[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78046-78087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31233]
[[Page 78045]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing Plants; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 78046]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052; FRL-7418-1]
RIN 2060-AG72
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime
Manufacturing Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the lime manufacturing source category. The
lime manufacturing emission units regulated would include lime kilns,
lime coolers, and various types of materials processing operations
(MPO). The EPA has identified the lime manufacturing industry as a
major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions including, but
not limited to, hydrogen chloride (HCl), antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects such as cancer; irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes; effects on the central nervous system; and kidney damage.
The proposed standards would require all major sources subject to the
rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Implementation of the
standards as proposed would reduce non-volatile metal HAP emissions
from the lime manufacturing industry source category by approximately
21 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (23 tons per year (tons/yr)) and would
reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 14,000 Mg/yr (16,000
tons/yr).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 9, 2003, a public hearing will be held on
January 21, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail,
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General and technical information.
Joseph P. Wood, P.E., Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emissions
Standards Division (C504-05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5446, electronic mail (e-
mail) address [email protected].
Methods, sampling, and monitoring information. Michael Toney,
Source Measurement Technology Group, Emission Monitoring and Analysis
Division (D205-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5247, e-mail address
[email protected].
Economic impacts analysis. Eric Crump, Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C339-
01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-4719, e-mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32741 Commercial lime manufacturing plants.
33111 Captive lime manufacturing plants at iron
and steel mills.
3314 Captive lime manufacturing plants at
nonferrous metal production facilities.
327125 Producers of dead-burned dolomite (Non-
clay refractory manufacturing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7081 of the
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. The official public docket is
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA
Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or review public comments, access the
index of the contents of the official public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
this document.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is
[[Page 78047]]
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material,
will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Comments Submitted Electronically. If you submit an electronic
comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select
``search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Comments Submitted By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0052.
Comments Submitted By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your
comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA
West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of
operation as identified in this document.
Comments Submitted By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-
1741, Attention Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0052.
CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Joseph Wood, Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0052. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI
by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr.
Joseph Wood, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards
Division (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5446, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing.
Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mr.
Joseph Wood to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The
public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission
standards.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule?
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed?
E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime
Manufacturing Industry?
F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime
Manufacturing Plant?
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed
Rule?
B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are
Included Under the Definition of Affected Source?
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated By the Proposed Rule?
D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed
Rule?
[[Page 78048]]
G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance
with the Proposed Rule?
H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major
Source and Thus Subject to the Proposed Rule?
III. Rationale for Proposed Rule
A. How Did We Determine the Source Category to Regulate?
B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source?
C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants to Regulate?
D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at
Existing Lime Manufacturing Plants?
E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For Emission Units at New
Lime Manufacturing Plants?
F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?
G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring
Requirements for Determining Compliance With This Proposed Rule?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. How Many Facilities Are Subject To the Proposed Rule?
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
C. What Are the Water Impacts?
D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule?
The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Lime
Manufacturing category of major sources covered by today's proposed
NESHAP was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP
are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr of
any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed?
We used several resources to develop the proposed rule, including
questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site
surveys of lime manufacturing facilities, operating and new source
review permits, and permit applications. We researched the relevant
technical literature and existing State and Federal regulations and
consulted and met with representatives of the lime manufacturing
industry, State and local representatives of air pollution agencies,
Federal agency representatives (e.g., United States Geological Survey)
and emission control and emissions measurement device vendors in
developing the proposed rule. We also conducted an extensive emissions
test program. Industry representatives provided emissions test data,
arranged site surveys of lime manufacturing plants, participated in the
emissions test program, reviewed draft questionnaires, provided
information about their manufacturing processes and air pollution
control technologies, and identified technical and regulatory issues.
State representatives provided existing emissions test data, copies of
permits and other information.
E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime
Manufacturing Industry?
The HAP emitted by lime manufacturing facilities include, but are
not limited to, HCl, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these
compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when
present in concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient
air.
We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the
facilities that would be covered by the proposed NESHAP, and the people
living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an
analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP
emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health
effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse
health effects described below occur in the populations surrounding
these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur,
the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. We
also note one exception to this statement, namely that human exposures
to ambient levels of HCl resulting from lime manufacturing facilities'
emissions were estimated by industry as part of the risk assessment
they conducted for purposes of demonstrating, pursuant to section
112(d)(4) of the CAA, that HCl emissions from lime kilns are below the
threshold level of adverse effects, with an ample margin of safety.
The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed rule are
associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic
health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes; effects on the central nervous system; cancer; and damage to
the kidneys), and acute health disorders
[[Page 78049]]
(e.g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as
nausea and vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous
system). We have classified three of the HAP--arsenic, chromium, and
nickel--as human carcinogens and three others--beryllium, cadmium, and
lead--as probable human carcinogens.
F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
There are approximately 70 commercial and 40 captive lime
manufacturing plants in the U.S., not including captive lime
manufacturing operations at pulp and paper production facilities. About
30 of the captive plants in the U.S. produce lime that is used in the
beet sugar manufacturing process, but captive lime manufacturing plants
are also found at steel, other metals, and magnesia production
facilities. Lime is produced in about 35 States and Puerto Rico by
about 47 companies, which include commercial and captive producers
(except for lime manufacturing plants at pulp and paper production
facilities), and those plants which produce lime hydrate only.
G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime Manufacturing
Plant?
