAP
is required. However, we do not specifically say it is precluded
because these determinations are better made on a case-by-case basis by
the permitting authority.
[sbull] Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option
of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on
various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on
what an appropriate opacity limit would be.
Response: The preamble of the proposed rule solicited comment on
these issues.
[sbull] Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options
or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time
periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating
compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with
operating parameter limits using a two-tier approach; and the
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be
monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in
lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the
draft rule.
Response: The preamble of the proposed rule solicited comment on
these issues.
[sbull] Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3
and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental
[[Page 413]]
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed
from the proposed rule.
Response: The proposed rule did not include this requirement. This
requirement is also not present in today's final rule.
[sbull] Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in
modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a
sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities
reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to
pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable
opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's
markets.
Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations
and analyses at proposal. In addition, we have performed additional
economic sensitivity analyses for the final rule.
In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed
rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime
manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small
entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the
Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under
the CAA. These efforts are summarized below.
[sbull] Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of
which three are small businesses, will not be affected sources.
[sbull] Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only
will not be affected sources as well.
[sbull] We proposed PM emission limits which allow the affected
source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will
meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations
selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly
beyond-the-MACT-floor options that we considered. An emission limit for
mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond-the-
MACT-floor control option.
[sbull] We proposed that compliance demonstrations for PSH
operations be conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. This
reduced the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the
rule when implemented. Furthermore, we proposed the minimum performance
testing frequency (every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A).
[sbull] Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small
businesses will not be subject to the proposed standards because they
are area sources.
We received several comments on the economic analysis for the
proposed rule. The majority of these comments related to the analysis
in general, rather than the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
Two comments that specifically addressed small business concerns
follow.
Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA did not perform a
sufficient sensitivity analysis of different price and supply
elasticities in the EIA as recommended in the Panel's final report.
Response: We estimated the market supply and demand elasticities
for lime. The values from the preferred model for 1997 are very close
to the primary elasticities used in the main text of the EIA for the
proposed rule and are well within the range of elasticities used in the
sensitivity analysis in Appendix B of the EIA for the proposed rule. In
addition to the preferred model, numerous alternative models were
estimated. As with any modeling exercise, there were some differences
in results across different model specifications. However, the results
were generally similar across specifications and there were no cases in
which the estimated supply or demand elasticity fell outside the ranges
currently used in the Appendix B sensitivity analysis included in the
EIA. Thus, the current analysis adequately responds to SBREFA panel
recommendations that a reasonable sensitivity analysis be employed and
the empirical evidence is supportive of the current scenario presented
in the main text.
Comment: One commenter claimed that although EPA has indicated its
rule will have larger impacts on small businesses than large ones, the
disparity is even greater than EPA estimates. The reductions in pre-tax
earnings presented in the EIA understate losses for small firms because
the costs of implementation will be higher than EPA estimates and the
price of lime will not increase. They also state that even if only 2 to
3 of the 14 small lime firms close, that would still be closure of 14
percent to 21 percent of the small lime firms in the domestic industry.
This seems to be such a significant economic impact that it should
encourage the EPA to seriously consider additional ways to minimize the
impact on small businesses.
Response: It is unclear what the basis for the first part of this
comment is (it seems the same claims they are making for small firms
would also apply to large firms). As far as the second part, to the
extent that actual costs differ from EPA estimates, it is possible that
the actual losses experienced by firms will be higher or lower than
presented in the EIA. However, the costs of implementation currently
used for analysis reflect EPA's best estimate of actual costs. The
assertion that lime prices cannot increase in response to an increase
in production costs is not credible.
We also disagree that the number of small firms at risk of closure,
2 to 3, can be considered a significant number in the context of
SBREFA. In any case, EPA has seriously considered ways to minimize the
impact on small businesses based on comments from industry and has
substantially reduced the costs of the rule relative to the draft of
the rule we were considering prior to the small business advocacy
review panel. As previously discussed, EPA, along with the SBA and the
OMB, convened a panel under the authority of SBREFA to talk with small
business representatives on how to mitigate potential impacts to small
businesses associated with the lime manufacturing NESHAP. This panel
yielded a report that included many recommendations on how potential
impacts to small businesses from the proposal could be mitigated. All
of these recommendations are reflected in the final rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally would be required to prepare a written statement, including a
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
if the
[[Page 414]]
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have
developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan will be required to provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $22.4 million per year. The final rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
We have determined that the final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires us to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to
provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to
the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS would
be required to include a description of the extent of our prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft
final NESHAP with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, we would be required to include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that we have met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
The final 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. The final rule will not impose
directly enforceable requirements on States, nor will it preempt them
from adopting their own more stringent programs to control emissions
from lime manufacturing facilities. Moreover, States are not required
under the CAA to take delegation of Federal NESHAP and bear their
implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often choose
to do so. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no lime
manufacturing plants located on tribal land. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we would be required to evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
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. Although compliance with the final rule
could possibly lead to increased electricity consumption as sources may
replace existing wet scrubbers with venturi wet scrubbers that require
more electricity, the final rule will not require that venturi
scrubbers be installed, and in fact, there are some alternatives that
may decrease electrical demand. Further, the final rule will have no
effect on the supply or distribution of energy. Although we considered
certain fuels as potential bases for MACT, none of our MACT
determinations are based on fuels. Finally, we acknowledge that an
interpretation limiting fuel use to the top 6 percent of 'clean HAP'
fuels (if they existed) could potentially have adverse implications on
energy supply.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement
[[Page 415]]
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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C,
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent
with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G,
5D, 9, 22, and 321. The search and review results have been documented
and are placed in the docket (OAR-2002-0052) for the final rule.
The three voluntary consensus standards described below were
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of the final rule.
The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10,
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the final rule for its
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420-99, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the final
rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns.
Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per
billion by volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the final rule specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM
D6420-99 does not apply.
As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in the final rule. The EPA
will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-99.
This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/
MS.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test
Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the final rule
provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142
of the final rule are also addressed in the methodology.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the
final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified
15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of
these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this
rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the docket
for the final rule.
Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC
12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320.
The standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has
been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the
ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-98.
Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical
equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could
be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability.
Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 63 list
the EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective
on January 5, 2004.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:
[[Page 416]]
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations standard?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations standard?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7132 What records must I keep?
63.7133 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status?
63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limits
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Periodic Monitoring for
Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. This subpart
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission limitations.
