[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57738-57770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14692]
[[Page 57738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-5948.1-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV59
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes our amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants
(Lime Manufacturing NESHAP). Specifically, we are finalizing maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards for hydrogen chloride
(HCl), mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F).
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 16, 2024. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
September 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Brian Storey, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-1103; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DB dead burned dolomitic lime
D/F dioxin/furans
DL dolomitic lime
DSI dry sorbent injection
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FF fabric filter
FR Federal Register
g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HBEL health-based emission limit
HCl hydrogen chloride
IQV intra-quarry variability
lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced at
the kiln
lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PR preheater rotary kiln
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSH process stone handling
QL quick lime
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SR straight rotary kiln
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEF toxicity equivalence factors
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons of pollutant per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VK vertical kiln
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On January 5, 2023 (88 FR 805), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to complete the
technology review, originally promulgated on July 24, 2020 (85 FR
44960), by finalizing emission standards for 4 unregulated HAP. Based
on the information available to EPA in 2023 at the time of the
proposal, the EPA certified the rule as not having a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE).
Following the publication of the NPRM, EPA received additional data and
feedback via public comments regarding the Agency's economic analysis,
including information on the impacts to businesses that would be
affected by the proposed rule. Our initial review of this updated
information indicated that estimates of the control costs developed to
support the proposal may have been understated and that there could
accordingly be significant economic impacts to small businesses. On
February 9, 2024 (89 FR 9088), the EPA published a supplemental
proposal to address information received from public commenters and
other sources of information, including the small business review
panel. The supplemental proposal addressed regulatory flexibilities
raised during outreach to the small businesses impacted by proposed
revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions to the rule based on the public
comments received regarding both the January 5, 2023, proposed rule and
the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. We summarize some of the
more significant comments we received regarding the proposed and
supplemental rule amendments and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments and the EPA's
responses to those comments is available in the document titled
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants
Amendments'', included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the lime manufacturing source category and how does
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source
category in our January 5, 2023, and February 9, 2024, proposals?
D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023,
proposal?
[[Page 57739]]
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments
for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards
B. Mercury Emission Standards
C. Organic HAP Emission Standards
D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards
E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
F. Severability of Standards
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category and NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing..................... 32741, 33111, 3314, 327125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 16, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
For major sources, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(2)
provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum
degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable after considering cost,
energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental
impacts. These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards.
CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT
standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' The EPA must also consider
control options that are more stringent than the floor, commonly
referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) standards. Costs may not be
considered when setting the MACT floor and may only be considered when
determining whether BTF standards are appropriate. The EPA considered
BTF standards but did not elect to set BTF standards in this
rulemaking.
On January 5, 2023, the EPA proposed amendments to the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP to address unregulated emissions of HAP from the
Lime Manufacturing source category. On February 9, 2024, the EPA
supplemented its proposed amendments based on information received from
commenters and other sources of information, including the small
business review panel. In this document, the EPA proposed revisions to
the proposed MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F for
the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA is finalizing these
amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all emissions of
[[Page 57740]]
HAP from sources in the source category are regulated.
In setting standards for major source categories under CAA section
112(d), the EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA
section 112(b).\1\ In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required
by CAA section 112(d)(6).\2\ These amendments address currently
unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime manufacturing source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Desert Citizens against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of 40
CFR 112(d) to require the regulation of all HAPs listed in 40 CFR
112(b)(1)''), citing Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34
(D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C.
Cir. 2007).
\2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Lime Manufacturing source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5,
2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use
a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by calcination. The
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 34
facilities.
As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
regulates 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. A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any
plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or
other calcareous material by calcination. The NESHAP specifically
excludes lime kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from
water softening processes as the feedstock. In addition, lime
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Lime manufacturing operations
at pulp and paper mills are subject to the NESHAP for combustion
sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills.\3\ Lime
manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants are not
subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP because beet sugar lime kiln
exhaust is typically routed through a series of gas washers to clean
the exhaust gas prior to process use. Other lime manufacturing plants
that are part of multiple operations, such as (but not limited to)
those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 66 FR 3180, January 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source
as each lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual
processed stone handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations
system includes all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning
at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending
where the process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made
process stone storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles),
conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems,
screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors.
The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate
matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations
with stacks. The NESHAP also established opacity limits for kilns
equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF)
and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers.
Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP.
The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the
PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for HAP
metals.
The PM emission limit for existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds
PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution
control systems (e.g., dry scrubbers, fabric filters, baghouses) prior
to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have installed and are
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, it would become subject
to the 0.12 lb/tsf 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 averaged across kilns
and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing
plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission
limit would 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. Existing kilns that have installed and are
operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, and that are required
to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually,
and they may not be included in any averaging calculations.
Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack are
subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/
dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that
are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/dscm limit
but are 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. 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 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. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP does not
allow averaging of PSH operations.
The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The July 24,
2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) found that the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health, that more
stringent standards were not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, and that there were no developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies that would warrant revisions to the
standards. In addition, the 2020 RTR addressed periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM
operations. Lastly, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring
electronic reporting.
C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source
category in our February 9, 2024, proposal?
On February 9, 2024, the EPA published a supplemental proposal in
the Federal Register for the Lime
[[Page 57741]]
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, in which the EPA
proposed setting MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F.
Table 2 includes a summary of the MACT standards in the February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal.
Table 2--Summary of New and Existing Source Limits for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Included in the February 9,
2024, Supplemental Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime produced New source Existing
Pollutant Kiln type \1\ \2\ limit source limit Unit of measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Chloride............ SR............. QL............. 0.015 0.52 lb/ton lime
produced.
SR............. DL, DB......... 1.7 2.3 lb/ton lime
produced.
PR............. QL............. 0.096 0.096 lb/ton lime
produced.
PR............. DL, DB......... 0.39 0.39 lb/ton lime
produced.
VK............. QL............. 0.021 0.021 lb/ton lime
produced.
VK............. DL, DB......... 0.39 0.39 lb/ton lime
produced.
Mercury...................... All............ All............ 27 34 lb/MMton lime
produced.
Organic HAP \3\.............. All............ All............ 1.7 1.7 ppmvd at 7
percent O2.
Dioxin/Furan................. All............ All............ 0.037 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ)
at 7 percent
O2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).
\3\ Organic HAP include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p
isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene.
D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023,
proposal?
The EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives
(SERs) that could be subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
requirements. On August 3, 2023, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson convened the Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the
Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division within the EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB, and the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Prior to convening the Panel, the EPA conducted outreach and
solicited comments from the SERs. After the Panel was convened, the
Panel provided additional information to the SERs and requested their
input. The Panel's review identified several significant alternatives
for consideration by the Administrator of the EPA which would
accomplish the stated objectives of the CAA and would minimize economic
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities.
The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the
consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an intra-quarry
variability (IQV) for mercury, an aggregated organic HAP emission
standard, retaining subcategorization for HCl numeric emissions limits,
and work practice standards for D/F in place of a numeric limit. The
EPA is including some of these flexibilities as a part of this final
rule, including subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor
for mercury, and an aggregated organic HAP emission limit. A copy of
the full SBAR Panel Report is available in the docket of this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Lime Manufacturing source category?
The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP,
and D/F within the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, we are
finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows
lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the HCl
and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each pollutant across
existing kilns located at the same facility. This section provides a
description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary
of key comments and responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final
decisions and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for
this action.
A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards
1. What comments did we receive on the hydrogen chloride emission
standards, and what are our responses?
The following key comments were received regarding the HCl emission
standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are
included. All comments regarding HCl not discussed in this section, and
the EPA's responses can be found in the document Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Comment: While the EPA received comments in support of the
subcategorization of HCl emission standards by kiln type and lime
produced, the EPA also received opposing comments which state that the
proposed subcategories by lime produced for HCl are unlawful because
they are not based on differences in the class, type, or size of lime
kilns. Commenter stated that the CAA section 112(d)(1) allows the EPA
only to distinguish between ``classes, types, and sizes'' of sources in
setting emission standards for a category.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA determined
that subcategorization by lime produced was warranted because the
characteristics of DL and QL are different, where DL is made from
naturally occurring limestone with a higher percentage of magnesium
chloride, and QL has a lower chloride content. Given that HCl emissions
from a lime manufacturing process are primarily driven by the heating
of raw materials being processed in the lime kiln, the EPA finds that
these differences in chloride content of the limestone being fed to a
kiln as raw material warrant subcategorization. For these reasons the
EPA has decided it is warranted to set subcategorizations by the type
of lime produced (e.g., DL, QL).
Comment: In the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, the EPA
asked for public comment on the use of a health-based emission limit
(HBEL), under CAA section 112(d)(4), when
[[Page 57742]]
determining the appropriate emission standards for HCl. The EPA
received comments on the supplemental proposal both supporting setting
an HBEL and against setting an HBEL for HCl. Commenters supporting an
HBEL for HCl agreed with the EPA's assertion that HCl is a ``threshold
pollutant'' and stated that current levels of HCl emissions from lime
kilns are well below the threshold levels of concern for human
receptors. In support, commenters supporting the use of an HBEL cited
the 2020 RTR, where the EPA found that the risks of lime manufacturing
under the current MACT standards were acceptable and that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Commenters opposed to the use of an HBEL for HCl stated that the EPA
had not provided substantial evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic.
Therefore, they stated, HCl cannot be a threshold pollutant, and the
EPA cannot establish an HBEL for HCl.
Response: The EPA acknowledges comments received on whether it is
appropriate to consider HCl a threshold pollutant as defined under the
CAA section 112(d)(4). The EPA is mindful that, in Sierra Club v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the court
determined that the rulemaking record did not show that HCl is not a
carcinogen. 895 F.3d at 11. Based on the science and methods developed
over the last 33 years, we believe the issue in setting a standard
under CAA section 112(d)(4) is not necessarily whether HCl is a
carcinogen but rather whether HCl has a threshold with an ample margin
of safety. Thus, in the supplemental proposal, we stated that a
chemical's mechanism of action (e.g., mutagenic, or non-mutagenic) is
an important consideration when determining if a pollutant has a
threshold.
The EPA agrees with commenters' assertions \4\ that we cannot claim
that mutagenicity is the sole test to determine whether a pollutant has
a threshold, for cancer or other adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Refer to document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments'', section 2,
comment 1, which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge industry comments in support of an HBEL and that
current HCl emissions based upon the 2020 RTR are at levels that were
acceptable with an ample margin of safety. However, considering the
other comments received, we have decided not to promulgate an HBEL for
HCl.
2. What did we propose and what are the final hydrogen chloride
emission standards in this final rule?
Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR indicated the
presence of HCl, using EPA Methods 320 and 321. Additionally, the EPA
evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which data was
available. From our discussions with industry representatives, and our
review of the HCl emissions data, we found that the configuration of
the different types of kilns warranted subcategorization by kiln
configuration. In the final rule amendments, we have subcategorized the
HCl MACT standards by the following kiln types: straight rotary kiln
(SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), and vertical kiln (VK). In addition,
due to the different residence times of the raw materials within the
heating zone of the kiln during the production of lime, the 3 types of
lime produced also warranted subcategorization by lime type. We have
also subcategorized the HCl MACT standards by the following types of
lime produced: dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), and dead burned
dolomitic lime (DB).
To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the HCl
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent upper predictive limit (UPL).
In some instances, subcategorization resulted in limited datasets, and
a single dataset was used to calculate both existing and new source HCl
MACT floor limits. In these instances, the existing source HCl MACT
floor limit is the same as the new source HCl MACT floor limit. The HCl
MACT floor limits were calculated based on units of pounds of pollutant
per ton of lime produced (lb/ton lime produced). Table 3 summarizes the
new and existing source emission limits for HCl in the final amendments
to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP.