There are many synonyms for lime, the main ones being quicklime and
its chemical name, calcium oxide. High calcium lime consists primarily
of calcium oxide, and dolomitic lime consists of both calcium and
magnesium oxides. Lime is produced via the calcination of high calcium
limestone (calcium carbonate) or other highly calcareous materials such
as aragonite, chalk, coral, marble, and shell; or the calcination of
dolomitic limestone. Calcination occurs in a high temperature furnace
called a kiln, where lime is produced by heating the limestone to about
2000[deg] F, driving off carbon dioxide in the process. Dead-burned
dolomite is a type of dolomitic lime produced to obtain refractory
characteristics in the lime.
The kiln is the heart of the lime manufacturing plant, where
various fossil fuels (such as coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, and
fuel oil) are combusted to produce the heat needed for calcination.
There are five different types of kilns: rotary, vertical, double-shaft
vertical, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed. The most popular is the
rotary kiln, but the double-shaft vertical kiln is an emerging new kiln
technology gaining in acceptance because of its energy efficiency.
Rotary kilns may also have preheaters associated with them to improve
energy efficiency. As discussed further in this preamble, additional
energy efficiency is obtained by routing exhaust from the lime cooler
to the kiln, a common practice. Emissions from lime kilns include, but
are not limited to, metallic HAP, HCl, PM, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon dioxide. These emissions predominately originate
from compounds in the limestone feed material and fuels (e.g., metals,
sulfur, chlorine) and are formed from the combustion of fuels and the
heating of feed material in the kiln.
All types of kilns use external equipment to cool the lime product,
except vertical (including double-shaft) kilns, where the cooling zone
is part of the kiln. Ambient air is most often used to cool the lime
(although a few use water as the heat transfer medium), and typically
all of the heated air stream exiting the cooler goes to the kiln to be
used as combustion air for the kiln. The exception to this is the grate
cooler, where more airflow is generated than is needed for kiln
combustion, and consequently a portion (about 40 percent) of the grate
cooler exhaust is vented to the atmosphere. We estimate that there are
about five to ten kilns in the U.S. that use grate coolers. The
emissions from grate coolers include the lime dust (PM) and the trace
metallic HAP found in the lime dust.
Lime manufacturing plants may also produce hydrated lime (also
called calcium hydroxide) from some of the calcium oxide (or dolomitic
lime) produced. Hydrated lime is produced in a hydrator via the
chemical reaction of calcium oxide (or magnesium oxide) and water. The
hydration process is exothermic, and part of the water in the reaction
chamber is converted to steam. A wet scrubber is integrated with the
hydrator to capture the lime (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide)
particles carried in the gas steam, with the scrubber water recycled
back to the hydration chamber. The emissions from the hydrator are the
PM comprised of lime and hydrated lime.
Operations that prepare the feed materials and fuels for the kiln
and process the lime product for shipment or further on-site use are
found throughout a lime manufacturing plant. The equipment includes
grinding mills, crushers, storage bins, conveying systems (such as
bucket elevator, belt conveyors), bagging systems, bulk loading or
unloading systems, and screening operations. The emissions from these
operations include limestone and lime dust (PM) and the trace metallic
HAP found in the dust.
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and
existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located
with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories would not be subject to the proposed rule. Other captive lime
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills
and magnesia production facilities, would be subject to the proposed
rule. We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a
lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous
material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and
dead-burned dolomite.
B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are Included Under
the Definition of Affected Source?
The proposed rule would include the following emission units under
the definition of affected source: Lime kilns and coolers, and MPO
associated with limestone feed preparation (beginning with the raw
material storage bin). The individual types of MPO that would be
included under the definition of affected source are grinding mills,
raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk
loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators,
and belt conveyors--if they follow the raw material storage bin in the
sequence of MPO. The MPO associated with lime products (such as
quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining
operations, and fuels would not be subject to today's proposed rule.
The MPO are further distinguished in the proposed rule as follows: (1)
Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, (2) whether their
emissions are fugitive emissions, (3) whether their emissions are
vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial
enclosure, and/or (4) whether the source is enclosed in a building.
Finally, lime hydrators would not be included under the definition of
affected source under the proposed NESHAP.
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits for lime
kilns, coolers, and MPO with stacks.
[[Page 78050]]
Particulate matter would be measured solely as a surrogate for the non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP. (Particulate matter of course is
not itself a HAP, but is a typical and permissible surrogate for HAP
metals. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637-40 (D.C.
Cir., 2000).) The proposed rule also would regulate opacity or visible
emissions from most of the MPO, with opacity also serving as a
surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals.
D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
1. Emission Limits
The PM emission limit for all of the kilns and coolers at an
existing lime manufacturing plant would be 0.12 pounds (lb) PM per ton
(0.06 kilogram (kg) per Mg) of stone feed. The PM emission limit for
all of the kilns and lime coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant
would be 0.10 lb/ton of stone feed. These emission limits would apply
to the combined emissions of all the kilns and coolers (assuming the
cooler(s) has a separate exhaust vent to the atmosphere) at the lime
manufacturing plant. In other words, the sum of the PM emission rates
from all of the kilns and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing
plant, divided by the sum of the production rates of the kilns at the
existing lime manufacturing plant, would be used to determine
compliance with the emission limit for kilns and coolers at an existing
lime manufacturing plant. Similarly, the sum of the PM emission rates
from all of the kilns and coolers, divided by the sum of the production
of the kilns at a new plant, would be used to determine compliance with
the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing
plant.