Sec. 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lime
manufacturing plant (LMP) that is a major source, or that is located
at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, unless the LMP is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp
mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only
processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening
processes.
(1) An LMP is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime
product (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead
burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells or other
calcareous substances.
(2) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons)
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams
(25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each existing or new lime kiln(s) and
their associated cooler(s), and processed stone handling (PSH)
operations system(s) located at an LMP that is a major source.
(b) A new lime kiln is a lime kiln, and (if applicable) its
associated lime cooler, for which construction or reconstruction began
after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.
63.7081 at the time you began construction or reconstruction.
(c) A new PSH operations system is the equipment in paragraph (g)
of this section, for which construction or reconstruction began after
December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.
63.7081 at the time you began construction or reconstruction.
(d) A lime kiln or PSH operations system is reconstructed if it
meets the criteria for reconstruction defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An existing lime kiln is any lime kiln, and (if applicable) its
associated lime cooler, that does not meet the definition of a new kiln
of paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) An existing PSH operations system is any PHS operations system
that does not meet the definition of a new PSH operations system in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(g) A PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with
PSH operations beginning at the processed stone storage bin(s) or open
storage pile(s) and ending where the processed stone is fed into the
kiln. It includes man-made processed stone storage bins (but not open
processed stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk
loading or unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket
elevators, and belt conveyors. No other materials processing operations
are subject to this subpart.
(h) Nuisance dust collectors on lime coolers are part of the lime
materials processing operations and are not covered by this subpart.
(i) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart.
(j) Open material storage piles are not subject to this subpart.
Sec. 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this
subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004,
you must comply with the emission limitations no later than January 5,
2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no
later than July 5, 2004.
(2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004,
then you must comply with the emission limitations for new affected
sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have
completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after
startup.
[[Page 417]]
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source,
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later
than January 5, 2007.
(c) If you have an LMP that is an area source that increases its
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source
of HAP, the deadlines specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section apply.
(1) New affected sources at your LMP you must be in compliance with
this subpart upon startup.
(2) Existing affected sources at your LMP must be in compliance
with this subpart within 3 years after your source becomes a major
source of HAP.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.7130
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.7130 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) After your initial compliance date, you must be in compliance
with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(b) You must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission
(VE) limits in this subpart during the times specified in Sec.
63.6(h)(1).
(c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(d) You must prepare and implement for each LMP, a written
operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. You must submit
the plan to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval
as part of the application for a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71
permit. Any subsequent changes to the plan must be submitted to the
applicable permitting authority for review and approval. Pending
approval by the applicable permitting authority of an initial or
amended plan, you must comply with the provisions of the submitted
plan. Each plan must contain the following information:
(1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to
determine compliance, along with established operating limits or
ranges, as applicable, for each emission unit.
(2) A monitoring schedule for each emission unit.
(3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each
emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the
applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2
to this subpart, respectively.
(4) Procedures for the proper installation, operation, and
maintenance of monitoring devices or systems used to determine
compliance, including:
(i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring
device;
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction systems;
(iii) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), and (4)(ii);
and
(iv) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
(5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device
parameters.
(6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the
operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, including:
(i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of a deviation or
excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and
(ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time
corrective action was initiated, and the time and date the corrective
action was completed.
(7) A maintenance schedule for each emission unit and control
device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and
recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
(e) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete all
applicable performance tests within January 5, 2007, according to the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(2) and 63.7114.
(b) If you have a new affected source, and commenced construction
or reconstruction between December 20, 2002, and January 5, 2004, you
must demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission
limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no later than 180
calendar days after January 5, 2004 or within 180 calendar days after
startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec. Sec.
63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 63.7114.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 20, 2002, and January 5, 2004, and you chose to comply with
the proposed emission limitation when demonstrating initial compliance,
you must conduct a demonstration of compliance with the promulgated
emission limitation within January 5, 2007 or after startup of the
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix) and
63.7114.
(d) For each initial compliance requirement in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3
hours, the 3-hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for
emission units within existing affected sources at LMP begins at 12:01
a.m. on the compliance date for existing affected sources, that is, the
day following completion of the initial compliance demonstration, and
ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.
(e) For each initial compliance requirement in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3
hours, the 3-hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for
emission units within new or reconstructed affected sources at LMP
begins at 12:01 a.m. on the day following completion of the initial
compliance demonstration, as required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, and ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.
Sec. 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must conduct a performance test within 5 years following the
initial performance test and within 5 years following each subsequent
performance test thereafter.
[[Page 418]]
Sec. 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) Except for opacity and VE observations, you must conduct three
separate test runs for each performance test required in this section,
as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1
hour.
(e) The emission rate of particulate matter (PM) from each lime
kiln (and each lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the
atmosphere from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.000
Where:
E = Emission rate of PM, pounds per ton (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, grain/dry
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dry standard
cubic feet per hour (dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, grain/dscf.
This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the
atmosphere.
Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscf/hr.
This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the
atmosphere.
P = Stone feed rate, tons per hour (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, 7000 grains per pound (grains/lb).
(f)(1) If you choose to meet a weighted average emission limit as
specified in item 4 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate a
combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and coolers within
your LMP using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.001
Where:
ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers, lb/ton
of stone feed.
Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/cooler
combination i, lb/ton of stone feed.
Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, ton/hr.
n = Number of kilns you wish to include in averaging.
(2) You do not have to include every kiln in this calculation, only
include kilns you wish to average. Kilns that have a PM emission limit
of 0.60 lb/tsf are ineligible for any averaging.
(g) The weighted average PM emission limit from all kilns and
coolers for which you are averaging must be calculated using Equation 3
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.002
Where:
ETN = Weighted average PM emission limit for all kilns and
coolers being included in averaging at the LMP, lb/ton of stone feed.
Ej = PM emission limit (0.10 or 0.12) for kiln j, or for
kiln/cooler combination j, lb/ton of stone feed.
Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, ton/hr.
m = Number of kilns and kiln/cooler combinations you are averaging at
your LMP. You must include the same kilns in the calculation of
ET and ETN. Kilns that have a PM emission limit
of 0.60 lb/tsf are ineligible for any averaging.
(h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (h)(1)
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant
information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made
available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing.
(1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution
control system;
(2) Sampling location description(s);
(3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any
modifications to standard procedures;
(4) Test results, including opacity;
(5) Quality assurance procedures and results;
(6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of
standards, and calibration procedures;
(7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory
analyses;
(8) Documentation of calculations;
(9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and
(10) Any other information required by the test method.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) You must establish any applicable 3-hour block average
operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the
applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs
(j)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance
test and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test
report.