Table 3--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Hydrogen Chloride
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source limit Existing source
Kiln type \1\ Lime produced \2\ (lb/ton lime limit (lb/ton
produced) lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR......................................... QL........................... 0.015 0.52
SR......................................... DL, DB....................... 1.7 2.3
PR......................................... QL........................... 0.096 0.096
PR......................................... DL, DB....................... 0.39 0.39
VK......................................... QL........................... 0.021 0.021
VK......................................... DL, DB....................... 0.39 0.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).
B. Mercury Emission Standards
1. What comments did we receive on the mercury emission standards, and
what are our responses?
The following key comments were received regarding the mercury
emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and
February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each
comment are included. For all comments regarding mercury not discussed
in this section, and the EPA's responses can be found in the document
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action.
Comment: Commenters supported the use of an intra-quarry
variability factor (IQV) for mercury but commented that the February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal should be adjusted to allow sources more
flexibility in meeting the mercury standards. In a separate comment, a
commenter suggested that the EPA should collect additional data to
support variability in the quarry data.
Response: The final rule includes an IQV factor based on our
statistical analysis of the quarry data provided by
[[Page 57743]]
National Lime Association (NLA) for the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont
Eden lime manufacturing facilities. Case law on the use of an IQV
factor in a rule requires the EPA to only consider quarry data
representing the facilities that are in the MACT floor pool (``best
performers''). The MACT floor pool in the lime source category
consisted of two facilities: the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont Eden
lime manufacturing facilities. The quarry data from these 2 facilities
were used to calculate the IQV factor in the February 9, 2024,
supplemental proposal. No other quarry data were provided for the
Carmeuse Maysville or Graymont Eden facilities during the public
comment period, and, therefore, the quarry data of the Carmeuse
Maysville and Graymont Eden facilities used to propose the IQV factor
in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal was also used to set the
IQV factor in this final rule.
2. What did we propose and what are the final mercury emission
standards in this final rule?
Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR based on EPA
Methods 29 and 30B indicated the presence of mercury in emissions from
lime manufacturing facilities. In the February 9, 2024, proposal the
EPA evaluated the use of an intra-quarry variability (IQV) factor to be
applied in the mercury UPL calculations to account for the naturally
occurring variability in mercury content of the raw materials.
Consistent with the approach followed in the Portland Cement
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and the Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ, the IQV
factor accounts for this variability in the mercury content of the raw
material over geological time. For the reasons explained in the
supplemental proposal, we are using an IQV factor in calculating the
final mercury MACT standards.
As part of the evaluation of a mercury standard with the inclusion
of an IQV factor, the EPA reevaluated whether a separate subcategory
was necessary for kilns producing DB, as proposed in the January 5,
2023, proposed amendments. To do this, we first developed standards
based on no subcategorization and the application of an IQV factor. The
result of this analysis was 27 lb Hg/MMton for new sources and 34 lb
Hg/MMton for existing sources. The EPA determined, based on the
available test data, that kilns producing DB would be able to comply
with the existing source standard after the application of air
pollution controls. This determination differs from the evaluation the
EPA performed when setting subcategories for HCl, where the chloride
content of the raw materials indicated significant differences in the
HCl emissions from the lime kilns. For consideration of mercury
subcategories, after the application of an IQV factor, the new and
existing mercury emission limits for kilns producing DL and QL were
found to be similar to the emission limits for kilns producing DB lime,
and therefore no subcategorization was determined to be needed due to
these negligible differences in emissions between the types of lime
produced. No additional data were provided during the supplemental
proposal that would suggest or warrant setting subcategories for
mercury. Therefore, we determined in this final action to not create
subcategories based on stone produced in setting mercury emission
limits.
To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the
mercury MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The mercury MACT
floor limits were calculated in units of pounds of pollutant per
million tons of lime produced (lb/MMton lime produced). The final
mercury emission limits for new and existing sources, including the IQV
factor and without subcategories, are included in table 4.
Table 4--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source limit Existing source
Kiln type Lime produced (lb/MMton lime limit (lb/MMton
produced) lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................................ All.......................... 27 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Organic HAP Emission Standards
1. What comments did we receive on the organic HAP emission standards,
and what are our responses?
The following key comments were received regarding the THC and
organic HAP emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023,
proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, respectively.
The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments not
discussed in this section, and the EPA's responses, can be found in the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for
this action.
Comment: Commenters stated that the measured detection levels (MDL)
used to calculate the aggregate organic HAP limit of the February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal should be summed on the same basis of
moisture and oxygen. Commenters stated that the detection limit values
do not appear to contain a correction for moisture, which can cause a
significant difference in the final result. Similarly, as the final
results are all to be corrected to a 7 percent oxygen concentration, an
average oxygen concentration adjustment should also be made to the MDL
values used for the floor calculation. Commenters argue that as this
total result may contain some mix of detected and non-detected
compounds, the MDL used for this standard setting should include this
adjustment criteria.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the
representative detection level (RDL) for the EPA Method 320 results
should be adjusted to dry (EPA Method 18 results are already dry), and
that the final organic HAP RDL should be corrected to 7 percent oxygen
prior to comparing to the UPL. We have revised the memo and the RDL
accordingly as well as correcting the emission limits for the new
value.
2. What did we propose and what are the final organic HAP emission
standards in this final rule?
The 2020 RTR emissions data included the results of testing 34 kiln
exhaust stacks for the presence of total hydrocabons (THC) using EPA
Method 25A. In addition, industry stakeholders provided emissions
testing data that identified specific non-dioxin organic HAP. Based on
an assessment of the available test data, the EPA identified 8 specific
pollutants that were consistently emitted by the Lime Manufacturing
source category. These include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
[[Page 57744]]
toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene,
ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. The EPA determined from the 2020 RTR
emissions data that the emissions of these 8 pollutants were
consistently being emitted by the source category. Although the data
suggested that other organic HAP were being emitted, the data indicated
that the 8 pollutants were consistently being emitted by all sources
for which we had data. Furthermore, the EPA determined that controlling
the emissions of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility
would also control the facility's emissions of these other organic HAP.
For these reasons, the EPA is finalizing the use of an aggregated
emission limit for the 8 organic HAP identified in the data analysis as
a surrogate for total organic HAP, which by controlling the emissions
of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility emission
source (i.e., lime kiln) a facility will also control the facility's
emissions of any other organic HAP from the same source. Refer to the
memorandum ``Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor
Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry,'' which is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
For each of the 8 organic HAP, the EPA calculated the emission
limit value equivalent to 3 times the representative detection level
(3xRDL) of the test method. The total of these was then compared to UPL
calculations for the 8 pollutants. The new and existing UPLs were
calculated based on a ranking of the average emission rates for the 8
organic HAP. In all cases for both new and existing sources, the 3xRDL
value, which represents the lowest value that can be accurately
measured, was above the calculated UPL. We are accordingly finalizing
the MACT floor at this level. The new and existing source organic HAP
MACT floor limits are summarized in table 5.
Table 5--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Organic HAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing source
New source limit limit \1\ (ppmvd
Kiln type Lime roduced \1\ (ppmvd at 7 at 7 percent O2)
percent O2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................................ All.......................... 2.6 2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New and existing source organic HAP emission limit defined as the sum of 8 organic HAP identified as:
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl
benzene, and naphthalene.
D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards
1. What comments did we receive on the dioxin/furan emission standards,
and what are our responses?
The following key comments were received regarding the D/F emission
standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are
included. For all comments regarding D/F not discussed in this section,
and the EPA's responses, can be found in the document Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Comment: Commenters indicated that in the absence of adequate data
to set a numeric standard, the D.C. Circuit has upheld the EPA's
promulgation of a non-numeric work practice standard. Chesapeake
Climate Action Network v. EPA, 952 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Commenters stated that the EPA repeatedly and consistently informed
them that the Agency was planning to issue a work practice for D/F
because the D/F data showed that more than 55 percent of test results
were non-detect. Commenters stated that they had multiple conversations
with the EPA on the form a work practice could take, and that they
submitted a suggested work practice (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015-0090). Commenters reiterated that due to extremely low D/F
emissions, an appropriate work practice would require sources to
properly operate the air pollution control devices already in place to
control particulate matter.
Response: As described in the memorandum ``Final Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing
Plants Industry,'' which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), half of the available test data
was greater than the minimum detection limit, as determined according
to the June 5, 2014, memorandum titled ``Determination of `non-detect'
from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test
data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors versus establishing
work practice standards'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0117)
(Johnson 2014). Further, the EPA had in its possession data showing
that at least one kiln emitted D/F at a level above 3xRDL. These facts
demonstrates that the requirements to promulgate work practice standard
(i.e., that it is infeasible to measure emissions) has not been met. In
accordance with CAA section 112(h), a work practice must be consistent
with the requirements of setting emission standards detailed in section
112(d) of the CAA, (i.e., it represents the average emissions
performance for 12 percent of the best performing sources for existing
sources, or the best performing source for new sources). No data was
provided by the commenter's referenced material of a work practice
which showed it represented the performance of the best performing
sources; therefore, the EPA cannot determine if a work practice would
be consistent with the requirements of section 112(d). As a general
matter, lime production and kiln operations are not typical combustion
sources where the majority of emissions are generated by the raw
materials being heated in the kiln and for these reasons, the EPA did
not set an alternative work practice standard in the final rule.
2. What did we propose and what are the final dioxin/furan emission
standards in this final rule?
The 2020 RTR emissions data indicated the presence of D/F using EPA
Method 23. The EPA followed the guidance of the Johnson 2014 memorandum
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0117), in using detection limits as
an indicator of the measurable presence of a given pollutant,
specifically where multi-component samples, such as with D/F congeners,
are the pollutants of concern. Additionally, the EPA used the
procedures laid out in the December 13, 2011, memorandum titled ``Data
and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing
various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions
limits'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0119). Similar to
[[Page 57745]]
organic HAP, and in accordance with these guidance documents, the new
and existing UPL for D/F were compared to the emission limit value
determined to be equivalent to 3xRDL of the test method, and the 3xRDL
value was found to be greater than the UPL. Therefore, the MACT floor
limit for D/F was set based on the 3xRDL value of the test method. The
D/F MACT floor limits for new and existing sources are summarized in
table 6.
Table 6--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Dioxin/Furans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source Existing
Kiln type Lime produced limit Unit of measure source limit Unit of measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.......................... All............ 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ) 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ)
@7 percent O2. @7 percent O2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
1. What comments did we receive on the January 5, 2023, proposed rule
and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, and what are our
responses?
The following key comments were received regarding other changes
proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024,
supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are included.
For all comments not discussed in this section, and the EPA's
responses, see the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in
the docket for this action.
Comment: Commenters state that the EPA should allow for emissions
averaging for organic HAP and for D/F. The commenters also suggest
emissions averaging between subcategories, and between new and existing
sources. Lastly, commenters stated that the requirement to submit an
emission averaging plan for approval is unnecessary and unduly
burdensome.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the suggested
revisions to the proposed emissions averaging compliance option would
be appropriate. The EPA has generally imposed limits on the scope and
nature of emissions averaging programs to assure that such programs
achieve at least equivalent reductions in emissions as the primary
standards. These limits include: (1) no averaging between different
pollutants; (2) no averaging between sources that are not part of the
same affected facility; (3) no averaging between individual sources
within a single major source if the individual sources are not subject
to the same NESHAP; and (4) no averaging between existing sources and
new sources. The emissions averaging allowed under the emissions
averaging compliance option in this final action fully satisfies each
of these criteria. The EPA has included emissions averaging provisions
for single kilns producing multiple types of lime as product.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the emissions averaging
should include organic HAP and D/F. The organic HAP and D/F emission
limits include multiple pollutants and congeners, and facilities will
emit various combinations of these groups of pollutants. We find that
emissions averaging is not appropriate for these groupings of
pollutants in this source category. Consistent with emissions averaging
programs in other source categories, the EPA is finalizing the
emissions averaging compliance option as proposed, with restrictions
against averaging between new and existing sources, or between
subcategories. Although the requirement to submit an emissions
averaging plan for approval is being finalized as proposed, the EPA has
adjusted the deadline for submitting the emissions averaging plan from
180 days to 60 days before the compliance demonstration making the
emissions averaging plan less burdensome.