Emissions from MPO that are vented through a stack would be subject
to a standard of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm)
and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from MPO that are controlled by
wet scrubbers would be subject to the 0.05 grams PM per dry standard
cubic meter PM limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive
emissions from MPO would be subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
We are proposing that for each building enclosing any materials
processing operation, each of the affected MPO in the building would
have to comply individually with the applicable PM and opacity emission
limitations discussed above. Otherwise, we propose that there must be
no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry
standard cubic meter and 7 percent opacity. We are proposing that for
each fabric filter (FF) that controls emissions from only an
individual, enclosed storage bin, the opacity emissions must not exceed
7 percent. For each set of multiple storage bins with combined stack
emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry standard
cubic meter and 7 percent opacity.
2. Operating Limits
For lime kilns that use a wet scrubber PM control device, you would
be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average gas stream pressure
drop across the scrubber and the 3-hour rolling average scrubber liquid
flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were
established during the PM performance test.
For lime kilns that use a FF PM control device, you would be
required to maintain and operate the FF such that the bag leak
detection system (BLDS) alarm is not activated and alarm condition does
not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in each 6-month
period. The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
For lime kilns that use an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) PM
control device, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling
average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP
equal to or above the operating limits for these parameters that were
established during the PM performance test. In lieu of complying with
these ESP operating parameters, we are giving sources the option of
monitoring PM levels with a PM detector in a manner similar to the
procedures for monitoring PM from a FF using a BLDS. You would need to
maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not
activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent
of the operating time in each 6-month period.
In lieu of using a bag leak detector, PM detector, or monitoring
ESP operating parameters for lime kilns with a FF or ESP control
device, we are providing the option of monitoring opacity (as an
operating limit) with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS).
Sources that choose to use a COMS would be required to install and
operate the COMS in accordance with Performance Specification 1 (PS-1),
40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and maintain the opacity level of the lime
kiln exhaust at or below 15 percent for each 6-minute block period.
For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet
scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas
stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow
rate during the PM performance test. You would be required to maintain
the 3-hour rolling average gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber
and the 3-hour rolling average scrubber liquid flow rate equal to or
above the levels for the parameters that were established during the PM
performance test.
You would be required to prepare a written operations, maintenance,
and monitoring plan to cover all affected emission units. The plan
would include procedures for proper operation and maintenance of each
emission unit and its air pollution control device(s); procedures for
monitoring and proper operation of monitoring systems in order to meet
the emission limits and operating limits; and standard procedures for
the use of a BLDS and PM detector, and any corrective actions to be
taken when operating limits are deviated from, or when required in
using a PM detector or BLDS.
E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
The compliance date for existing lime manufacturing plants would be
[Date 3 years from the date a final rule is published in the Federal
Register]. (Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit
existing, air pollution control equipment.) The date the final rule is
published in the Federal Register is called the effective date of the
rule. We are proposing that emission units at a new lime manufacturing
plant (i.e., emission units for which construction or reconstruction
commences after today's date) must be in compliance upon initial
startup or the effective date of the rule, whichever is later.
F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule?
1. Kiln and Coolers
For the kiln and cooler PM emission limit, we are proposing that
you must conduct a PM emissions test on the exhaust of each kiln at the
lime manufacturing plant and measure the stone feed rate to each kiln
during the test. The sum of the emissions from all the kilns at the
existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average
stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing lime manufacturing plant,
must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton
[[Page 78051]]
stone feed; similarly, the sum of the emissions from all the kilns at a
new lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average stone
feed rates to each kiln at the new lime manufacturing plant, must not
exceed the emission limit of 0.10 lb PM/ton stone feed. If you have a
lime cooler(s) that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would
be required to conduct a PM test on the cooler's exhaust concurrently
with the kiln PM test. Then the sum of the emissions from all the kilns
and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the
sum of the average stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing plant,
must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton stone feed (or
0.10 lb/ton of stone feed for kilns/coolers at new lime manufacturing
plants). For kilns with an ESP or wet scrubber, you would be required
to collect and record the applicable operating parameters during the PM
performance test and then establish the operating limits based on those
data.
2. Materials Processing Operations
For the MPO with stacks and subject to PM emission limits, you
would be required to conduct a PM emissions test on each stack exhaust,
and the stack emissions must not exceed the emission limit of 0.05 g/
dscm. For the MPO with stack opacity limits, you would be required to
conduct a 3-hour Method 9 test on the exhaust, and each of the 30
consecutive, 6-minute opacity averages must not exceed 7 percent. The
MPO that are controlled by wet scrubbers would not have an opacity
limit, but you would be required to collect and record the wet scrubber
operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish
the applicable operating limits based on those data.
For MPO with fugitive emissions, you would be required to conduct a
Method 9 test, and each of the consecutive 6-minute opacity averages
must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. These Method 9 tests are
for 3 hours, but the test duration may be reduced to 1 hour if certain
criteria are met. Lastly, Method 9 tests or visible emissions checks
may be performed on MPO inside of buildings, but additional lighting,
improved access to equipment, and temporary installation of contrasting
backgrounds may be needed. For additional guidance, see page 116 from
the ``Regulatory and Inspection Manual for Nonmetallic Minerals
Processing Plants,'' EPA report 305-B-97-008, November 1997.
G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance With
the Proposed Rule?