(2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15-minute period
of each test run.
(3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the
average of all the 15-minute parameter values for the run.
(4) Calculate the 3-hour operating limit by taking the average of
the three test run averages.
(k) For each building enclosing any PSH operations that is subject
to a VE limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 18 in
Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of
the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other
than condensed water vapor.
(2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from each
side of the building with the sun or other light source generally at
your back.
(3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must
meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for
fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 7 of Table 1 to this
subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter according to item 17 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in
accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The minimum distance between the observer and the emission
source shall be 4.57 meters (15 feet).
(2) The observer shall, when possible, select a position that
minimizes interference from other fugitive emission sources (e.g., road
dust). The required observer position relative to the sun must be
followed.
(3) If you use wet dust suppression to control PM from PSH
operations, a visible mist is sometimes generated by the spray. The
water mist must not be confused with particulate matter emissions and
is not to be considered VE. When a water mist of this nature is
present, you must observe emissions at a point in the plume where the
mist is no longer visible.
[[Page 419]]
Sec. 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to your OM&M plan required
by Sec. 63.7100(d) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section,
and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) as required by paragraph (g) of this section
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
(2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least four
equally spaced data values (or at least two, if that condition is
included to allow for periodic calibration checks) for that hour from a
CPMS that is not out of control according your OM&M plan, and use all
valid data.
(3) To calculate the average for each 3-hour block averaging
period, you must use all valid data, and you must have at least 66
percent of the hourly averages for that period using only hourly
average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-
control periods).
(4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your OM&M plan.
(5) You must continuously operate and maintain the CPMS according
to the OM&M plan, including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary
parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the
flow rate.
(2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (c)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to as possible a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
(2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative PM
emissions.
(3) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when
it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset
level.
(4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(5) For a positive-pressure fabric filter (FF), each compartment or
cell must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For a negative-pressure or
induced-air FF, the BLD must be installed downstream of the FF. If
multiple BLD are required (for either type of FF), the detectors may
share the system instrumentation and alarm.
(6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained according to the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
(7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified
in the OM&M plan required by Sec. 63.7100(d). In no event may the
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official, as
defined in Sec. 63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that
the FF has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (e)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be
capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams
per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
(2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative
PM emissions.
(3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound
automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions
greater than a preset level.
(4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(5) For a positive-pressure electrostatic precipitator (ESP), each
compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative-pressure or
induced-air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the
ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required (for either type of ESP),
the detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm.
(6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained according to the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
(7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified
in the OM&M plan required by Sec. 63.7100(d). In no event may the
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official as
defined in Sec. 63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that
the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(f) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system
is operating in accordance with the operating
[[Page 420]]
requirements in item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart and record the
results of each inspection.
(g) For each COMS used to monitor an add-on air pollution control
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device.
(2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to
Performance Specification (PS)-1 of appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter. Facilities that operate COMS installed on or before February
6, 2001, may continue to meet the requirements in effect at the time of
COMS installation unless specifically required to re-certify the COMS
by their permitting authority.
Sec. 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to
Table 3 to this subpart. For existing lime kilns and their associated
coolers, you may perform VE measurements in accordance with EPA Method
9 of appendix A to part 60 in lieu of installing a COMS or PM detector
if any of the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section exist:
(1) You use a FF for PM control, and the FF is under positive
pressure and has multiple stacks; or
(2) The control device exhausts through a monovent; or
(3) The installation of a COMS in accordance with PS-1 of appendix
B to part 60 is infeasible.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7112(j) and Table 4 to this subpart. Alternative parameters
may be monitored if approval is obtained according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.8(f)
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7130(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, required
quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero adjustments), and except for PSH
operations subject to monthly VE testing, you must monitor continuously
(or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the
emission unit is operating.
(c) Data recorded during the conditions described in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section may not be used either in data
averages or calculations of emission or operating limits; or in
fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement. You must use all
the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation
of the control device and associated control system.
(1) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, preventive maintenance,
calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments;
(2) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies; and
(3) Start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.
Sec. 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you
according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this
subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7131.
(c) You must operate in accordance with the SSMP during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(d) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e).
(e) For each PSH operation subject to an opacity limit as specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an
opacity limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in Table
6 to this subpart, and as follows:
(1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of
each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify
if there are VE, other than condensed water vapor.
(2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the
affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at
your back.
(3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must
meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 of
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(f) For existing lime kilns and their associated coolers, you may
perform VE measurements in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A
to part 60 in lieu of installing a COMS or PM detector if any of the
conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) or (3) of this section exist:
(1) You use a FF for PM control, and the FF is under positive
pressure and has multiple stacks; or
(2) The control device exhausts through a monovent; or
(3) The installation of a COMS in accordance with PS-1 of appendix
B to part 60 is infeasible.
Notification, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5); 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); (f)(4) and (6); and 63.9
(a) through (j) that apply to you, by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before January 5, 2004, you must submit an initial notification
not later than 120 calendar days after January 5, 2004.
(c) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or
after January 5, 2004, you must submit an initial notification not
later than 120 calendar days after you start up your affected source.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
[[Page 421]]
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3
to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the
initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the
requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.
63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report listed in Table 7 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section:
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.7083.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified
for your affected source in Sec. 63.7083.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter, you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the
compliance report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that
apply to you, the compliance report must include a statement that there
were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting
period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring
systems (CMS) were out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a
statement that there were no periods during which the CMS were out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an
affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(d)(1) and (2) of this section. The deviations must be reported in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(d).
(1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation
in this subpart, you must include the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
affected source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of
the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A brief description of the process units.
(9) A brief description of the CMS.
(10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report
shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit
authority.
[[Page 422]]
Sec. 63.7132 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity and VE observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for VE
observations.
(c) You must keep the records required by Tables 5 and 6 to this
subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation
that applies to you.
(d) You must keep the records which document the basis for the
initial applicability determination as required under Sec. 63.7081.
Sec. 63.7133 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. When there is overlap
between subpart A and subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the
``Explanations'' column in Table 8, subpart AAAAA takes precedence.
Sec. 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or by a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S.
EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations in Sec. 63.7090(a).
(2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in Sec.