2. What changes are included in this final rule?
We are finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative
that allows lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance
with the HCl and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each
pollutant across existing kilns located at the same facility. Under
these emissions averaging compliance alternative, a facility with more
than one existing kiln may average emissions across the kilns located
at the facility provided that the overall average emissions from the
kilns demonstrating compliance under this provision do not exceed the
limits included in table 7.
Table 7--Emissions Averaging Compliance Alternative for HCl and Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
averaging
Pollutant Kiln type \1\ Lime produced \2\ alternative Unit of measure
limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Chloride................ SR................. DL, DB............. 2.1 lb/ton lime
produced.
SR................. QL................. 0.47 lb/ton lime
produced.
PR................. DL, DB............. 0.36 lb/ton lime
produced.
PR................. QL................. 0.087 lb/ton lime
produced.
VK................. DL, DB............. 0.36 lb/ton lime
produced.
VK................. QL................. 0.019 lb/ton lime
produced.
Mercury.......................... All................ All................ 31 lb/MMton lime
produced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).
The emission limits included in table 7 reflect a 10 percent
adjustment factor to the MACT floor standard. We expect that these
emission limits would result in reductions of HCL and mercury greater
than those achieved by application of the MACT floor on a unit-by-unit
basis.
The emissions averaging program has restrictions. First, emissions
averaging is not allowed between different pollutants. Second,
emissions averaging
[[Page 57746]]
is only permissible among individual existing affected units at a
single lime manufacturing plant. Third, emissions averaging is only
permitted among kilns in the same subcategory. Lastly, new affected
sources cannot use emissions averaging for compliance purposes.
We are finalizing a requirement for each facility intending to use
this emissions averaging program to develop an emissions averaging plan
that identifies: (1) all units in the averaging group; (2) the control
technology installed; (3) the process parameter(s) that will be
monitored; (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention
measure to be used; (5) the test plan for measuring the HAP being
averaged; and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for each
control device.
F. Severability of Standards
This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d)(2)-(3). We intend each separate portion of this rule to
operate independently of and to be severable from the rest of the rule.
Each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific determinations
that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of the rule. The
EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA 112(d)(2)-(3)
MACT standards, including monitoring, record keeping, and reporting
requirements, is independent. Thus, each aspect of the EPA's overall
approach to this source category could be implemented even in the
absence of any one or more of the other elements included in this final
rule. Accordingly, the EPA finds that each set of standards in this
final rule is severable from and can operate independently of each
other set of standards.
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 16, 2024. The compliance date for existing
sources is July 16, 2027. New sources must comply with all of the
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 16,
2024, or upon startup, whichever is later.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
The following analyses of costs and benefits, and environmental,
economic, and environmental justice impacts are presented for the
purpose of providing the public with an understanding of the potential
consequences of this final action. The EPA's obligation to conduct an
analysis of the potential costs and benefits under Executive Order
12866 is distinct from its obligation in setting standards under CAA
section 112 to take costs into account.
A. What are the affected facilities?
Currently, 34 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing
NESHAP are operating in the United States. An affected source under the
NESHAP is a lime manufacturing plant that is a major source, or that is
located at, or is a part of, a major source of HAP emissions, unless
the lime manufacturing plant 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. A lime manufacturing plant is an establishment engaged in
the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with
magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone,
dolomite, shells, or other calcareous substances. A major source of HAP
is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP
at a rate of 10 tons or more, or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP applies to each existing or new lime
kiln and their associated cooler(s). In addition, the NESHAP applies to
each PSH operation located at the plant. This includes storage bins,
conveying systems and transfer points, bulk loading and unloading
operations, screening operations, surge bins, and bucket elevators.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This action finalizes standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and
D/F that will limit emissions and require, in some cases, the
installation of additional controls at lime manufacturing plants at
major sources. Compliance with the emission standards set in this final
rule will result in a combined reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of
HAP per year. Specifically, the emission standards of this action will
reduce HCl emissions by 884 tons per year (tpy). The emission standards
of this action will reduce mercury emissions by 457 lbs per year (0.23
tpy). The emission standards of this action will reduce organic HAP
emissions by 8 tpy. Finally, the emission standards of this action will
reduce D/F emissions by 9.5 x 10-5 lbs per year (4.7 x 10-8 tpy).
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). These secondary impacts
typically include the energy needed to power the control devices, solid
waste and wastewater generated from operation of the control devices,
and air emissions that result from the generation of electricity used
to operate the control devices. Secondary emissions typically include
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate
matter (PM), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
(PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O). However, the extent of the increase in these
pollutants is highly dependent on the type of fuel used in the EGUs.
The EPA does not have any information that suggests that facilities in
the lime manufacturing source category generate their own electricity
and did not receive any new information about the source of electricity
for these facilities from the request for comments in the supplemental
proposal. Refer to the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' in the docket for a detailed
discussion of the analyses performed on potential secondary impacts and
estimates of the total energy, solid waste, and wastewater impacts
associated with the estimated controls required for compliance with the
final standards (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
C. What are the cost impacts?
This action finalizes emission limits for new and existing sources
in the Lime Manufacturing source category. Although the action contains
requirements for new sources and we requested comment on new
construction or plans for expanding facilities/operations; we are not
aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3
years, and, consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new
sources. We lack the data and modeling necessary to predict changes in
the demand for lime manufacturing facilities due to other rulemakings
or funded construction projects from the Inflation Reduction Act or
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We estimate the total capital
investment for existing sources in the Lime Manufacturing source
category to be $485,000,000 and the total annualized cost of the final
rule to be $166,000,000 per year. The annual costs
[[Page 57747]]
are expected to be based on operation and maintenance of the added
control systems. A memorandum titled ``Final Cost Impacts for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry'' includes details of our cost assessment
and is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
D. What are the economic impacts?
For this action, the EPA estimated the cost of installing
additional air pollution control devices in order to comply with the
February 9, 2024, proposed emission limits. This includes both the
capital costs of the initial installation and subsequent operation and
maintenance costs. The EPA lacks the information necessary to
independently assess the downtime loss of production due to capital
improvements or deferred maintenance that would be associated with
these controls for each affected facility. The assumed equipment life
of the recommended controls for this NESHAP is twenty years. This
default equipment life is based on information in the EPA Air Pollution
Control Cost Manual. To assess the potential economic impacts, the
expected annual cost was compared to the total sales revenue for the
ultimate owners of affected facilities. For this rule, the expected
annual cost is $4,900,0000 (on average) for each facility, with an
estimated nationwide annual cost of $166,000,000 per year in
perpetuity. The 34 affected facilities are owned by 11 parent
companies, and the total costs associated with the final amendments to
the rule are expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales
revenue per ultimate owner.
Because the total costs associated with the proposed amendments are
expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales revenue per owner
in the Lime Manufacturing source category, there are economic impacts
from these proposed amendments on the 3 affected facilities that are
owned by 2 small entities. Refer to section IV.C. of this preamble for
a detailed description of the small business outreach and regulatory
flexibility analysis performed in conjunction with this rule.
The EPA predicts that the affected sources in the Lime
Manufacturing source category will be able to pass on some of their
compliance costs to their customers. International trade of lime
products is limited and there are no readily available cost-competitive
substitutes for lime.
The economic analysis indicates that, under the final amendments on
an annual basis, domestic lime production is estimated to decline by
212,000 metric tons (1.4 percent), imports are estimated to increase by
37,000 metric tons (11.5 percent), and exports are estimated to decline
by 22,000 metric tons (6.6 percent), resulting in an estimated net
decline in the quantity of lime distributed to the domestic market by
about 164,000 metric tons (1.0 percent). While the compliance costs are
expected to have effects on the lime market, the impact estimates
suggest that affected sources are not likely to face severe competition
from foreign lime producers or from substitutes for their product. The
magnitude of the impact estimates do not suggest that the compliance
costs are likely to induce any changes to the market structure for lime
through changes such as diversification or consolidation.
Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the Lime
Manufacturing source category is available in the document titled
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing
Plants,'' which is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of HAP associated with this final action. The EPA currently
does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with
HAP reductions, and risk reductions for this rulemaking. However, we
estimate that the final rule amendments would reduce emissions by 893
tons per year and thus lower risk of serious adverse health effects
(such as cancer and neurodevelopmental toxicity) in communities near
lime manufacturing plants. These unquantified benefits would be
particularly impactful to pregnant women, infants and children in these
communities, since these life stages are especially susceptible to
exposures to chemicals such as carcinogens and neurodevelopmental
toxicants. It is reasonable to expect that the emissions reductions
from this rule would reduce the incidence of adverse effects among the
exposed populations. Monetization of the benefits of reductions in
cancer incidences requires several important inputs, including central
estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP,
and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-
fatal). We expect these emissions reductions to have beneficial effects
on air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions
from lime manufacturing facilities. Due to methodology and data
limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of
reductions in HAP in this analysis. We have determined that
quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this final
rule. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of the health
effects associated with reductions in HAP emitted from sources subject
to control under the final action.
Information on our qualitative discussion of the health effects
associated with HAP emitted from sources in the Lime Manufacturing
source category is available in the document titled ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' which is
included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015).
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The technical guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it
could: (1) Create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address 3
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns
[[Page 57748]]
created or mitigated compared to the baseline?'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis,'' U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section
3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this
action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory
factors the EPA is required to consider under those sections.
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with lime manufacturing facilities, we performed a proximity
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic
groups of the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) and 50 km
(~31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. In
this preamble, we focus on the proximity results for the populations
living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) of the facilities. The results of this
proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in
the technical document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
The results (see table 8) show that for populations within 5 km of
the 34 lime manufacturing facilities, the following demographic groups
were above the national average: Hispanic/Latino (37 percent versus 19
percent nationally), linguistically isolated households (21 percent
versus 5 percent nationally), people living below the poverty level (27
percent versus 13 percent nationally), and people without a high school
diploma (17 percent versus 12 percent nationally). A summary of the
proximity demographic assessment performed for the major source lime
manufacturing facilities is included as table 8. The methodology and
the results of the demographic analysis are presented in the report
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime
Manufacturing Facilities, available in this docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
Table 8--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime
Manufacturing Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population within
Demographic group Nationwide 5 km of facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................ 328,016,242....... 473,343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................... 60 percent........ 50 percent.
Black........................... 12 percent........ 9 percent.
American Indian and Alaska 0.7 percent....... 0.9 percent.
Native.
Hispanic or Latino (includes 19 percent........ 37 percent.
white and nonwhite).
Other and Multiracial........... 8 percent......... 3 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............. 13 percent........ 27 percent.
Above Poverty Level............. 87 percent........ 73 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High 12 percent........ 17 percent.
School Diploma.
Over 25 and with a High School 88 percent........ 83 percent.
Diploma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......... 5 percent......... 21 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on
the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year block group
averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km
of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block
populations.
Minority population is the total population minus the white
population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category
is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A
person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above:
White, Black, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/
Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as
Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person
may have also identified as in the Census.
The human health risk estimated for this source category for the
July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and
the standards were determined to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk
was 1-in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in-1 million for allowable
emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were
well below 1 (0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions).