1. General
You would be required to install, operate, and maintain each
required continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) such that the
CPMS completes a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive
15-minute period. The CPMS would be required to have valid data from at
least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a
CPMS that is not out of control according to your operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the
hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that
are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods). The 3-
hour rolling average value for each operating parameter would be
calculated as the average of each set of three successive 1-hour
average values. The 3-hour rolling average would be updated each hour.
Thus the 3-hour average rolls at 1-hour increments, i.e., once a 1-hour
average has been determined based on at least four successive available
15-minute averages, a new 1-hour average would be determined based on
the next four successive available 15-minute averages.
You would be required to develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the general
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
2. Kilns and Coolers
For kilns controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to
maintain the 3-hour rolling average of the exhaust gas stream pressure
drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop
operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test.
You would be required to also maintain the 3-hour rolling average of
the scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate
operating limit established during the most recent performance test.
For kilns controlled by an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP
operating parameters rather than use a PM detector or a COMS, you would
be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average current and voltage
input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the
average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established
during the most recent performance test.
Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from an ESP with a PM
detector in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters or opacity would be
required to maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector
alarm is not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more
than 5 percent of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the
alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions
(per the operations and maintenance plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1
hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the ESP
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
will be counted. The sensor on the PM detection system would provide an
output of relative PM emissions. The PM detection system would have an
alarm that would sound automatically when it detects an increase in
relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The PM detection
systems would be required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and
maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
For kilns and lime coolers (if the cooler has a separate exhaust to
the atmosphere) controlled by a FF and monitored with a BLDS, you would
be required to maintain and operate the FF such that the BLDS alarm is
not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5
percent of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm
sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions (per the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan) within 1 hour of the
alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the FF
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
will be counted. The sensor on the BLDS would be required to provide an
output of relative PM emissions. The BLDS would be required to have an
alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in
relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The BLDS would be
required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that
they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS and PM
detection systems would need to be incorporated into the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. We recommend that for electrodynamic
(or other similar technology) BLDS, the standard operating procedures
include concepts from EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
[[Page 78052]]
document may be found on the world wide web at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
For kilns and lime coolers monitored with a COMS, you would be
required to maintain each 6-minute block average opacity level at or
below 15 percent opacity. The COMS must be installed and operated in
accordance with Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B.
3. Materials Processing Operations
For stack emissions from MPO which are controlled by a wet
scrubber, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average
exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than
or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the
most recent PM performance test. You would be required to also maintain
the 3-hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or
equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the most
recent performance test.
For MPO subject to opacity limitations and which do not use a wet
scrubber control device, you would be required to periodically
demonstrate compliance as follows. You would be required to conduct a
monthly 1-minute visible emissions check of each emissions unit under
the affected source definition. If no visible emissions are observed in
six consecutive monthly tests for any emission unit, you may decrease
the frequency of testing from monthly to semiannually for that
emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any semiannual
test, you would be required to resume testing of that emissions unit on
a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no visible emissions
are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If no visible emissions
are observed during the semiannual test for any emissions unit, you may
decrease the frequency of testing from semiannually to annually for
that emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any
annual test, you would be required to resume visible emissions testing
of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule
until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly
tests.
If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions
check, you would be required to conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in
accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The
Method 9 test would be required to begin within 1 hour of any
observation of visible emissions, and the 6-minute opacity reading
would be required to not exceed the applicable opacity limit. We
request comment on using more frequent visible emissions checks for
MPO, such as going from monthly to quarterly, and then continuing with
semiannual checks.
H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major Source
and Thus Subject to the Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule would apply to lime manufacturing plants that are
major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major
sources. Each lime facility owner/operator would need to determine
whether its plant is a major or area source, since this determines
whether the lime manufacturing plant would be an affected source under
the proposed rule. Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source as a
``stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons/yr or
more of any HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' This
definition may be interpreted to imply that the CAA requires an
estimate of the facility's potential to emit all HAP from all emission
sources in making a determination of whether the source is major or
area. However, based on our data analysis, HCl is most likely the HAP
that would account for the largest quantity of HAP emissions from a
lime manufacturing plant. Although lime manufacturing plants emit HAP
metals from most of the emission units at the plant site and organic
HAP from the kiln, our analysis indicates that most likely the metal
and organic HAP emissions would each be below the 10/25 tons/yr
criteria. One potential approach to estimating HAP metals emissions
from a lime manufacturing plant is to require measurement of the PM
emissions from all of the emission units at the plant and then allow
the use of a ratio (which we would specify in the final rule) of HAP
metals to PM to calculate the metals emissions. We request comment on
this approach to estimating HAP metals emissions. And although we are
not proposing to require sources to test for all HAP to make a
determination of whether the lime manufacturing plant is a major or
area source, we do request comment on whether emissions testing of
metal and/or organic HAP should be required for an owner or operator to
claim that its lime manufacturing plant is an area source.
We are proposing, however, to require that a source measure HCl
emissions from the kiln(s) in order for it to claim it is an area
source (provided HCl is emitted at less than 10 tons/yr). Due to the
known problems with EPA Method 26 (which may have positive biases
attributable to chloride salts rather than to HCl, and negative biases
due to condensation and removal of HCl on the filter and/or in the
sampling probe), we have decided that Methods 26 and 26A may not be
used to measure HCl in the determination whether the source is an area
source. We, in fact, adopted this same approach in the final NESHAP for
the portland cement industry. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and 64
FR 31907 and 31920 (June 14, 1998).