63.7090(a).
(3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7090(b).
(4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source
status?
(a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must
measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns, except
as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, at your plant using
either:
(1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part,
(2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or
(3) ASTM Method D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method, provided that the provisions in paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section are followed.
(i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of
samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section
11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01.
(ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set
of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.003
Where:
RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation of sample
pair a, percent.
C1a and C2a = The HCl concentrations, milligram/
dry standard cubic meter(mg/dscm), from the paired samples.
(iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard
deviation according to Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.004
Where:
RSDTA = The test average relative standard deviation,
percent.
RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation for sample
pair a.
p = The number of test runs, =3.
(iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are
invalid and the test must be repeated.
(v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM
Method D6735-01 is conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated
according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01.
(vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent,
inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of
this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be
repeated.
(b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of
specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability
determinations under Sec. 63.7081, you may use either:
(1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
(2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or
(3) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
[[Page 423]]
Spectrometry (GC/MS), provided that the provisions of paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section are followed:
(i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99;
(ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by
volume and 100 parts per million by volume;
(iii) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the additional
system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in
section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, is conducted, met, documented, and
submitted with the data report, even if there is no moisture condenser
used or the compound is not considered water soluble; and
(iv) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99
may not be used.
(c) It is left to the discretion of the permitting authority
whether or not idled kilns must be tested for (HCl) to claim area
source status. If the facility has kilns that use common feed materials
and fuel, are essentially identical in design, and use essentially
identical emission controls, the permitting authority may also
determine if one kiln can be tested, and the HCl emissions for the
other essentially identical kilns be estimated from that test.
Sec. 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a type of PM detector used on FF
to identify an increase in PM emissions resulting from a broken filter
bag or other malfunction and sound an alarm.
Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports processed
stone from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
Bucket elevator means a processed stone conveying device consisting
of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single
or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached.
Building means any frame structure with a roof.
Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods,
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM to a
control device.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process
operations at an LMP.
Conveying system means a device for transporting processed stone
from one piece of equipment or location to another location within a
plant. Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt
conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including any operating limit);
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction,
regardless of whether or not such failure is allowed by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or VE limit.
Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, storage bin,
conveying system transfer point, bulk loading or unloading operation,
bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an LMP.
Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture
system.
Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium
hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product with water.
Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln (or part of
the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime
produced by the kiln.
Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater,
used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln
types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln,
rotary hearth kiln, double-shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln.
Lime manufacturing plant (LMP) means any plant which uses a lime
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous
material by calcination.
Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process
including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.
Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium
carbonate (referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium
limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/or the double carbonate of both
calcium and magnesium (referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or
dolomite).
Monovent means an exhaust configuration of a building or emission
control device (e.g., positive pressure FF) that extends the length of
the structure and has a width very small in relation to its length
(i.e., length-to-width ratio is typically greater than 5:1). The
exhaust may be an open vent with or without a roof, louvered vents, or
a combination of such features.
Particulate matter (PM) detector means a system that is
continuously capable of monitoring PM loading in the exhaust of FF or
ESP in order to detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or control device
malfunctions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. A PM detector
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on
triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effects
to continuously monitor relative particulate loadings. A BLDS is a type
of PM detector.
Positive pressure FF or ESP means a FF or ESP with the fan(s) on
the upstream side of the control device.
Process stone handling operations means the equipment and transfer
points between the equipment used to transport processed stone, and
includes, storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading
or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt
conveyors.
Processed stone means limestone or other calcareous material that
has been processed to a size suitable for feeding into a lime kiln.
Screening operation means a device for separating material
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more
mesh surfaces (screens) in series and retaining oversize material on
the mesh surfaces (screens).
Stack emissions means the PM that is released to the atmosphere
from a capture system or control device.
Storage bin means a manmade enclosure for storage (including surge
bins) of processed stone prior to the lime kiln.
Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the
material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor.
Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM
emissions from one or more emission units.
Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63
[[Page 424]]
Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Emission Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For . . . emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing lime kilns and their PM emissions must not exceed
associated lime coolers that did not 0.12 pounds per ton of stone
have a wet scrubber installed and feed (lb/tsf).
operating prior to January 5, 2004.
2. Existing lime kilns and their PM emissions must not exceed
associated lime coolers that have a 0.60 lb/tsf. If at any time
wet scrubber, where the scrubber after January 5, 2004 the kiln
itself was installed and operating changes to a dry control
prior to January 5, 2004. system, then the PM emission
limit in item 1 of this Table
1 applies, and the kiln is
hereafter ineligible for the
PM emission limit in item 2 of
this Table 1 regardless of the
method of PM control.
3. New lime kilns and their associated PM emissions must not exceed
lime coolers. 0.10 lb/tsf.
4. All existing and new lime kilns and Weighted average PM emissions
their associated coolers at your LMP, calculated according to Eq. 2
and you choose to average PM in Sec. 63.7112 must not
emissions, except that any kiln that exceed 0.12 lb/tsf (if you are
is allowed to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf PM averaging only existing kilns)
emission limit is ineligible for or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are
averaging. averaging only new kilns). If
you are averaging existing and
new kilns, your weighted
average PM emissions must not
exceed the weighted average
emission limit calculated
according to Eq. 3 in Sec.
63.7112, except that no new
kiln and its associated cooler
considered alone may exceed an
average PM emissions limit of
0.10 lb/tsf.
5. Stack emissions from all PSH PM emissions must not exceed
operations at a new or existing 0.05 grams per dry standard
affected source. cubic meter (g/dscm).
6. Stack emissions from all PSH Emissions must not exceed 7
operations at a new or existing percent opacity.
affected source, unless the stack
emissions are discharged through a wet
scrubber control device.
7. Fugitive emissions from all PSH Emissions must not exceed 10
operations at a new or existing percent opacity.
affected source, except as provided by
item 8 of this Table 1.
8. All PSH operations at a new or All of the individually
existing affected source enclosed in a affected PSH operations must
building. comply with the applicable PM
and opacity emission
limitations in items 5 through
7 of this Table 1, or the
building must comply with the
following: There must be no VE
from the building, except from
a vent; and vent emissions
must not exceed the stack
emissions limitations in items
5 and 6 of this Table 1.
9. Each FF that controls emissions from Emissions must not exceed 7
only an individual, enclosed storage percent opacity.
bin.