The noncancer hazard quotient for acute exposure was 0.6, also below 1.
The final revisions to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will reduce emissions
by 893 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve human
health exposures for the populations and individuals most exposed to
this pollution, including communities with environmental justice
concerns. The proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air
quality and public health for populations exposed to
[[Page 57749]]
emissions from lime manufacturing facilities.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
In the July 24, 2020, final Lime Manufacturing NESHAP RTR (85 FR
44960), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined
that risk from the Lime Manufacturing source category was acceptable,
and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. This action finalizes first-time emissions standards for HCl,
mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Specifically, compliance with the
emission standards set in this final rule will result in a combined
reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of HAP per year.
This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the
most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we
determine exposure and through the health benchmarks that we use.
Specifically, the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of
exposure, in which populations are conservatively presumed to be
exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24
hours per day for a 70-year lifetime, including childhood. With regards
to children's potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer
toxicants, the assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard
identification and dose-response values that have been developed to be
protective for all subgroups of the general population, including
children. For example, mercury exposure is of particular importance to
children, infants, and the developing fetus given the developmental
neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children may be more vulnerable
to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults because of the relatively
smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable
to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and
failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. For more information
on the risk assessment methods, see the risk report for the 2020 RTR
rule, which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This final action is significant under E.O. 12866 Section 3(f)(1)
as amended by E.O. 14094. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Documentation of any changes made in
response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the
docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts
associated with this action. This analysis is included in the document
titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants'' and is also available in the docket (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.11. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP
associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards
for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill,
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA).
Estimated number of respondents: 34.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item.
Total estimated burden: 8,392 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $1,190,000 (per year), includes $335,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the February 9,
2024, supplemental proposal and convened a Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small
entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule's
requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are
presented in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal (89 FR 9088).
As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for review in the
memorandum ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants,'' which is included in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015) and is summarized here.
1. Statement of Need and Rule Objectives
This industry is regulated by the EPA because pollutants emitted
from lime manufacturing facilities are considered to cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health. This action establishes
standards for currently unregulated pollutants: hydrogen chloride,
mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans. The decision in Louisiana
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
concluded that the EPA is required to address regulatory gaps (i.e.,
``gap-filling'') when conducting NESHAP reviews.
[[Page 57750]]
2. Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and EPA Response
While the EPA did not receive any comments specifically in response
to the IRFA, we did receive comments from the Office of Advocacy within
the Small Business Administration (SBA), and a summary of the major
comments and our responses is provided in the next section. The issues
raised by SBA were also reflected in comments from small businesses and
organizations with small business interests.
3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments and EPA Response
The SBA's Office of Advocacy (hereafter referred to as
``Advocacy'') provided substantive comments on the January 5, 2023,
Proposal and the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. Advocacy
stated that while the amendments contain many positive recommendations
from the 2023 SBAR panel conducted on EPA's proposed changes to the
NESHAP for lime manufacturing plants, they recommend additional
refinements.
In response to Advocacy's comments, the EPA recognizes the impacts
the emission standards will have on the industry and specifically to
small businesses. The EPA has incorporated regulatory flexibilities
into the final rule where warranted to address the impacts on small
businesses in the source category. These flexibilities include
subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor for mercury,
and an aggregated organic HAP emission limit. The EPA has worked with
the lime manufacturing industry, and with the small businesses within
the source category, to ensure the emission standards being finalized
are accurate and representative of lime manufacturing operations. We
disagree with Advocacy about setting health-based standards for HCl for
reasons discussed in section III.A of this preamble. Additionally, we
disagree with Advocacy that the EPA does not have enough information to
set D/F emission standards, as discussed in section III.D of this
preamble.
More detailed responses to Advocacy's comments can be found in the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants
Amendments, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule
Applies
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as a small business in the lime
manufacturing industry whose parent company has revenues or numbers of
employees below the SBA Size Standards for the relevant NAICS code. A
complete list of those NAICS codes and SBA Size Standards is available
in section 6 of the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' available in the docket
for this rulemaking. The EPA estimates there are 34 affected facilities
owned by 11 different parent companies. Two of the ultimate parent
companies owning affected facilities are small entities. These small
entities operate three facilities with a total of five kilns. They
represent less than 5 percent of the total production capacity of the
source category.
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
of the Final Rule
Under the rule requirements, small entities will be required to
comply with the four emission standards in the final rule, which may
require the use of one or more control devices new to the small entity.
Small entities will also need to demonstrate compliance with the
emission standards through the use of periodic performance testing and
parametric monitoring. See section 6 of the document titled
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing
Plants,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking, for more
information on the characterization of the impacts under the rule.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic Impact to Small Entities
a. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. On July 21,
2023, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened the Panel.
In light of the SERs' feedback and comments, the Panel considered the
regulatory flexibility issues and elements of an IRFA specified by RFA/
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act and developed
the findings and discussion summarized in the SBAR Panel Report. The
report was finalized on November 6, 2023, and transmitted to the EPA
Administrator for consideration. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report
is available in the rulemaking docket.
b. Alternatives Considered
The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the
consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an IQV for mercury, an
aggregated organic HAP emission standard, retaining subcategorization
for HCl numeric emissions limits, and work practice standards for D/F
in a place of a numeric limit. The EPA included some of these
flexibilities as a part of this final rule.
As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, the EPA is not
considering a health-based standard for HCl. The final rule does
include an IQV factor for mercury and an aggregate organic HAP emission
limit, as discussed in sections III.B and III.C of this preamble.
However, as discussed in section III.D of this preamble, the EPA did
not receive data supporting a work practice standard for D/F, and,
therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a work practice standard for D/F
in this action.
In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide
to help small entities comply with this rule. The Small Entity
Compliance Guide will be available on the same date as the date of
publication of the final rule or as soon as possible after that date
and will be available on the rule web page at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action contains a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $183 million in 2023$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted
for inflation using the gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price
deflator) or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for the
private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a
written statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is
included in the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' included in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
[[Page 57751]]
OAR-2017-0015), and briefly summarized here.
The EPA has concluded that this final rule may require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such
expenditures may include capital costs of purchasing and installing
control technologies to meet the amended standards under the final
rule. See section 6 of the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' available in the
docket for this rulemaking, for more information on the
characterization of the economic impacts, including capital cost
inputs, under the rule.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing
facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. For example, mercury exposure is
of particular importance to children, infants, and the developing fetus
given the developmental neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children
may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults
because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children
may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute
ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when
exposed. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of the air emissions from lime manufacturing on
children.
The results of this evaluation are contained in the docket of this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed
because this action finalizes emission standards for 4 previously
unregulated pollutants; therefore, the rule includes health benefits to
children by reducing the level of HAP emissions emitted from the lime
manufacturing process.
Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also applies to this
action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available under
``What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?'' in
this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is
setting emission standards for 4 previously unregulated pollutants.
This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. During the EPA's VCS search, if
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for any
particular VCS.
Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test
methods for this final rule. The VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),''
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury
only) as a method for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320 with certain conditions. Detailed information on the
VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum,
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Technology Review'',
which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0015).
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12
(Reapproved 2020), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320
(referenced in NESHAP subparts F and U) with caveats requiring
inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. This ASTM
procedure uses an extractive sampling system that routes stationary
source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and
quantification of gaseous compounds. We note that we proposed VCS ASTM
D6348-12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320; however, since
proposal, a newer version of the method (VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved
2020)) is now available, and we have determined it to be equivalent to
EPA Method 320 with caveats. The VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020)
method is an extractive FTIR Spectroscopy-based field test method and
is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target
compounds in emission streams from stationary sources. When using ASTM
D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions must be met: (1)
Annexes Al through A8 to ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) are mandatory;
and (2) in ASTM D6348-12
[[Page 57752]]
(Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%)
R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). For the
test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%.
If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16),
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring elemental,
oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury concentrations ranging from
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test
method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory
analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784-16
allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical
procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784-
02 (Reapproved 2008). ASTM D6784-16 allows for the use of either an EPA
Method 17 sampling configuration with a fixed (single) point where the
flue gas is not stratified, or an EPA Method 5 sampling configuration
with a multi-point traverse. These methods are available at ASTM
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See
https://www.astm.org/. The standards are available to everyone at a
cost determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a
significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available.
Additionally, the EPA is incorporating by reference ``Recommended
Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments
of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds''
(EPA/100/R-10/005 December 2010), which is the source of the toxicity
equivalence factors (TEF) for dioxins and furans used in calculating
the toxic equivalence quotient of the proposed dioxin and furan
standard. This document describes the EPA's updated approach for
evaluating the human health risks from exposures to environmental media
containing dioxin-like compounds. The EPA recommends that the TEF
methodology, a component mixture method, be used to evaluate human
health risks posed by these mixtures, using TCDD as the index chemical.
The EPA recommends the use of the consensus TEF values for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and dioxin-like compounds published in 2005
by the World Health Organization. This is the international method of
expressing toxicity equivalents for dioxins/furans where a recommended
TEF is multiplied by each individual compound's (congener) emission
concentration to calculate the 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
toxicity equivalents (TEQ). To estimate risk associated with the
mixture, the dose-response function for the index chemical is evaluated
at this sum, which is an estimate of the total index chemical
equivalent dose for the mixture components being considered. The
document is available on the EPA website, https://www.epa.gov/risk/documents-recommended-toxicity-equivalency-factors-human-health-risk-assessments-dioxin-and.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the
potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ)
concerns. The assessment of populations in close proximity of lime
manufacturing facilities shows Hispanic and linguistically isolated
groups are higher than the national average (see section IV.F. of the
preamble). The higher percentages are driven by 4 of the 34 facilities
in the source category.
The EPA anticipates this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns.
The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and
D/F. The EPA expects that the 4 facilities would have to implement
control measures to reduce emissions to comply with the MACT standards
and that HAP exposures for the people living near these facilities
(including those communities with EJ concerns) would decrease.
The information supporting this Executive order review is contained
in section IV.F of the preamble.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA., and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 63.14 by revising paragraphs (i)(89) and (105) and
(o)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(89) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1,
2012, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.109(a); 63.365(b); 63.509(a);
63.7322(d), (e), and (g); 63.7825(g) and (h); table 5 to subpart AAAAA.
* * * * *
(105) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1450(d); 63.7322(c); table 5 to subpart
UUUUU; appendix A
[[Page 57753]]
to subpart UUUUU; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; 63.9621.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) EPA/100/R-10/005, Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors
(TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds, December 2010;
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1450(f); 63.1459; table 2 to subpart
QQQ; table 1 to subpart AAAAA. (Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/tefs-for-dioxin-epa-00-r-10-005-final.pdf.)
* * * * *
Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.7082 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (j) as paragraphs (d) through
(k);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.7082 What part of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(b) For purposes of complying with the PM emissions limitations of
this subpart, 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) For the purposes of complying with the HCl, mercury, organic
HAP, and D/F emissions limitations of this subpart, a new lime kiln is
a lime kiln (only) for which construction or reconstruction began after
January 5, 2023, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7081
at the time you began construction or reconstruction.
* * * * *
(f) An existing lime kiln is any lime kiln, and (when complying
with PM emissions limitations) its associated lime cooler, that does
not meet the definition of a new kiln of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.7083 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through
(g); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) and paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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 PM emission limitations no later than January
5, 2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests
no later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004,
then you must comply with the PM 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, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(b) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with
the applicable PM emission limitations for the existing affected
source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no
later than January 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(c) If you start up your affected source after July 16, 2024, then
you must comply with all 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,
except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(d) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with
all applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source,
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later
than July 16, 2027, except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of
this section.