In addition, we worked with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM), in conjunction with the National Lime Association
(NLA), to develop an impinger-based method for the measurement of HCl
based on Method 26 but which includes changes to the method to overcome
the aforementioned biases. This ASTM HCl impinger-based method has been
demonstrated on lime kilns and has been designated as ASTM Test Method
D 6735-01. We approve of this method, and we propose to allow owners/
operators to use it to measure HCl from lime kilns to determine whether
their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source. But because
it is very important to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl
emissions, we are proposing to require the paired-train option under
section 11.2.6 of the method, and we are also proposing to require the
post-test analyte spike option under section 11.2.7 of the method.
Although we believe these additional quality assurance procedures are
critical to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl, we seek comment on
the appropriateness of requiring them.
We attempted to utilize proposed EPA Method 322 (based on gas
filter correlation infrared spectroscopy) to gather HCl data from lime
kilns and encountered technical problems. These problems included
inadequate data availability, spike recovery, and response time, which
led to our decision in the promulgation of the NESHAP for the portland
cement industry to not finalize EPA Method 322. Today, we are affirming
that decision and propose that Method 322 may not be used to measure
HCl in the determination whether a lime manufacturing plant is an area
source.
Based on the aforementioned difficulties with Method 26 and
proposed Method 322, we propose that the test methods based on fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, EPA Methods 320 and 321, will
be acceptable for measuring HCl from lime kilns if the owner/operator
wishes to
[[Page 78053]]
claim its lime manufacturing facility is not a major source. These FTIR
methods were finalized along with the portland cement industry NESHAP,
and this requirement would be consistent with those NESHAP. (As
mentioned above, we are also proposing to allow sources to use ASTM
Test Method D 6735-01 for the measurement of HCl to determine whether
their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source.)
However, we acknowledge the NLA's concerns about the use of FTIR
during the lime kiln test program. In letters the NLA sent to us, they
suggested that in light of the alleged problems experienced by our test
contractors in using FTIR, we should allow the use of Method 26 for
measurement of HCl emissions from lime kilns. However, we do not
completely agree with their assessment of the asserted difficulties we
experienced with FTIR. Our response to NLA's concerns about FTIR may be
found in the docket to the proposed rule. And despite any alleged
problems with FTIR, we do not consider them to justify the use of
Method 26 until the aforementioned problems with Method 26 can be
resolved.
III. Rationale for Proposed Rule
A. How Did We Determine the Source Category To Regulate?
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs the Agency to list each category
of major sources that emits one or more of the HAP listed in section
112(b) of the CAA. We published an initial list of source categories on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). ``Lime Manufacturing'' is one of the 174
categories of major sources on the initial list. As defined in our
report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category
List'' (EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the lime manufacturing source
category includes any facility engaged in the production of high
calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite. These are the
same applicable lime products as defined in the new source performance
standard (NSPS) for lime manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart
HH) and in the proposed rule.
According to the background document for the initial source
category listing, the listing of lime manufacturing as a major source
category was based on the Administrator's determination that some lime
manufacturing plants would be major sources of chlorine and metal HAP
including, but not limited to, compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. In addition, the
results of emissions testing we conducted in the development of the
proposed rule indicate that many lime manufacturing plants may be major
sources of HCl. Hydrogen chloride emissions from these lime kiln tests
using EPA Method 320 ranged from 0.007 to 2.0 lbs HCl per ton of lime
produced. Assuming an average HCl emission factor of 0.4 lb/ton, a lime
manufacturing plant would only have to produce 50,000 tons of lime per
year (which is a small lime manufacturing plant) for it to be a major
source (for this reason alone).
The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and
existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located
with major sources, or are part of major sources (e.g., steel
production facilities). One exception to this is that lime
manufacturing operations located at pulp and paper mills would not be
subject to the proposed rule. Lime manufacturing operations at pulp and
paper mills would be subject to the NESHAP for combustion sources at
kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills. See 66 FR 3180, January
12, 2001.
Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants would
also not be subject to the NESHAP. Both the lime product and carbon
dioxide in the beet sugar lime kiln exhaust are used in the beet sugar
manufacturing process. Beet sugar lime kiln exhaust is typically routed
through a series of gas washers to clean the exhaust gas prior to
process use. The clean, cooled gas is then added to one or more
carbonation units (which contain a mixture of beet juice, lime, and
water) to provide the carbon dioxide necessary for carbonation and
precipitation of lime, which purifies the beet sugar juice. Although
the carbonation units are part of the sugar manufacturing process, they
would provide additional cleaning of the lime kiln exhaust. Beet sugar
plants typically operate only seasonally, and our analysis indicates
that beet sugar plants are not major sources of HAP.
B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source?
The proposed rule would define the affected source as the lime
manufacturing plant, and would include all of the limestone MPO at a
lime manufacturing plant, beginning with the raw material storage bin,
and all of the lime kilns and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant.
This definition of affected source conforms with the General Provisions
40 CFR 63.2 definition, which essentially states that all emission
units at a plant are to be considered as one affected source.
A new lime manufacturing plant is defined as the collection of any
limestone MPO, beginning with the raw material storage bin, and any
lime kiln or cooler for which construction or reconstruction begins
after December 20, 2002. Thus, it is possible for an existing lime
manufacturing plant and a new lime manufacturing plant to be located at
the same site. This definition of new affected source includes the same
emission units as the existing affected source, except that the new
affected source only includes those emission units for which
construction or reconstruction begins after December 20, 2002. The
definitions are different because the MACT PM emission limit for kilns
and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant is more stringent than
for those at an existing lime manufacturing plant.