10. Each set of multiple storage bins You must comply with the
at a new or existing affected source, emission limits in items 5 and
with combined stack emissions. 6 of this Table 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Operating Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler Maintain and operate the FF
(if there is a separate exhaust to the such that the BLDS or PM
atmosphere from the associated lime detector alarm condition does
cooler) equipped with an FF. not exist for more than 5
percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month period; and
comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(d) through
(f) and Table 5 to this
subpart. In lieu of a BLDS or
PM detector maintain the FF
such that the 6-minute average
opacity for any 6-minute block
period does not exceed 15
percent; and comply with the
requirements in Sec.
63.7113(f) and (g) and Table 5
to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Maintain the 3-hour block
scrubber. exhaust gas stream pressure
drop across the wet scrubber
greater than or equal to the
pressure drop operating limit
established during the most
recent PM performance test;
and maintain the 3-hour block
scrubbing liquid flow rate
greater than the flow rate
operating limit established
during the most recent
performance test.
3. Each lime kiln equipped with an Install a PM detector and
electrostatic precipitator. maintain and operate the ESP
such that the PM detector
alarm is not activated and
alarm condition does not exist
for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-
month period, and comply with
Sec. 63.7113(e); or,
maintain the ESP such that the
6-minute average opacity for
any 6-minute block period does
not exceed 15 percent, and
comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(g); and
comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(f) and Table
5 to this subpart.
4. Each PSH operation subject to a PM Maintain the 3-hour block
limit which uses a wet scrubber. average exhaust gas stream
pressure drop across the wet
scrubber greater than or equal
to the pressure drop operating
limit established during the
PM performance test; and
maintain the 3-hour block
average scrubbing liquid flow
rate greater than or equal to
the flow rate operating limit
established during the
performance test.
[[Page 425]]
5. All affected sources................ Prepare a written OM&M plan;
the plan must include the
items listed in Sec.
63.7100(d) and the corrective
actions to be taken when
required in Table 5 to this
subpart.
6. Each emission unit equipped with an a. Vent captured emissions
add-on air pollution control device. through a closed system,
except that dilution air may
be added to emission streams
for the purpose of controlling
temperature at the inlet to an
FF; and
b. Operate each capture/
collection system according to
the procedures and
requirements in the OM&M plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7114, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the
following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
demonstrated
initial
For the following compliance, if
For . . . emission limit . . after following
. the requirements
in Sec. 63.7112
. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new or existing lime PM emissions must The kiln outlet PM
kilns and their associated lime not exceed 0.12 emissions (and if
coolers (kilns/coolers). lb/tsf for all applicable,
existing kilns/ summed with the
coolers with dry separate cooler
controls, 0.60 lb/ PM emissions),
tsf for existing based on the PM
kilns/coolers emissions
with wet measured using
scrubbers, 0.10 Method 5 in
lb/tsf for all appendix A to
new kilns/ part 60 of this
coolers, or a chapter and the
weighted average stone feed rate
calculated measurement over
according to Eq. the period of
3 in Sec. initial
63.7112. performance test,
do not exceed the
emission limit;
if the lime kiln
is controlled by
an FF or ESP and
you are opting to
monitor PM
emissions with a
BLDS or PM
detector, you
have installed
and are operating
the monitoring
device according
to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.7113(d)
or (e),
respectively; and
if the lime kiln
is controlled by
an FF or ESP and
you are opting to
monitor PM
emissions using a
COMS, you have
installed and are
operating the
COMS according to
the requirements
in Sec.
63.7113(g).
2. Stack emissions from all PHS PM emissions must The outlet PM
operations at a new or existing not exceed 0.05 g/ emissions, based
affected source. dscm. on Method 5 or
Method 17 in
appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter, over the
period of the
initial
performance test
do not exceed
0.05 g/dscm; and
if the emission
unit is
controlled with a
wet scrubber, you
have a record of
the scrubber's
pressure drop and
liquid flow rate
operating
parameters over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
emissions
limitation.
3. Stack emissions from all PSH Emissions must not Each of the thirty
operations at a new or existing exceed 7 percent 6-minute opacity
affected source, unless the opacity. averages during
stack emissions are discharged the initial
through a wet scrubber control compliance
device. period, using
Method 9 in
appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter, does not
exceed the 7
percent opacity
limit. At least
thirty 6-minute
averages must be
obtained.
4. Fugitive emissions from all Emissions must not Each of the 6-
PSH operations at a new or exceed 10 percent minute opacity
existing affected source. opacity. averages during
the initial
compliance
period, using
Method 9 in
appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter, does not
exceed the 10
percent opacity
limit.
5. All PSH operations at a new All of the All the PSH
or existing affected source, individually operations
enclosed in building. affected PSH enclosed in the
operations must building have
comply with the demonstrated
applicable PM and initial
opacity emission compliance
limitations for according to the
items 2 through 4 applicable
of this Table 3, requirements for
or the building items 2 through 4
must comply with of this Table 3;
the following: or if you are
There must be no complying with
VE from the the building
building, except emission
from a vent, and limitations,
vent emissions there are no VE
must not exceed from the building
the emission according to item
limitations in 18 of Table 4 to
items 2 and 3 of this subpart and
this Table 3. Sec.
63.7112(k), and
you demonstrate
initial
compliance with
applicable
building vent
emissions
limitations
according to the
requirements in
items 2 and 3 of
this Table 3.
[[Page 426]]
6. Each FF that controls Emissions must not Each of the ten 6-
emissions from only an exceed 7 percent minute averages
individual storage bin. opacity. during the 1-hour
initial
compliance
period, using
Method 9 in
appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter, does not
exceed the 7
percent opacity
limit.
7. Each set of multiple storage You must comply You demonstrate
bins with combined stack with emission initial
emissions. limitations in compliance
items 2 and 3 of according to the
this Table 3. requirements in
items 2 and 3 of
this Table 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
[As required in Sec. 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to
you.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each associated Select the location of Method 1 or 1A of Sampling sites must be
lime cooler, if there is a separate the sampling port and appendix A to part 60 located at the outlet
exhaust to the atmosphere from the the number of traverse of this chapter; and of the control
associated lime cooler. ports. Sec. 63.6(d)(1)(i). device(s) and prior to
any releases to the
atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each associated Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate volumetric flow rate. 2F, or 2G in appendix
exhaust to the atmosphere from the A to part 60 of this
associated lime cooler. chapter.
3. Each lime kiln and each associated Conduct gas molecular Method 3, 3A, or 3B in Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate weight analysis. appendix A to part 60
exhaust to the atmosphere from the of this chapter.
associated lime cooler.
4. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate content of the stack to part 60 of this
exhaust to the atmosphere from the gas. chapter.
associated lime cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure PM emissions... Method 5 in appendix A Conduct the test(s)
lime cooler, if there is a separate to part 60 of this when the source is
exhaust to the atmosphere from the chapter. operating at
associated lime cooler, and which representative
uses a negative pressure PM control operating conditions
device. in accordance with
Sec. 63.7(e); the
minimum sampling
volume must be 0.85
dry standard cubic
meter (dscm) (30 dry
standard cubic foot
(dscf)); if there is a
separate lime cooler
exhaust to the
atmosphere, you must
conduct the Method 5
test of the cooler
exhaust concurrently
with the kiln exhaust
test.
6. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure PM emissions... Method 5D in appendix A Conduct the test(s)
lime cooler, if there is a separate to part 60 of this when the source is
exhaust to the atmosphere from the chapter. operating at
associated lime cooler, and which representative
uses a positive pressure FF or ESP. operating conditions
in accordance with
Sec. 63.7(e); if
there is a separate
lime cooler exhaust to
the atmosphere, you
must conduct the
Method 5 test of the
separate cooler
exhaust concurrently
with the kiln exhaust
test.
7. Each lime kiln.................... Determine the mass rate Any suitable device.... Calibrate and maintain
of stone feed to the the device according
kiln during the kiln to manufacturer's
PM emissions test. instructions; the
measuring device used
must be accurate to
within +/-5 percent of
the mass rate of stone
feed over its
operating range.
[[Page 427]]
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Establish the operating Data for the gas stream The continuous pressure
scrubber. limit for the average pressure drop drop measurement
gas stream pressure measurement device device must be
drop across the wet during the kiln PM accurate within plus
scrubber. performance test. or minus 1 percent;
you must collect the
pressure drop data
during the period of
the performance test
and determine the
operating limit
according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Establish the operating Data from the liquid The continuous
scrubber. limit for the average flow rate measurement scrubbing liquid flow
liquid flow rate to device during the kiln rate measuring device
the scrubber. PM performance test. must be accurate
within plus or minus 1
percent; you must
collect the flow rate
data during the period
of the performance
test and determine the
operating limit
according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF Have installed and have Standard operating According to the
or ESP that is monitored with a PM operating the BLDS or procedures requirements in Sec.
detector. PM detector prior to incorporated into the 63.7113(d) or (e),
the performance test. OM&M plan. respectively.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF Have installed and have Standard operating According to the
or ESP that is monitored with a COMS. operating the COMS procedures requirements in Sec.
prior to the incorporated into the 63.7113(g).
performance test. OM&M plan and as
required by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A,
General Provisions and
according to PS-1 of
appendix B to part 60
of this chapter,
except as specified in
Sec. 63.7113(g)(2).
12. Each stack emission from a PSH Measure PM emissions... Method 5 or Method 17 The sample volume must
operation, vent from a building in appendix A to part be at least 1.70 dscm
enclosing a PSH operation, or set of 60 of this chapter. (60 dscf); for Method
multiple storage bins with combined 5, if the gas stream
stack emissions, which is subject to being sampled is at
a PM emission limit. ambient temperature,
the sampling probe and
filter may be operated
without heaters; and
if the gas stream is
above ambient
temperature, the
sampling probe and
filter may be operated
at a temperature high
enough, but no higher
than 121 [deg]C (250
[deg]F), to prevent
water condensation on
the filter (Method 17
may be used only with
exhaust gas
temperatures of not
more than 250 [deg]F).
13. Each stack emission from a PSH Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
operation, vent from a building observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 3
enclosing a PSH operation, or set of chapter. hours and you must
multiple storage bins with combined obtain at least
stack emissions, which is subject to thirty, 6-minute
an opacity limit. averages.
14. Each stack emissions source from Establish the average Data for the gas stream The pressure drop
a PSH operation subject to a PM or gas stream pressure pressure drop measurement device
opacity limit, which uses a wet drop across the wet measurement device must be accurate
scrubber. scrubber. during the PSH within plus or minus 1
operation stack PM percent; you must
performance test. collect the pressure
drop data during the
period of the
performance test and
determine the
operating limit
according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source from Establish the operating Data from the liquid The continuous
a PSH operation subject to a PM or limit for the average flow rate measurement scrubbing liquid flow
opacity limit, which uses a wet liquid flow rate to device during the PSH rate measuring device
scrubber. the scrubber. operation stack PM must be accurate
performance test. within plus or minus 1
percent; you must
collect the flow rate
data during the period
of the performance
test and determine the
operating limit
according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
[[Page 428]]
16. Each FF that controls emissions Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
from only an individual, enclosed, observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 1 hour
new or existing storage bin. chapter. and you must obtain
ten 6-minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
operation subject to an opacity observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 3
limit. chapter. hours, but the 3-hour
test may be reduced to
1 hour if, during the
first 1-hour period,
there are no
individual readings
greater than 10
percent opacity and
there are no more than
three readings of 10
percent during the
first 1-hour period.
18. Each building enclosing any PSH Conduct VE check....... The specifications in The performance test
operation, that is subject to a VE Sec. 63.7112(k). must be conducted
limit. while all affected PSH
operations within the
building are
operating; the
performance test for
each affected building
must be at least 75
minutes, with each
side of the building
and roof being
observed for at least
15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with
Operating Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7121, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each operating limit that applies to you, according to
the following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
For the following demonstrate
For . . . operating limit . continuous
. . compliance by . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled by Maintain the 3- Collecting the wet
a wet scrubber. hour block scrubber
average exhaust operating data
gas stream according to all
pressure drop applicable
across the wet requirements in
scrubber greater Sec. 63.7113
than or equal to and reducing the
the pressure drop data according to
operating limit Sec.
established 63.7113(a);
during the PM maintaining the 3-
performance test; hour block
and maintain the average exhaust
3-hour block gas stream
average scrubbing pressure drop
liquid flow rate across the wet
greater than or scrubber greater
equal to the flow than or equal to
rate operating the pressure drop
limit established operating limit
during the established
performance test. during the PM
performance test;
and maintaining
the 3-hour block
average scrubbing
liquid flow rate
greater than or
equal to the flow
rate operating
limit established
during the
performance test
(the continuous
scrubbing liquid
flow rate
measuring device
must be accurate
within +/-1% and
the continuous
pressure drop
measurement
device must be
accurate within +/
-1%).