* * * * *
(h)(1) If your affected source commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 5, 2023, then the compliance date
for HCl, mercury, total organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations is
July 16, 2027.
(2) If your affected source commenced construction or
reconstruction after July 16, 2024, then the compliance date for HCl,
mercury, total organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations is July 16,
2024, or the date of initial startup, whichever is later.
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.7090 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
* * * * *
(d) For those LMP using emissions averaging for either HCl emission
limits or mercury emission limits in accordance with the procedures in
Sec. 63.7114(b) and (c), must not exceed the applicable emission
limits in table 9 to this subpart.
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.7100 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as
specified in Sec. 63.7083(e), 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.
On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified
in Sec. 63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the applicable
emission limitations (including operating limits) at all times. You may
operate outside of the established operating parameter limit(s) during
performance tests in order to establish new operating limits.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 63.7110 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(f) If your affected source commenced construction or
reconstruction before July 16, 2024, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limitation in in this subpart no later
than July 16, 2027, 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.
0
8. Amend Sec. 63.7112 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (j)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (n) and (o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as
specified in Sec. 63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the
specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart. Beginning
July 16, 2024, each performance test must include the methods specified
in rows
[[Page 57754]]
19-24 of table 5 to this subpart. On and after the relevant compliance
date for your source as specified in Sec. 63.7083(e), each performance
test must be conducted based on representative performance (i.e.,
performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected
source and under the specific conditions in table 5 to this subpart.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The
owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests. Performance tests
conducted in accordance with table 5 are not required to be performed
at the same time.
* * * * *
(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 or as specified in table 5 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Continuously record the parameter during the performance test
and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test report.
* * * * *
(n) The emission rate of mercury and hydrogen chloride (HCl) from
each lime kiln (and each lime cooler as applicable) must be computed
for each run using equation 4 to this paragraph (n):
Equation 4 to Paragraph (n)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.000
Where:
E = Emission rate of mercury, pounds per thousand tons (lb/MMton) of
lime produced or HCl pounds per ton (lb/ton) of lime produced.
Ck = Concentration in the kiln effluent of mercury,
micrograms/dry standard cubic feet ([micro]g/dscf) or HCl, parts per
million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dry
standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration in the cooler effluent of mercury,
[micro]g/dscf or HCl, ppmvd. 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 = Lime production rate, tons per hour (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, for mercury, 4.4x10\8\ micrograms per pound
([micro]g/lb) for HCL 1.09x10\7\ ppmvd HCl per lb/dscf HCl.
(o) The concentration of total hydrocarbons and dioxins/furans
shall be correct to 7 percent oxygen using equation 5 to this paragraph
(o):
Equation 5 to Paragraph (o)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.001
Where:
C7 = concentration of total hydrocarbons ppmv as
propane on a dry basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
Cunc = uncorrected total hydrocarbon concentration, ppmv
as propane on a dry basis basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm.
CO2 = concentration of oxygen (percent).
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.7113 by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(h) For each mass flow rate monitor used for measuring the dry
sorbent injection rate (e.g., sorbent, activated carbon, etc.) you must
meet the requirements of (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(i) For each temperature monitoring device installed to monitor the
temperature of a thermal oxidizer, you must meet the requirements of
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Install the temperature monitoring device in the fire box or in
the ductwork immediately downstream of the fire box in a position
before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) The temperature measurement system must be capable of measuring
the temperature over a range that extends at least 20 percent beyond
the normal expected operating range and has an accuracy of 1 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit) whichever is greater. The data recording system
associated with affected CPMS must have a resolution that is equal to
or better than one-half of the required system accuracy.
(3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibrated
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, NIST traceable certified
reference thermocouple, or alternate reference, subject to approval by
the Administrator.
(4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature
sensors must be verified at least once every three months.
0
10. Amend Sec. 63.7114 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (d) and (e); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (b) and (c).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
* * * * *
(b) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit
or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, the average
HCl or mercury emissions determined according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.7112(n), must not
[[Page 57755]]
exceed the applicable emission limit in table 9 to this subpart.
(c) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit
or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) You must complete the stack testing required in paragraph Sec.
63.7112(n) for all lime kilns you wish to include in the emission
average before submitting the implementation plan required in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
(2) You must develop and submit to the applicable regulatory
authority for review and approval, an implementation plan for emission
averaging no later than 180 days before the date you intend to
demonstrate compliance using the emission averaging option. You must
include the information contained in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii)
of this section in your implementation plan.
(i) Identification of all lime kilns in the averaging group,
including the lime kiln subcategory, type of lime produced, typical
stone production rate, control technology installed, and types of
fuel(s) that will be burned.
(ii) The HCl or mercury emission rate for each lime kiln for each
of the fuels identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii) The date on which you are requesting emission averaging to
commence.
(3) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove
the plan according to the following criteria:
(i) Whether the content of the plan includes all the information
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
(ii) Whether the plan presents sufficient information to determine
that compliance will be achieved and maintained.
(4) The applicable regulatory authority shall not approve an
emission averaging implementation plan containing any of the following
provisions:
(i) Averaging between emissions of differing pollutants;
(ii) Averaging that includes lime kilns constructed or
reconstructed on or after July 16, 2024; or
(iii) Averaging between lime kilns located at different facilities.
(iv) Averaging between lime kilns in different subcategories.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 63.7121 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
* * * * *
(g) If you elect to comply with either the HCl emission limit or
the mercury emission limit in table 9 to this subpart using emissions
averaging in accordance with an implementation plan approved under the
provisions in Sec. 63.7114(c) you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) For lime kilns included in the emissions averaging group that
are equipped with dry sorbent injection (DSI) or activated carbon
injection (ACI) systems, you must comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.7113(h).
(2) For kilns included in the emissions averaging group that use a
control device or method other than DSI or ACI, you must comply with
your site-specific monitoring plan of this section, in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.7100(d).
(3) Calculate the monthly production-weighted average emission rate
using the HCl or mercury emission rate determined during the last
performance test and the actual production data for each kiln included
in the emissions averaging option, as shown in equation 1 to this
paragraph (g)(3).
Equation 1 to Paragraph (g)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.002
Where:
Eg = Monthly production-weighted average emission rate
for month ``g'' for the group of kilns;
Ek = Average emission rate for kilns ``k'', as determined
during the last compliance stack test;
Pk = Total monthly production of lime produced for kilns
``k''; and
n = Number of kilns in the averaging group.
(4) Until 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been
accumulated, the monthly weighted average emissions rate, calculated as
shown in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, must not exceed the emission
limit in table 9 to this subpart in any calendar month.
(5) After 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been
accumulated, for each subsequent calendar month, you must use equation
2 to this paragraph (g)(5) to calculate the 12-month rolling average of
the monthly weighted average emission rates for the current month and
the previous 11 months. The 12-month rolling weighted average emissions
rate for the kilns included in the group must not exceed the emission
limits in table 9 to this subpart.
Equation 2 to Paragraph (g)(5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.003
Where:
Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission rate.
Ei = Monthly weighted average for month ``i'' calculated
as shown in equation 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(6) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl
subcategory (e.g., high calcium quick lime and dolomitic quick lime)
you must establish a kiln-specific emission limit using equation 3 to
this paragraph (g)(6).
Equation 3 to Paragraph (g)(6)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.004
[[Page 57756]]
Where:
ELK = kiln-specific allowable emission limit, lb/yr.
PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick
lime, ton lime produced/yr.
ELQL =Emission limit for high calcium quick lime taken
from table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced.
PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime,
ton lime produced/yr.
ELDL = Emission limit for dolomitic quick lime taken from
table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced.
(7) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl
subcategory, after the close of each calendar month compliance with the
kiln-specific emission limit developed in this paragraph (g) would be
calculated using equation 4 to this paragraph (g)(7).
Equation 4 to Paragraph (g)(7)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.005
Where:
EK = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'', as determined
during the last compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production.
PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick
lime, ton lime produced/yr.
EQL = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'' while
producing high calcium quick lime, as determined during the last
compliance stack test.
PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime,
ton lime produced/yr.
EDL = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'' while
producing dolomitic quick lime, as determined during the last
compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production.
(8) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl
subcategory, compliance using the emissions averaging provisions is
demonstrated when EK, as determined using equation 4 to
paragraph (g)(7) of this section, is less than ELK, as
determined using equation 3 to paragraph (g)(6) of this section.
0
12. Amend Sec. 63.7131 by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (e)(12), (g),
and (h)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over a non-opacity or VE emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(e) * * *
(12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over a non-opacity or VE emission limit, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph (g), you must submit reports to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information
in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in this
paragraph (g). Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. You must submit
the same file submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the
EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (g).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and
as described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to
the attention of the Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. If assistance is
needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size
limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file
sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. The mailed
CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI
markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(h) * * *
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). (i) The EPA will make
all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information
you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information
submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA.
(ii) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.
(iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions
must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email
address [email protected], and as
[[Page 57757]]
described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to
the attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If
assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed
the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your
own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a
file transfer link.
(v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 63.7142 [Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 63.7142 by:
0
a. Removing ``, or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3) and adding a period
in its place; and
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4).
0
14. Amend Sec. 63.7143 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Dry sorbent
injection (DSI)'' and ``Lime produced'';
0
b. Removing the definition for ``Lime product''; and
0
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definition for ``TEQ'' and ``Total
Organic HAP''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) means an add-on air pollution control
system in which sorbent (e.g., conventional activated carbon,
brominated activated carbon, Trona, hydrated lime, sodium carbonate,
etc.) is injected into the flue gas steam upstream of a PM control
device to react with and neutralize acid gases (such as SO2
and HCl) or mercury in the exhaust stream forming a dry powder material
that may be removed in a primary or secondary PM control device.
* * * * *
Lime produced refers to the production of lime from the lime kiln
consisting of high-calcium quick lime, dolomitic quick lime and/or dead
burned dolomitic lime.
* * * * *
TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in EPA/100/R-10/005,
December 2010 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14). The TEFs
used to determine the dioxin and furan TEQs are listed in table 11 to
this subpart.
Total Organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum
of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
toluene, benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene,
and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of
appendix A to this part or a combination of these methods, as
appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as
below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results
for one or more sample components are below the method defined
analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as
the measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the
total organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component
analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may
include a combination of method detection level data and analytical
data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator
of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make
this determination under Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f).
* * * * *
0
15. Revise tables 1 through 6, 8, and 9 to subpart AAAAA to read as
follows:
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, except for kilns and coolers
during startup and shutdown (see table 2 to this subpart for emission
limits for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For . . . limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All existing lime kilns PM emissions must not exceed 0.12 pounds
and their associated lime per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf).
coolers that did not have a
wet scrubber installed and
operating prior to January
5, 2004.
2. All existing lime kilns PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/tsf.
and their associated lime If, at any time after January 5, 2004,
coolers that have a wet the kiln changes to a dry control
scrubber, where the scrubber system, then the PM emission limit in
itself was installed and item 1 of this table 1 applies, and the
operating prior to January kiln is hereafter ineligible for the PM
5, 2004. emission limit in item 2 of this table 1
regardless of the method of PM control.
3. All new lime kilns and PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/tsf.
their associated lime
coolers.
4. All existing and new lime Weighted average PM emissions calculated
kilns and their associated according to equation 2 to Sec.
coolers at your LMP, and you 63.7112(f)(1) must not exceed 0.12 lb/
choose to average PM tsf (if you are averaging only existing
emissions, except that any kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are
kiln that is allowed to meet averaging only new kilns). If you are
the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission averaging existing and new kilns, your
limit is ineligible for weighted average PM emissions must not
averaging. exceed the weighted average emission
limit calculated according to equation 3
to Sec. 63.7112(g), except that no new
kiln and its associated cooler
considered alone may exceed an average
PM emissions limit of 0.10 lb/tsf.