In general, the emission units which are included in the definition
of new or existing affected source were selected based on regulatory
history (e.g., the applicability of NSPS and the information included
in the initial source category listing) and to be consistent with other
MACT standards (e.g., the MACT standards for the portland cement
industry).
Although lime coolers were not among the list of emission units in
the background document for the initial source category listing for
lime manufacturing, lime coolers would be an emission unit under the
definition of affected source in the proposed rule. All lime coolers
are integrated with their associated kiln such that most coolers vent
all of their exhaust (if there is an exhaust stream) to the kiln,
although a few lime coolers (e.g., grate coolers) also vent a portion
of their exhaust separately to the atmosphere.
The specific MPO which are included in the affected source
definition include the following emission units: all of the grinding
mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points,
bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket
elevators, and belt conveyors, beginning with the raw material storage
bin and up to the kiln. We define MPO to include these emission units
under the proposed subpart because these units are also subject to the
NSPS for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants (referred to in this
preamble as the NSPS subpart OOO). We specifically solicit comment on
whether raw material storage piles should be included in the affected
source definition.
In today's proposed rule, the first emission unit in the sequence
of MPO which is included in the definition of affected source would be
the raw
[[Page 78054]]
material storage bin. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point
included under the affected source definition would be the transfer
point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw
material storage bin. This demarcation in the sequence of MPO which
defines the first emission unit under the affected source definition is
consistent with the applicability requirements under the NESHAP for the
portland cement industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL.
The MPO emission units that would be excluded from the affected
source definition are described as follows. Any MPO which precedes the
raw material storage bin, such as those in quarry or mine operations,
is not included in the definition of affected source. Any operations
that process only lime product, lime kiln dust, or fuel would be
excluded from the definition. Truck dumping into any screening
operation, feed hopper, or crusher would not be included among the
emission units considered under the affected source definition. (These
exclusions are consistent with the NSPS subpart OOO). Finally, lime
hydrators would not be included as an emission unit under the affected
source definition since all hydrators are controlled by integrated wet
scrubbers, which capture the lime PM (and associated trace metallic
HAP) and recycle the scrubber water. Additionally, this is consistent
with the NSPS subpart HH, which does not apply to lime hydrators.
C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants To Regulate?
The proposed rule would reduce emissions of non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP by limiting emissions of PM from the kiln and
cooler, and certain MPO emission units. Particulate matter is a
surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP that are
always a subset of PM. Controlling PM emissions will control the non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP, since these compounds are
associated with the PM, i.e., they are by definition in the particulate
phase (as opposed to the gaseous form). The available air pollution
controls for the particulate HAP metals at lime manufacturing plants
are the PM controls used at lime manufacturing plants, i.e., FF, ESP,
and wet scrubbers. These at-the-stack controls capture non-volatile and
semi-volatile HAP metals non-preferentially along with other PM, thus
showing why PM is a permissible indicator for these HAP metals. See
National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 639. Also, using PM as a
surrogate for the HAP metals would reduce the cost of emissions testing
and monitoring that would be required to demonstrate compliance with
the otherwise numerous standards that would apply to individual HAP
metals. In addition, several other NESHAP have been promulgated which
use PM as a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals for
the same reason--it is a technically sound surrogate since HAP metals
are necessarily contained in PM, are controlled by PM control devices
to roughly the same efficiency, and there are significant associated
cost savings due to monitoring for one parameter instead of many.
The proposed rule would limit opacity or visible emissions from
certain MPO emission units. Opacity serves as a surrogate for the non-
volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals. Opacity is indicative of PM
emission levels and, thus, for the same reasons that PM is a surrogate
for the particulate HAP metals, opacity would also be a surrogate for
the PM HAP metals. Further, opacity levels are reduced by reducing PM
emissions, which would also reduce the metal HAP in the particulate
phase, i.e., the non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP.
We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns.
Under the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we have determined
that no further control is necessary because HCl is a ``health
threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns are below
the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. The following
explains the statutory basis for considering health thresholds when
establishing standards, and the basis for today's proposed decision,
including a discussion of the risk assessment conducted to support the
ample margin of safety decision.
Section 112 of the CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory
requirement to establish emission standards based on MACT. Of relevance
here, section 112(d)(4) allows us to develop risk-based standards for
HAP ``for which a health threshold has been established'' provided that
the standards achieve an ``ample margin of safety.'' Therefore, we
believe we have the discretion under section 112(d)(4) to develop
standards which may be less stringent than the corresponding floor-
based MACT standards for some categories emitting threshold pollutants.
In deciding standards for this source category, we seek to assure
that emissions from every source in the category result in exposures
less than the threshold level even for an individual exposed at the
upper end of the exposure distribution. The upper end of the exposure
distribution is calculated using the ``high end exposure estimate,''
defined as a plausible estimate of individual exposure for those
persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution, conceptually
above the 90th percentile, but not higher than the individual in the
population who has the highest exposure. We believe that assuring
protection to persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution is
consistent with the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement in section
112(d)(4).