2. Each lime kiln or lime cooler a. Maintain and (i) Operating the
equipped with a FF and using a operate the FF or FF or ESP so that
BLDS, and each lime kiln ESP such that the the alarm on the
equipped with an ESP or FF bag leak or PM bag leak or PM
using a PM detector. detector alarm, detection system
is not activated is not activated
and alarm and an alarm
condition does condition does
not exist for not exist for
more than 5 more than 5
percent of the percent of the
total operating total operating
time in each 6- time in each 6-
month period. month reporting
period; and
continuously
recording the
output from the
BLD or PM
detection system;
and
(ii) Each time the
alarm sounds and
the owner or
operator
initiates
corrective
actions within 1
hour of the
alarm, 1 hour of
alarm time will
be counted (if
the owner or
operator takes
longer than 1
hour to initiate
corrective
actions, alarm
time will be
counted as the
actual amount of
time taken by the
owner or operator
to initiate
corrective
actions); if
inspection of the
FF or ESP system
demonstrates that
no corrective
actions are
necessary, no
alarm time will
be counted.
[[Page 429]]
3. Each stack emissions source Maintain the 3- Collecting the wet
from a PSH operation subject to hour block scrubber
an opacity limit, which is average exhaust operating data
controlled by a wet scrubber. gas stream according to all
pressure drop applicable
across the wet requirements in
scrubber greater Sec. 63.7113
than or equal to and reducing the
the pressure drop data according to
operating limit Sec.
established 63.7113(a);
during the PM maintaining the 3-
performance test; hour block
and maintain the average exhaust
3-hour block gas stream
average scrubbing pressure drop
liquid flow rate across the wet
greater than or scrubber greater
equal to the flow than or equal to
rate operating the pressure drop
limit established operating limit
during the established
performance test. during the PM
performance test;
and maintaining
the 3-hour block
average scrubbing
liquid flow rate
greater than or
equal to the flow
rate operating
limit established
during the
performance test
(the continuous
scrubbing liquid
flow rate
measuring device
must be accurate
within +/-1% and
the continuous
pressure drop
measurement
device must be
accurate within +/
-1%).
4. For each lime kiln or lime a. Maintain and i. Installing,
cooler equipped with a FF or an operate the FF or maintaining,
ESP that uses a COMS as the ESP such that the calibrating and
monitoring device. average opacity operating a COMS
for any 6-minute as required by 40
block period does CFR part 63,
not exceed 15 subpart A,
percent. General
Provisions and
according to PS-1
of appendix B to
part 60 of this
chapter, except
as specified in
Sec.
63.7113(g)(2);
and
ii. Collecting the
COMS data at a
frequency of at
least once every
15 seconds,
determining block
averages for each
6-minute period
and demonstrating
for each 6-minute
block period the
average opacity
does not exceed
15 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Periodic Monitoring for Compliance
With Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7121 you must periodically demonstrate
compliance with each opacity and VE limit that applies to you, according
to the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
For the following demonstrate
For . . . emission ongoing compliance
limitation . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each PSH operation subject to a. 7-10 percent (i) Conducting a
an opacity limitation as opacity, monthly 1-minute
required in Table 1 to this depending on the VE check of each
subpart, or any vents from PSH operation, as emission unit in
buildings subject to an opacity required in Table accordance with
limitation. 1 to this subpart. Sec.
63.7121(e); the
check must be
conducted while
the affected
source is in
operation;
(ii) If no VE are
observed in 6
consecutive
monthly checks
for any emission
unit, you may
decrease the
frequency of VE
checking from
monthly to semi-
annually for that
emission unit; if
VE are observed
during any
semiannual check,
you must resume
VE checking of
that emission
unit on a monthly
basis and
maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed
in 6 consecutive
monthly checks;
(iii) If no VE are
observed during
the semiannual
check for any
emission unit,
you may decrease
the frequency of
VE checking from
semi-annually to
annually for that
emission unit; if
VE are observed
during any annual
check, you must
resume VE
checking of that
emission unit on
a monthly basis
and maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed
in 6 consecutive
monthly checks;
and
[[Page 430]]
(iv) If VE are
observed during
any VE check, you
must conduct a 6-
minute test of
opacity in
accordance with
Method 9 of
appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter; you must
begin the Method
9 test within 1
hour of any
observation of VE
and the 6-minute
opacity reading
must not exceed
the applicable
opacity limit.
2. Any building subject to a VE a. No VE.......... (i) Conducting a
limit, according to item 8 of monthly VE check
Table 1 to this subpart. of the building,
in accordance
with the
specifications in
Sec.
63.7112(k); the
check must be
conducted while
all the enclosed
PSH operations
are operating;
(ii) The check for
each affected
building must be
at least 5
minutes, with
each side of the
building and roof
being observed
for at least 1
minute;
(iii) If no VE are
observed in 6
consecutive
monthly checks of
the building, you
may decrease the
frequency of
checking from
monthly to semi-
annually for that
affected source;
if VE are
observed during
any semi-annual
check, you must
resume checking
on a monthly
basis and
maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed
in 6 consecutive
monthly checks;
and
(iv) If no VE are
observed during
the semi-annual
check, you may
decrease the
frequency of
checking from
semi-annually to
annually for that
affected source;
and if VE are
observed during
any annual check,
you must resume
checking of that
emission unit on
a monthly basis
and maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed
in 6 consecutive
monthly checks
(the source is in
compliance if no
VE are observed
during any of
these checks).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
[As required in Sec. 63.7131, you must submit each report in this
table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report............ a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from according to the
any emission requirements in
limitations Sec.
(emission limit, 63.7131(b).
operating limit,
opacity limit,
and VE limit)
that applies to
you, a statement
that there were
no deviations
from the emission
limitations
during the
reporting period;
b. If there were Semiannually
no periods during according to the
which the CMS, requirements in
including any Sec.
operating 63.7131(b).
parameter
monitoring
system, was out-
of-control as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were no
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period;
c. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from according to the
any emission requirements in
limitation Sec.
(emission limit, 63.7131(b).
operating limit,
opacity limit,
and VE limit)
during the
reporting period,
the report must
contain the
information in
Sec.
63.7131(d);
d. If there were Semiannually
periods during according to the
which the CMS, requirements in
including any Sec.
operating 63.7131(b).
parameter
monitoring
system, was out-
of-control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), the
report must
contain the
information in
Sec.