5. New straight rotary lime HCl emissions must not exceed 1.7 lb/ton
kilns and their associated of lime produced.
coolers producing dolomitic
quick lime and/or dead
burned dolomitic lime.
6. Existing straight rotary HCl emissions must not exceed 2.3 lb/ton
lime kilns and their of lime produced.
associated coolers producing
dolomitic quick lime and/or
dead burned dolomitic lime.
[[Page 57758]]
7. New straight rotary lime HCl emissions must not exceed 0.015 lb/
kilns and their associated ton of lime produced.
coolers producing high-
calcium quick lime.
8. Existing straight rotary HCl emissions must not exceed 0.52 lb/ton
lime kilns and their of lime produced.
associated coolers producing
high-calcium quick lime.
9. All preheater rotary lime HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton
kilns and their associated of lime produced.
coolers producing dolomitic
quick lime and/or dead
burned dolomitic lime.
10. All preheater rotary lime HCl emissions must not exceed 0.096 lb/
kilns and their associated ton of lime produced.
coolers producing high-
calcium quick lime.
11. All vertical lime kilns HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton
and their associated coolers of lime produced.
producing dolomitic quick
lime and/or dead burned
dolomitic lime.
12. All vertical lime kilns HCl emissions must not exceed 0.021 lb/
and their associated coolers ton of lime produced.
producing high-calcium quick
lime.
13. All new lime kilns and Mercury emissions must not exceed 27 lb/
their associated coolers. MMton of lime produced.
14. All existing lime kilns Mercury emissions must not exceed 34 lb/
and their associated coolers. MMton of lime produced.
15. All lime kilns and their Total Organic HAP emissions must not
associated coolers. exceed 2.6 ppmvd @7% O2.
16. All lime kilns and their D/F emissions must not exceed 0.037 ng/
associated coolers. dscm (TEQ) \1\ @7% O2.
17. Stack emissions from all PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams
PSH operations at a new or per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm).
existing affected source.
18. Stack emissions from all Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
PSH operations at a new or opacity.
existing affected source,
unless the stack emissions
are discharged through a wet
scrubber control device.
19. Fugitive emissions from Emissions must not exceed 10 percent
all PSH operations at a new opacity.
or existing affected source,
except as provided by item 8
of this table 1.
20. All PSH operations at a All of the individually affected PSH
new or existing affected operations must comply with the
source enclosed in a applicable PM and opacity emission
building. 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.
21. Each FF that controls Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
emissions from only an opacity.
individual, enclosed storage
bin.
22. Each set of multiple You must comply with the emission limits
storage bins at a new or in items 5 and 6 of this table 1.
existing affected source,
with combined stack
emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Determined using the toxic equivalency factors listed in Table 2 of
Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). When
calculating TEQ, zero may be used for congeners that are below the
estimated detection level (EDL).
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Startup and Shutdown Emission
Limits for Kilns and Coolers
[As required in Sec. 63.7090(b), on and after the relevant compliance
date for your source as specified in Sec. 63.7083(e), you must meet
each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
demonstrated
You must meet the compliance, if after
For . . . following emission following the
limit requirements in Sec.
63.7112 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new and existing lime Emissions must not i. Installed,
kilns and their associated exceed 15 percent maintained,
coolers equipped with an FF opacity (based on calibrated and
or an ESP during each startup period operated a COMS as
startup. block average). required by the
general provisions
of subpart A of
this part and
according to PS-1
of appendix B to 40
CFR part 60, except
as specified in
Sec.
63.7113(g)(2);
ii. Collected the
COMS data at a
frequency of at
least once every 15
seconds,
determining block
averages for each
startup period and
demonstrating for
each startup block
period the average
opacity does not
exceed 15 percent.
2. All existing lime kilns See item 2.b of See item 1 of table
and their associated table 3 to this 6 to this subpart
coolers that have a wet subpart for for requirements
scrubber during each emission limit. for demonstrating
startup. compliance.
[[Page 57759]]
3. All new and existing lime Emissions must not i. Installed,
kilns and their associated exceed 15 percent maintained,
coolers equipped with an FF opacity (based on 6- calibrated and
or an ESP during shutdown. minute average operated a COMS as
opacity for any 6- required by the
minute block period general provisions
does not exceed 15 of subpart A of
percent). this and according
to PS-1 of appendix
B to 40 CFR part
60, except as
specified in Sec.
63.7113(g)(2);
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.
4. All existing lime kilns See item 2.b of See item 1 of table
and their associated table 3 to this 6 to this subpart
coolers that have a wet subpart for for requirements
scrubber during shutdown. emission limit. for demonstrating
compliance.
5. All new and existing lime When a lime kiln is
kilns that use dry sorbent in startup or
injection or carbon shutdown (as
injection during startup defined in Sec.
and shutdown. 63.7143), the
operating limits
for sorbent and/or
carbon injection do
not apply in table
3 to this subpart,
and the lime kiln
operator shall
ensure that sorbent
or carbon injection
is in operation
until the unit is
no longer in
startup or
shutdown.
During startup and
shutdown, the
control device
shall be operated
in accordance with
manufacturer's
recommendations or
by a site-specific
operating procedure
for startup and
shutdown events.
6. All new and existing lime 6. When a lime kiln
kilns that use a thermal is in startup or
oxidizer during startup and shutdown (as
shutdown. defined in Sec.
63.7143), the
temperature limits
for a thermal
oxidizer in table 3
to this subpart do
not apply and the
lime kiln operator
shall ensure that
the thermal
oxidizer is in
operation until the
unit is no longer
in startup or
shutdown.
During startup and
shutdown, the
control device
shall be operated
in accordance with
manufacturer's
recommendations or
by a site-specific
operating procedure
for startup and
shutdown events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 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, except for kilns and coolers
during startup and shutdown (See table 2 to this subpart for operating
limits during startup and shutdown).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime Maintain and operate the FF such
cooler (if there is a separate that the BLDS or PM detector alarm
exhaust to the atmosphere from condition does not exist for more
the associated lime cooler) than 5 percent of the total
equipped with an FF. operating time in a 6-month period;
and comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.7113(d) through (f) and
table 6 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
6 to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a a. Maintain the 3-hour block exhaust
wet scrubber. gas stream pressure drop across the
wet scrubber greater than or equal
to the greater of the pressure drop
operating limit established during
the most recent performance test
for PM and HCl; and
b. Maintain the 3-hour block
scrubbing liquid flow rate greater
than or equal to the greater of the
flow rate operating limit
established during the most recent
performance test for PM and HCl.
3. Each lime kiln equipped with an Install a PM detector and maintain
electrostatic precipitator. 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 6 to this
subpart.
4. Each PSH operation subject to a Maintain the 3-hour block average
PM limit which uses a wet exhaust gas stream pressure drop
scrubber. across the wet scrubber greater
than or equal to the greater of the
pressure drop operating limit
established during the performance
test for PM and HCl; and maintain
the 3-hour block average scrubbing
liquid flow rate greater than or
equal to the greater of the flow
rate operating limit established
during the performance test for PM
and HCl.
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 6 to this
subpart.
[[Page 57760]]
6. Each emission unit equipped a. Vent captured emissions through a
with an add-on air pollution closed system, except that dilution
control device. 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.
7. Each lime kiln equipped with Maintain the 3-hour block dry
dry sorbent injection. sorbent flow rate greater than or
equal to the flow rate operating
limit established during the most
recent performance test for HCl.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a Maintain the 3-hour block average
thermal oxidizer. combustion chamber temperature
greater or equal to the greater of
the combustion chamber operating
limit established in the most
recent performance test for total
organic HAP and D/F.
9. Each lime kiln equipped with Maintain the 3-hour block activated
activated carbon injection. carbon injection flow rate greater
than or equal to the greater of the
flow rate operating limit
established during the most recent
performance test for total organic
HAP, D/F, and mercury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 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 after
For . . . emission limit . . . following the
requirements in Sec.
63.7112 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new or existing lime Emission limits as The kiln outlet PM,
kilns and their associated identified in table HCl, mercury, and
lime coolers (kilns/ 1 to this subpart, Total Organic HAP,
coolers). or a weighted and dioxins and
average calculated furans emissions
according to (and if applicable,
equation 3 to Sec. summed with the
63.7112. separate cooler PM
emissions), based
on the PM emissions
measured using
Method 5 or 5D in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60, HCl
measured using
Method 320 or 321
in appendix A to
this part, mercury
measured using
Method 29 or 30B 5D
in appendix A to 40
CFR part 60, and
the stone feed rate
measurement over
the period of
initial performance
test and Total
Organic HAP
measured using
Method 18 5D in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 and/or
Method 320 in
appendix A to this
part and dioxins
and furans measured
using Method 23 in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60, 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).
If the kiln is
equipped with a dry
sorbent injection
system, you have a
record of the dry
sorbent and/or
carbon injection
flow rate operating
parameter over the
3-hour performance
test during which
emissions did not
exceed the
emissions
limitation. If the
kiln is equipped
with a thermal
oxidizer, you have
a record of the
combustion chamber
operating
temperature
operating parameter
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
emissions
limitation.
2. Stack emissions from all PM emissions must The outlet PM
PHS operations at a new or not exceed 0.05 g/ emissions, based on
existing affected source. dscm. Method 5 or Method
17 in appendices A-
3 and A-6,
respectively, to 40
CFR part 60, 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.
[[Page 57761]]
3. Stack emissions from all Emissions must not Each of the thirty 6-
PSH operations at a new or exceed 7 percent minute opacity
existing affected source, opacity. averages during the
unless the stack emissions initial compliance
are discharged through a period, using
wet scrubber control device. Method 9 in
appendix A-4 to 40
CFR part 60, does
not exceed the 7
percent opacity
limit. At least
thirty 6-minute
averages must be
obtained.
4. Fugitive emissions from Emissions must not Each of the 6-minute
all PSH operations at a new exceed 10 percent opacity averages
or existing affected source. opacity. during the initial
compliance period,
using Method 9 in
appendix A-4 to 40
CFR part 60, does
not exceed the 10
percent opacity
limit.
5. All PSH operations at a All of the All the PSH
new or existing affected individually operations enclosed
source, enclosed in affected PSH in the building
building. operations must have demonstrated
comply with the initial compliance
applicable PM and according to the
opacity emission applicable
limitations for requirements for
items 2 through 4 items 2 through 4
of this table 4, or of this table 4; or
the building must if you are
comply with the complying with the
following: There building emission
must be no VE from limitations, there
the building, are no VE from the
except from a vent, building according
and vent emissions to item 18 of table
must not exceed the 5 to this subpart
emission and Sec.
limitations in 63.7112(k), and you
items 2 and 3 of demonstrate initial
this table 4. compliance with
applicable building
vent emissions
limitations
according to the
requirements in
items 2 and 3 of
this table 4.
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-4 to 40
CFR part 60, does
not exceed the 7
percent opacity
limit.
7. Each set of multiple You must comply with You demonstrate
storage bins with combined emission initial compliance
stack emissions. limitations in according to the
items 2 and 3 of requirements in
this table 4. items 2 and 3 of
this table 4.