We emphasize that the use of section 112(d)(4) authority is wholly
discretionary. As the legislative history indicates, cases may arise in
which other considerations dictate that we should not invoke this
authority to establish less stringent standards, despite the existence
of a health effects threshold that is not jeopardized. For instance, we
do not anticipate that we would set less stringent standards where
evidence indicates a threat of significant or widespread environmental
effects taking into consideration cost, energy safety and other
relevant factors, although it may be shown that emissions from a
particular source category do not approach or exceed a level requisite
to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. We may also
elect not to set less stringent standards where the estimated health
threshold for a contaminant is subject to large uncertainty. Thus, in
considering appropriate uses of our discretionary authority under
section 112(d)(4), we consider other factors in addition to health
thresholds, including uncertainty and potential ``adverse environmental
effects,'' as that phrase is defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA.
We are proposing in today's notice not to develop standards for HCl
from lime kilns. This decision is based on the following. First, we
consider HCl to be a threshold pollutant. Second, we have defined
threshold values in the form of an Inhalation Reference Concentration
(RfC) and acute exposure guideline level (AEGL). Third, HCl is emitted
from lime kilns in quantities that result in human exposure in the
ambient air at levels well below the threshold values with an ample
margin of safety. Finally, there are no adverse environmental effects
associated with HCl. The bases and supporting rationale for these
conclusions are as follows.
For the purposes of section 112(d)(4), several factors are
considered in our decision on whether a pollutant should be categorized
as a health threshold pollutant. These factors include evidence and
classification of
[[Page 78055]]
carcinogenic risk and evidence of noncarcinogenic effects. For a
detailed discussion of factors that we consider in deciding whether a
pollutant should be categorized as a health threshold pollutant, please
see the April 15, 1998 Federal Register document (63 FR 18766).
In the April 15, 1998 action cited above, we determined that HCl, a
Group D pollutant, is a health threshold pollutant for the purpose of
section 112(d)(4) of the CAA (63 FR 18753).
The NLA conducted a risk assessment to determine whether the
emissions of HCl from lime kilns at the current baseline levels
resulted in exposures below the threshold values for HCl. We reviewed
the risk assessment report prepared by the NLA and believe that it uses
a reasonable and conservative methodology, is consistent with EPA
methodology and practice, and reaches a reasonable conclusion that
current levels of HCl emissions from lime kilns would be well under the
threshold level of concern for human receptors. The summary of the
NLA's assessment is organized as follows: (1) Hazard identification and
dose-response assessment, (2) emissions and release information, and
(3) exposure assessment.
It is important to note that the risk assessment methodology
applied here by NLA should not be interpreted as a standardized
approach that sets a precedent for how EPA will analyze application of
section 112(d)(4) in other cases. The approach presented here,
including assumptions and models, was selected to meet the unique needs
of this particular case, to provide the appropriate level of detail and
margin of safety given the data availability, chemicals, and emissions
particular to this category.
The RfC is a ``long-term'' threshold, defined as an estimate of a
daily inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, would not likely
result in the occurrence of significant noncancer health effects in
humans. We have determined that the RfC for HCl of 20 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) is an appropriate threshold value for
assessing risk to humans associated with exposure to HCl through
inhalation (63 FR 18766, April 15, 1998). Therefore, the NLA used this
RfC as the threshold value in their exposure assessment for HCl emitted
from lime kilns.
In addition to the effects of long-term inhalation of HCl, the NLA,
at our request, also considered thresholds for short-term exposure to
HCl in this assessment. The AEGL toxicity values are estimates of
adverse health effects due to a single exposure lasting 8 hours or
less. The confidence in the AEGL (a qualitative rating or either low,
medium, or high) is based on the number of studies available and the
quality of the data. Consensus toxicity values for effects of acute
exposures have been developed by several different organizations, and
we are beginning to develop such values. A national advisory committee
organized by the EPA has developed AEGL for priority chemicals for 30-
minute, 1-hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour airborne exposures. They have also
determined the levels of these chemicals at each exposure duration that
will protect against discomfort (AEGL1), serious effects (AEGL2), and
life-threatening effects or death (AEGL3). The NLA used the AEGL1 value
as the threshold value for assessing the inhalation health effects of
short-term exposures to HCl.
The NLA conducted dispersion modeling for 71 lime plants and nearly
200 lime kilns, representing all operating captive and commercial lime
plants in the U.S. that would potentially be subject to the proposed
rule. The analyses performed assumed worst case operating scenarios,
such as maximum production rate and 24 hours per day, 365 days per year
operation. Hydrogen chloride emission rates were based on either
measured data or default HCl stack concentrations. For plants having
HCl measurement data, only HCl data collected using FTIR were used. For
plants where no emissions data were available, the following HCl
emission levels were assumed for the analyses: 10 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) for kilns with either scrubbers or preheaters, 18 ppmv
for kilns at Riverton Corporation, 26 ppmv for gas-fired kilns, and 85
ppmv for all other kilns. (The Riverton emission level was derived by
multiplying its stack test results obtained using EPA Method 26 by a
sampling method bias factor of 25. Method 26 may understate actual HCl
emissions by a factor of between 2 and 25.) The HCl emission levels
were converted to stack emission rates using the stack gas volumetric
flow rate.
The release characteristics used for the dispersion model included
stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature, and exit velocity.
Using its own questionnaire, the NLA collected the necessary release
information from all 71 plants. The exposure assessment was conducted
for HCl emissions from all lime plants in the source category. As
discussed above, the emissions data and release characteristics were
used as inputs to the assessment. The approach taken by NLA was found
to be consistent with the EPA's tiered methodology. (See the U.S. EPA
report ``Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of
Stationary Sources (revised)'', report number EPA-454/R-92-019 (1992).)