63.7131(e); and
[[Page 431]]
e. If you had a Semiannually
startup, shutdown according to the
or malfunction requirements in
during the Sec.
reporting period 63.7131(b).
and you took
actions
consistent with
your SSMP, the
compliance report
must include the
information in
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup, Actions taken for By fax or
shutdown, and malfunction the event. telephone within
report if you had a startup, 2 working days
shutdown, or malfunction during after starting
the reporting period that is actions
not consistent with your SSMP. inconsistent with
the SSMP.
3. An immediate startup, The information in By letter within 7
shutdown, and malfunction Sec. working days
report if you had a startup, 63.10(d)(5)(ii). after the end of
shutdown, or malfunction during the event unless
the reporting period that is you have made
not consistent with your SSMP. alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority. See
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
[As required in Sec. 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Am I subject to this
Citation requirement requirement? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4)............. Applicability Yes.............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)................. Applicability Yes.............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9).......... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)........ Applicability....... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................. Initial Yes............................. Sec. Sec. 63.7081
Applicability and 63.7142 specify
Determination. additional
applicability
determination
requirements.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................. Initial Yes.............................
Applicability
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................. Applicability After Yes.............................
Standard
Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................. Permit Requirements. No.............................. Area sources not
subject to subpart
AAAAA, except all
sources must make
initial
applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)............. Extensions, Yes.............................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(d).................... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.1(e).................... Applicability of Yes.............................
Permit Program.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions......... ................................ Additional
definitions in Sec.
63.7143.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)................ Units and Yes.............................
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2).......... Prohibited Yes.............................
Activities.
Sec. 3.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)........... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ Circumvention, Yes.............................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2)............. Construction/ Yes.............................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)................. Compliance Dates.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............. Construction Yes.............................
Approval,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................. Applicability....... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.5(c).................... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)-(4)............. Approval of Yes.............................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).................... Approval of Yes.............................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1)-(2)............. Approval of Yes.............................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Compliance for Yes.............................
Standards and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)............. Compliance Dates.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance Dates.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............. Compliance Dates.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4).......... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. Compliance Dates.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(d).................... .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)................. Operation & Yes............................. See Sec. 63.7100
Maintenance. for OM&M
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. .................... No..............................
[[Page 432]]
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown Yes.............................
Malfunction Plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)-(3)............. Compliance with Yes.............................
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3).......... Alternative Standard Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)-(2)............. Opacity/VE Standards Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(3)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)....... Opacity/VE Standards Yes............................. This requirement
only applies to
opacity and VE
performance checks
required in Table 4
to subpart AAAAA.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5) (ii)-(iii)...... Opacity/VE Standards No.............................. Test durations are
specified in
subpart AAAAA;
subpart AAAAA takes
precedence.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(iv)............. Opacity/VE Standards No..............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(v).............. Opacity/VE Standards Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(6)................. Opacity/VE Standards Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)................. COM Use............. Yes.............................
Sec. 63.6(h)(8)................. Compliance with Yes.............................
Opacity and VE.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9)................. Adjustment of Yes.............................
Opacity Limit.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)......... Extension of Yes.............................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................ .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................ Extension of Yes.............................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Exemption from Yes.............................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(a)(3).......... Performance Testing Yes............................. Sec. 63.7110
Requirements. specifies
deadlines; Sec.
63.7112 has
additional specific
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(b).................... Notification........ Yes.............................
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality Assurance/ Yes.............................
Test Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing Facilities.. Yes.............................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)-(4)............. Conduct of Tests.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Yes.............................
Method.
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Data Analysis....... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Tests..... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................. Monitoring Yes............................. See Sec. 63.7113.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................. Monitoring.......... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Monitoring.......... No.............................. Flares not
applicable.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)-(3)............. Conduct of Yes.............................
Monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3)............. CMS Operation/ Yes.............................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. CMS Requirements.... No.............................. See Sec. 63.7121.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)......... Cycle Time for COM Yes............................. No CEMS are required
and CEMS. under subpart
AAAAA; see Sec.
63.7113 for CPMS
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. Minimum COM Yes............................. COM not required.
procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................. CMS Requirements.... No.............................. See Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)............. CMS Requirements.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.8(d).................... Quality Control..... No.............................. See Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(e).................... Performance No..............................
Evaluation for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5).......... Alternative Yes.............................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to No..............................
Relative Accuracy
test.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(g)(5).......... Data Reduction; Data No.............................. See data reduction
That Cannot Be Used. requirements in
Sec. Sec.
63.7120 and
63.7121.
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Yes............................. See Sec. 63.7130.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b).................... Initial Yes.............................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for Yes.............................
Compliance
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... New Source Yes.............................
Notification for
Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Yes.............................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of VE/ Yes............................. This requirement
Opacity Test. only applies to
opacity and VE
performance tests
required in Table 4
to subpart AAAAA.
Notification not
required for VE/
opacity test under
Table 6 to subpart
AAAAA.
Sec. 63.9(g).................... Additional CMS No.............................. Not required for
Notifications. operating parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3).......... Notification of Yes.............................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)................. .................... No..............................
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6).......... Notification of Yes.............................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Yes.............................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Yes.............................
Information.
[[Page 433]]
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping/ Yes............................. See Sec. Sec.
Reporting General 63.7131 through
Requirements. 63.7133.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii).... Records............. Yes.............................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records for Relative No..............................
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records for Yes.............................
Notification.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Applicability Yes.............................
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)................... Additional CMS No.............................. See Sec. 63.7132.
Recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Yes.............................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Performance Test Yes.............................
Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Opacity or VE Yes............................. For the periodic
Observations. monitoring
requirements in
Table 6 to subpart
AAAAA, report
according to Sec.
63.10(d)(3) only if
VE observed and
subsequent visual
opacity test is
required.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress Reports.... Yes.............................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ Startup, Shutdown, Yes.............................
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)................... Additional CMS No.............................. See specific
Reports. requirements in
subpart AAAAA, see
Sec. 63.7131.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Waiver for Yes.............................
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11(a)-(b)............... Control Device No.............................. Flares not
Requirements. applicable.
Sec. 63.12(a)-(c)............... State Authority and Yes.............................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13(a)-(c)............... State/Regional Yes.............................
Addresses.
Sec. 63.14(a)-(b)............... Incorporation by No..............................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15(a)-(b)............... Availability of Yes.............................
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-23057 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P