8. All new or existing lime You must meet the The kiln outlet HCl,
kilns and their associated emission mercury, total
lime coolers (kilns/ limitations for organic HAP, and D/
coolers). HCl, mercury, total F emissions (and if
organic HAP, and applicable, summed
dioxins and furans with the separate
in items 5 through cooler emissions),
16 of table 1 to based on the
this subpart. emissions measured
according to table
5 to this subpart
over the period of
the initial
performance test do
not exceed the
applicable limits
in items 5 through
16 of table 1 to
this subpart. If
the emission unit
is controlled with
a wet scrubber,
during the HCl
performance test
you have a record
of the scrubber's
pressure drop and
liquid flow rate
operating
parameters over the
performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the HCl
emissions
limitation. If the
emission unit is
controlled with a
dry sorbent
injection, during
the HCl performance
test you have a
record of the dry
sorbent flow rate
operating parameter
over the HCl
performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the HCl
emissions
limitation. If the
emission unit is
controlled with a
thermal oxidizer,
during the total
organic HAP and D/F
performance test(s)
you have a record
of the temperature
operating parameter
over the total
organic HAP and D/F
performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the total
organic HAP and D/F
emissions
limitation(s). If
the emission unit
is controlled with
an activated carbon
injection, during
the total organic
HAP, D/F, and
mercury performance
test(s) you have a
record of the
temperature
operating parameter
over the total
organic HAP, D/F,
and mercury
performance test(s)
during which
emissions did not
exceed the total
organic HAP, D/F,
and mercury
emissions
limitation(s).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57762]]
Table 5 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 following
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each Select the location of Method 1 or 1A of Sampling sites must be
associated lime cooler, if there the sampling ports appendix A-1 to 40 located at the outlet of
is a separate exhaust to the and the number of CFR part 60; and Sec. the control device(s) and
atmosphere from the associated traverse points. 63.6(d)(1)(i). prior to any releases to
lime cooler. the atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, Not applicable.
associated lime cooler, if there volumetric flow rate. 2F, or 2G in
is a separate exhaust to the appendices A-1 and A-
atmosphere from the associated 2 to 40 CFR part 60.
lime cooler.
3. Each lime kiln and each Conduct gas molecular Method 3, 3A, or 3B in You may use manual
associated lime cooler, if there weight analysis. appendix A-2 to 40 procedures (but not
is a separate exhaust to the CFR part 60. instrumental procedures)
atmosphere from the associated of ASME PTC 19.10-1981--
lime cooler. Part 10 (see Sec. 63.14
for availability) as an
alternative to using
Method 3B.
4. Each lime kiln and each Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A- Not applicable.
associated lime cooler, if there content of the stack 3 to 40 CFR part 60.
is a separate exhaust to the gas.
atmosphere from the associated
lime cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each Measure PM emissions.. Method 5 in appendix A- Conduct the test(s) when
associated lime cooler, if there 3 to 40 CFR part 60. the source is operating at
is a separate exhaust to the representative operating
atmosphere from the associated conditions in accordance
lime cooler, and which uses a with Sec. 63.7(e) before
negative pressure PM control the relevant compliance
device. date for your source as
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b)
on and after the relevant
compliance date for your
source as specified in
Sec. 63.7083(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 Measure PM emissions.. Method 5D in appendix Conduct the test(s) when
associated lime cooler, if there A-3 to 40 CFR part 60. the source is operating at
is a separate exhaust to the representative operating
atmosphere from the associated conditions in accordance
lime cooler, and which uses a with Sec. 63.7(e) before
positive pressure FF or ESP. the relevant compliance
date for your source as
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b)
on and after the relevant
compliance date for your
source as specified in
Sec. 63.7083(e); If
there is a separate lime
cooler exhaust to the
atmosphere, you must
conduct the Method 5 or 5D
test of the separate
cooler exhaust
concurrently with the kiln
exhaust test. Refer to
item 5 of this table for
sampling time and volume
requirements.
7. Each lime kiln.................. Determine the mass Any suitable device... Calibrate and maintain the
rate of stone feed to device according to
the kiln during the manufacturer's
kiln performance test. instructions; the
measuring device used must
be accurate to within
5 percent of
the mass rate of stone
feed over its operating
range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a Establish the Data for the gas The continuous pressure
wet scrubber. operating limit for stream pressure drop drop measurement device
the average gas measurement device must be accurate within
stream pressure drop during the kiln plus or minus 1 percent;
across the wet performance test. you must collect the
scrubber during the pressure drop data during
PM and HCl the period of the
performance test(s). performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a Establish the Data from the liquid The continuous scrubbing
wet scrubber. operating limit for flow rate measurement liquid flow rate measuring
the average liquid device during the device must be accurate
flow rate to the kiln performance test. within plus or minus 1
scrubber during the percent; you must collect
PM and HCl the flow rate data during
performance test(s). the period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a Have installed and Standard operating According to the
FF or ESP that is monitored with a have operating the procedures requirements in Sec.
PM detector. BLDS or PM detector incorporated into the 63.7113(d) or (e),
prior to the PM OM&M plan. respectively.
performance test.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a Have installed and Standard operating According to the
FF or ESP that is monitored with a have operating the procedures requirements in Sec.
COMS. COMS prior to the incorporated into the 63.7113(g).
performance test. OM&M plan and as
required by the
general provisions of
subpart A of this
part and according to
PS-1 of appendix B to
40 CFR part 60,
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 be
operation, vent from a building in appendices A-3 and at least 1.70 dscm (60
enclosing a PSH operation, or set A-6 to 40 CFR part 60. dscf); for Method 5, if
of multiple storage bins with the gas stream being
combined stack emissions, which is sampled is at ambient
subject to a PM emission limit. 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).
[[Page 57763]]
13. Each stack emission from a PSH Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
operation, vent from a building observations. 4 to 40 CFR part 60. for at least 3 hours and
enclosing a PSH operation, or set you must obtain at least
of multiple storage bins with thirty, 6-minute averages.
combined stack emissions, which is
subject to an opacity limit.
14. Each stack emissions source Establish the average Data for the gas The pressure drop
from a PSH operation subject to a gas stream pressure stream pressure drop measurement device must be
PM or opacity limit, which uses a drop across the wet measurement device accurate within plus or
wet scrubber. scrubber during the during the PSH minus 1 percent; you must
PM and HCl operation stack collect the pressure drop
performance test(s). performance test. data during the period of
the performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source Establish the Data from the liquid The continuous scrubbing
from a PSH operation subject to a operating limit for flow rate measurement liquid flow rate measuring
PM or opacity limit, which uses a the average liquid device during the PSH device must be accurate
wet scrubber. flow rate to the operation stack within plus or minus 1
scrubber during the performance test. percent; you must collect
PM and HCl the flow rate data during
performance test(s). the period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
16. Each FF that controls emissions Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
from only an individual, enclosed, observations. 4 to 40 CFR part 60. for at least 1 hour and
new or existing storage bin. you must obtain ten 6-
minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
operation subject to an opacity observations. 4 to 40 CFR part 60. for at least 3 hours, but
limit. 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 must
operation, that is subject to a VE Sec. 63.7112(k). be conducted while all
limit. 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.
19. Each lime kiln................. Measure hydrogen Method 320 or 321 of The test duration must be
chloride. appendix A to this at least one hour. HCl
part or ASTM 6348-12 must be used for the
(Reapproved 2020) \1\ analyte spiking. For a
\2\. positive pressure FF or
ESP, determine the number
of sampling points per the
stratification check
procedures of section
8.1.2 of Method 7E in
appendix A-4 to 40 CFR
part 60 using the sample
points determined using
the procedures of Section
8 of EPA Method 5D.
20. Each lime kiln................. Measure mercury....... Method 29 or 30B of For Method 29 and ASTM
appendix A-8 to 40 D6784-16 \2\ the test
CFR part 60 or ASTM duration must be at least
D6784-16 \2\. two hours and the sample
volume must be at least
1.70 dscm (60 dscf). For
Method 30B, the test
duration must be at least
one hour and the sample
volume at least 100
liters. For a positive
pressure FF or ESP, use
the procedures of Section
8 of EPA Method 5D for
sampling points.
21. Each lime kiln................. Measure total organic Method 18 and/or 320 The test duration must be
HAP \3\. in appendix A to 40 at least 1 hour. For EPA
CFR part 60 and/or Method 320 and ASTM D6348-
ASTM D6348-12 12 (Reapproved 2020), for
(Reapproved 2020) \1\. a positive pressure FF or
ESP, determine the number
of sampling points per the
stratification check
procedures of section
8.1.2 of Method 7E using
the sample points
determined using the
procedures of Section 8 of
EPA Method 5D.
22. Each lime kiln................. Measure dioxins/furans Method 23 in appendix The test duration must be
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60. at least 3 hours and the
must be at least 3 dscm
(106 dscf). For a positive
pressure FF or ESP, use
the procedures of Section
8 of EPA Method 5D for
sampling points.
23. Each lime kiln equipped with Establish the Data for the dry The flow monitor must meet
dry sorbent injection. operating limit for sorbent flow rate the criteria in Sec.
the dry sorbent flow device during the HCl 63.7113(h); you must
rate during the HCl performance test. collect the dry sorbent
performance test. flow rate data during the
period of the HCl
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
24. Each lime kiln equipped with a Establish the Data for the The temperature device must
thermal oxidizer. operating limit for temperature device meet the criteria in Sec.
the combustion during the total 63.7113(i); you must
chamber temperature organic HAP and D/F collect the temperature
during the total performance test(s). data during the period of
organic HAP and D/F the total organic HAP and
performance test(s). D/F performance test(s)
and determine the
operating limit according
to Sec. 63.7112(j).
25. Each lime kiln equipped with Establish the Data for the activated The flow monitor must meet
activated carbon injection. operating limit for carbon flow rate the criteria in Sec.
the combustion device during the 63.7113(h); you must
chamber temperature total organic HAP, D/ collect the activated
during the total F, and mercury carbon flow rate data
organic HAP, D/F, and performance test(s). during the period of the
mercury performance total organic HAP, D/F,
test(s). and mercury performance
test(s)and determine the
operating limit according
to Sec. 63.7112(j).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When using ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory. In ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex
A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test
must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must
be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound according to: Reported Results = ((Measured
Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.
\2\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14.
\3\ Total Organic HAP is the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene,
benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene.
[[Page 57764]]
Table 6 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 listed in Table 3 to subpart AAAAA
that applies to you, according to the following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
operating limit . You must demonstrate
For . . . . . continuous compliance
by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled Maintain the 3- Collecting the wet
by a wet scrubber. hour block scrubber operating
average exhaust data according to
gas stream all applicable
pressure drop requirements in Sec.
across the wet 63.7113 and
scrubber greater reducing the data
than or equal to according to Sec.
the pressure 63.7113(a);
drop operating maintaining the 3-
limit hour block average
established exhaust gas stream
during the pressure drop across
performance the wet scrubber
test; and greater than or
maintain the 3- equal to the
hour block pressure drop
average operating limit
scrubbing liquid established during
flow rate the performance
greater than or test; and
equal to the maintaining the 3-
flow rate hour block average
operating limit scrubbing liquid
established flow rate greater
during the than or equal to the
performance test. 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 a. Maintain and i. Operating the FF
cooler equipped with a FF and operate the FF or ESP so that the
using a BLDS, and each lime or ESP such that alarm on the bag
kiln equipped with an ESP or the bag leak or leak or PM detection
FF using a PM detector. PM detector system is not
alarm, is not activated and an
activated and alarm condition does
alarm condition not exist for more
does not exist than 5 percent of
for more than 5 the total operating
percent of the time in each 6-month
total operating reporting period;
time in each 6- and continuously
month period. 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.
3. Each stack emissions source Maintain the 3- Collecting the wet
from a PSH operation subject hour block scrubber operating
to an opacity limit, which is average exhaust data according to
controlled by a wet scrubber. gas stream all applicable
pressure drop requirements in Sec.
across the wet 63.7113 and
scrubber greater reducing the data
than or equal to according to Sec.
the pressure 63.7113(a);
drop operating maintaining the 3-
limit hour block average
established exhaust gas stream
during the pressure drop across
performance the wet scrubber
test; and greater than or
maintain the 3- equal to the
hour block pressure drop
average operating limit
scrubbing liquid established during
flow rate the performance
greater than or test; and
equal to the maintaining the 3-
flow rate hour block average
operating limit scrubbing liquid
established flow rate greater
during the than or equal to the
performance test. 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 operate the FF maintaining,
an ESP that uses a COMS as or ESP such that calibrating and
the monitoring device. the average operating a COMS as
opacity for any required by the
6-minute block general provisions
period does not of subpart A of this
exceed 15 part and according
percent. to PS-1 of appendix
B to 40 CFR part 60,
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.
7. Each lime kiln equipped Maintain the 3- Collecting the dry
with dry sorbent and/or hour block dry sorbent and/or
activated carbon injection. sorbent and/or activated carbon
activated carbon injection operating
flow rate data according to
greater than or all applicable
equal to the requirements in Sec.
stack flow rate 63.7113 and
operating limit reducing the data
established according to Sec.
during the most 63.7113(a);
recent maintaining the 3-
performance hour block average
test.. injection flow rate
greater than or
equal to the
injection flow rate
operating limit
established during
the performance
test.
8. Each lime kiln equipped Maintain the 3- Collecting the
with a thermal oxidizer. hour block thermal oxidizer
average operating data
combustion according to all
chamber applicable
temperature requirements in Sec.
greater or equal 63.7113 and
to the reducing the data
combustion according to Sec.
chamber 63.7113(a);
operating limit maintaining the 3-
established in hour block average
the most recent combustion chamber
performance test. temperature greater
than or equal to the
combustion chamber
operating limit
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[[Page 57765]]
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
[As required in Sec. 63.7131, you must submit each report in the
following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........ a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to the
emission requirements in
limitations Sec. 63.7131(b).
(emission limit,
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 no Semiannually
periods during according to the
which the CMS, requirements in
including any Sec. 63.7131(b).
operating 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 any according to the
emission limitation requirements in
(emission limit, Sec. 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. 63.7131(b).
operating 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
e. Before the Semiannually
relevant compliance according to the
date for your requirements in
source as specified Sec. 63.7131(b).
in Sec.
63.7083(e), 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).
On and after the
relevant compliance
date for your
source as specified
in Sec.
63.7083(e), if you
had a startup,
shutdown or
malfunction during
the reporting
period and you
failed to meet an
applicable
standard, the
compliance report
must include the
information in Sec.
63.7131(c)(3).
2. Before the relevant Actions taken for By fax or telephone
compliance date for your the event. within 2 working
source as specified in Sec. days after starting
63.7083(e), an immediate actions
startup, shutdown, and inconsistent with
malfunction report if you the SSMP.
had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the
reporting period that is
not consistent with your
SSMP.
3. Before the relevant The information in By letter within 7
compliance date for your Sec. working days after
source as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). the end of the
63.7083(e), an immediate event unless you
startup, shutdown, and have made
malfunction report if you alternative
had a startup, shutdown, or arrangements with
malfunction during the the permitting
reporting period that is authority. See Sec.
not consistent with your 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
SSMP.
4. Performance Test Report.. The information According to the
required in Sec. requirements of
63.7(g) and Sec. Sec. 63.7131.
63.7112(h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emissions Averaging Emission Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7090(d), if you are using emissions averaging
for either HCl emission limits or mercury emission limits you must meet
each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the
For . . . following emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and HCl emissions must not
their associated coolers producing dolomitic exceed 2.1 lb/ton of
quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. lime produced.
2. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and HCl emissions must not
their associated coolers producing high- exceed 0.047 lb/ton of
calcium quick lime. lime produced.
3. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and HCl emissions must not
their associated coolers producing dolomitic exceed 0.36 lb/ton of
quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. lime produced.
4. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and HCl emissions must not
their associated coolers producing high- exceed 0.087 lb/ton of
calcium quick lime. lime produced.
5. All vertical lime kilns and their HCl emissions must not
associated coolers producing dolomitic quick exceed 0.36 lb/ton of
lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. lime produced.
6. All vertical lime kilns and their HCl emissions must not
associated coolers producing high-calcium exceed 0.019 lb/ton of
quick lime. lime produced.
[[Page 57766]]
7. Existing lime kilns and their associated Mercury emissions must
coolers. not exceed 31 lb/MMton
of lime produced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Add tables 10 and 11 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
Table 10 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.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I subject to this
Citation Summary of requirement requirement? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1) through (4)........ Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6).................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7) through (9)........ No.....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(10) through (14)...... Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).................... Initial Applicability Yes.................... Sec. Sec. 63.7081
Determination. and 63.7142 specify
additional
applicability
determination
requirements.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(3).................... Initial Applicability Yes....................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Applicability After Yes....................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................... Permit Requirements.... No..................... Area sources not
subject to this
subpart, except all
sources must make
initial applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3) and (4)............ No.....................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).................... Area Source Becomes Yes....................
Major.
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Reclassification....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(d)....................... No.....................
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Applicability of Permit Yes....................
Program.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.7143.
Sec. 63.3(a) through (c)........... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1) and (2)............ Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(3) through (5)........ No.....................
Sec. 63.4(b) and (c)............... Circumvention, Yes....................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1) and (2)............ Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.5(b)(3) and (4)............ Construction Approval, Yes....................
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.5(b)(6).................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.5(c)....................... No.....................
Sec. 63.5(d)(1) through (4)........ Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1) and (2)............ Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Compliance for Yes....................
Standards and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through (5)........ Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) and (2)............ Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(3) and (4)............ No.....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(d)....................... No.....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)................. General Duty to Yes before the relevant On and after the
Minimize Emissions. compliance date for relevant compliance
your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7100 for general
relevant compliance duty requirement.
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
[[Page 57767]]
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)................ Requirement to Correct Yes before the relevant
Malfunctions ASAP. compliance date for
your source as
specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
No on and after the
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Operation and Yes....................
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................... No..................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................... Startup, Shutdown Yes before the relevant On and after the
Malfunction Plan. compliance date for relevant compliance
your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), the OM&M
No on and after the plan must address
relevant compliance periods of startup and
date for your source shutdown. See Sec.
as specified in Sec. 63.7100(d).
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... SSM exemption.......... No..................... See Sec. 63.7100. For
periods of startup and
shutdown, see Sec.
63.7090(c).
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)............ Methods for Determining Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through (3)........ Alternative Standard... Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................... SSM exemption.......... No..................... See Sec. 63.7100. For
periods of startup and
shutdown, see Sec.
63.7090(c).
Sec. 63.6(h)(2).................... Methods for Determining Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)(3).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.6(h)(4) through (h)(5)(i).. Opacity/VE Standards... Yes.................... This requirement only
applies to opacity and
VE performance checks
required in table 5 to
this subpart.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii) and (iii)...... Opacity/VE Standards... No..................... Test durations are
specified in this
subpart; this subpart
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 Opacity Yes....................
and VE.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).................... Adjustment of Opacity Yes....................
Limit.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1) through (14)....... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................... No.....................
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Exemption from Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1) through (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/Test Yes....................
Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d)....................... Testing Facilities..... Yes....................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conduct of Tests....... Yes before the relevant On and after the
compliance date for relevant compliance
your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7112(b).
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2) through (4)........ Conduct of Tests....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Alternative Test Method Yes....................
Sec. 63.7(g)....................... Data Analysis.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.7(h)....................... Waiver of Tests........ Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).................... Monitoring Requirements Yes.................... See Sec. 63.7113.
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) through (3)........ Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes....................
[[Page 57768]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)................. CMS Operation/ Yes before the relevant On and after the
Maintenance. compliance date for relevant compliance
your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7100 for OM&M
relevant compliance requirements.
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ CMS Spare Parts........ Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... Requirement to Develop Yes before the relevant On and after the
SSM Plan for CMS. compliance date for relevant compliance
your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), no longer
No on and after the required.
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) and (3)............ CMS Operation/ Yes....................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... See Sec. 63.7121.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii)........ Cycle Time for COM and Yes.................... No CEMS are required
CEMS. under this subpart;
see Sec. 63.7113 for
CPMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................... Minimum COM procedures. Yes.................... COM not required.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... See Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8)............ CMS Requirements....... Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2)............ Quality Control........ Yes.................... See also Sec.
63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................... Quality Control........ Yes before the relevant
compliance date for
your source as
specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
No on and after the
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.8(e)....................... Performance Evaluation Yes.................... See also Sec.
for CMS. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through (5)........ Alternative Monitoring Yes....................
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... Alternative to Relative No..................... No CEMS required in
Accuracy Test for CEMS. this subpart.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1) through (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 Notifications.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.9(c)....................... Request for Compliance Yes....................
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)....................... New Source Notification Yes....................
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... Notification of Yes....................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of VE/ Yes.................... This requirement only
Opacity Test. applies to opacity and
VE performance tests
required in table 5 to
this subpart.
Notification not
required for VE/
opacity test under
table 7 to this
subpart.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... Additional CMS No..................... Not required for
Notifications. operating parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through (3)........ Notification of Yes....................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).................... No.....................
Sec. 63.9(h)(5) and (6)............ Notification of Yes....................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i)....................... Adjustment of Deadlines Yes....................
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous Yes....................
Information.
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes.................... Only as specified in
procedures. Sec. 63.9(j).
Sec. 63.10(a)...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes.................... See Sec. Sec.
General Requirements. 63.7131 through
63.7133.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................... Records................ Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)................ Recordkeeping of Yes before the relevant
Occurrence and compliance date for
Duration of Startups your source as
and Shutdowns. specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
No on and after the
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
[[Page 57769]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... Recordkeeping of Yes before the relevant On and after the
Failures to Meet a compliance date for relevant compliance
Standard. your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7132 for
relevant compliance recordkeeping of (1)
date for your source date, time and
as specified in Sec. duration; (2) listing
63.7083(e). of affected source or
equipment, and an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Maintenance Records.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)....... Actions Taken to Yes before the relevant On and after the
Minimize Emissions compliance date for relevant compliance
During SSM. your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7100 for OM&M
relevant compliance requirements.
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xii). Recordkeeping for CMS.. 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
7 to this subpart,
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)(i)................ Periodic Startup, Yes before the relevant On and after the
Shutdown, Malfunction compliance date for relevant compliance
Reports. your source as date for your source
specified in Sec. as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e). 63.7083(e), see Sec.
No on and after the 63.7131 for
relevant compliance malfunction reporting
date for your source requirements.
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)............... Immediate Startup, Yes before the relevant
Shutdown, Malfunction compliance date for
Reports. your source as
specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
No on and after the
relevant compliance
date for your source
as specified in Sec.
63.7083(e).
Sec. 63.10(e)...................... Additional CMS Reports. No..................... See specific
requirements in this
subpart, see Sec.
63.7131.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Waiver for Yes....................
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11(a) and (b).............. Control Device and Work No..................... Flares not applicable.
Practice Requirements.
Sec. 63.12(a) through (c).......... State Authority and Yes....................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13(a) through (c).......... State/Regional Yes....................
Addresses.
Sec. 63.14(a) and (b).............. Incorporation by No.....................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15(a) and (b).............. Availability of Yes....................
Information and
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16......................... Performance Track Yes....................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Toxicity Equivalence Factors
(TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessment of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan 2005 TEFs \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD............................................ 1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD......................................... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD....................................... 0.1
[[Page 57770]]
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD....................................... 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD....................................... 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD..................................... 0.01
OCDD.................................................... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................................ 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF......................................... 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF......................................... 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF....................................... 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF....................................... 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF....................................... 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF....................................... 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF..................................... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF..................................... 0.01
OCDF.................................................... 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA/100/R-10/005, ``Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs)
for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds'', December 2010. (See Sec. 63.14
for availability.)
[FR Doc. 2024-14692 Filed 7-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P