The approach for each of the facilities involved four steps: Step 1 was
the modeling of HCl concentrations at the point of maximum
concentration, whether occurring on-site or off-site, using SCREEN3, a
screening-level air dispersion model. Step 2 was the same as Step 1,
but modeling was performed at or beyond the fence line. Step 3 was the
same as Step 1, but modeling was performed at the nearest off-site
residence or business location. Step 4 was the modeling of HCl
concentrations at the nearest residence or business location using the
ISC-PRIME model. (ISC-PRIME is a steady-state Gaussian plume model
based on the ISC3 dispersion model, with the Plume RIse Model
Enhancements (PRIME) algorithm added for improved treatment of building
downwash. The model can account for settling and dry deposition;
building downwash; area, line, and volume sources; plume rise as a
function of downwind distance; building dimensions and stack placement
relative to a building; separation of point sources; and limited
terrain adjustment.) Note that each succeeding step involves more
refined site-specific data and less conservative assumptions.
The analyses performed under each of the above steps assumed worst
case operating scenarios, such as maximum production rate, and in Steps
1 through 3 worst case meteorology. Local terrain and building downwash
effects were also considered, and meteorological data were taken from
the nearest National Weather Service meteorological station. Maximum
one hour averages were converted to annual averages using a conversion
factor of 0.08, consistent with EPA recommendations.
The NLA generated estimates of both chronic (annual average) and
acute (one-hour) concentrations for comparison to the relevant health
reference values or threshold levels. Acute and chronic exposures were
compared to the AEGL1 of 2,700 [mu]g/m3 for one-hour
exposures and the RfC of 20 [mu]g/m3 for long-term
continuous exposure, respectively.
Noncancer risk assessments typically use a metric called the Hazard
Quotient (HQ) to assess risks of exposures to noncarcinogens. The HQ is
the ratio of exposure (or modeled concentration) to the health
reference value or threshold level (i.e., RfC or AEGL). HQ values less
than ``1'' indicate that exposures are below the health reference value
or threshold level and are likely to be
[[Page 78056]]
without appreciable risk of adverse effects in the exposed population.
HQ values above ``1'' do not necessarily imply that adverse effects
will occur, but that the potential for risk of such effects increases
as HQ values exceed ``1.'' In addition, when information on background
levels of pollutants is not available, EPA has in some cases considered
a HQ of 0.2 or below to be acceptable.
For the NLA assessment, if the HQ was found to be less than 0.5 for
any of the first three steps using conservative defaults and modeling
assumptions, the analysis concluded with that step. On the other hand,
if the HQ exceeded 0.5, work proceeded to subsequent steps. There were
no facilities where Step 4 (i.e., the most refined step) yielded an HQ
above 0.5. (Steps 1, 2, and 3 are considered ``Tier 2'' analyses under
EPA's tiered modeling approach, whereas Step 4 is considered a ``Tier
3'' analysis.)
To help confirm that NLA's approach was reasonable, we decided to
reproduce several of NLA's modeling analyses by performing our own
analyses for selected facilities having the highest potential for
health risk to the surrounding community. Generally, these were
facilities having the highest emission rates or facilities where Tier 3
modeling was performed for actual off-site receptor locations. Fourteen
kilns with emission rates greater than 5.0 grams/second were evaluated
using the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. For the analyses, plant-
specific parameters were used for source type, emission rate, stack
height, stack inner diameter exit velocity, gas exit temperature, and
location (urban versus rural). Assumptions about flat terrain,
meteorology, and building dimensions were made, as appropriate. For
plants with multiple stacks, emissions were considered to emanate from
one co-located emission point. Then, in order to maintain a
conservative approach, the lowest effective stack height parameters
were utilized for all emissions. The model was run, and maximum
concentrations for distances ranging from 100 to 5,000 meters were
obtained.
To evaluate acute exposure, the HQ was determined by comparing the
maximum concentrations to the HCl acute threshold level of 2,700 [mu]g/
m3. Maximum concentrations were then converted into annual
concentrations, and the HQ was determined by comparing these
concentrations to the HCl chronic health reference value of 20 [mu]g/
m3.
We then used the Human Exposure Model (HEM) to examine seven of the
kilns that were modeled by the NLA using ISC-PRIME. Concentrations were
predicted at geographically-weighted centers of census blocks.
Emissions were assumed to originate from a single stack using the
lowest effective stack height reported at each facility. Six of the
kilns modeled showed values well below the RfC, the highest having an
HQ = 0.11. The seventh indicated an HQ of 0.96. The seventh kiln was
re-simulated using site-specific emissions and stack data, resulting in
an HQ = 0.21. Overall, we believe that the NLA has taken a reasonably
conservative approach in estimating risk due to HCl exposure. This
approach is consistent with the methodology and assumptions EPA would
have used if the study had been done in-house, and in several instances
NLA's approach is even more conservative. Furthermore, EPA conducted a
parallel confirmatory analysis and found results consistent with those
of the NLA assessment.
At this point, it should be noted that the potential for effects
depends on an individual's total exposure to that chemical. As a
result, exposure from all sources, not just the one in question, must
be evaluated. Where possible, other exposures must be accounted for,
either explicitly through monitoring or modeling, or by apportioning a
portion of the health threshold level available to any individual
source. To estimate the potential exposure from other sources, the NLA
reviewed the ambient HCl concentration estimates derived by the air
component of EPA's Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP). They found that
the mean national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of 0.06 and
the 95th percentile national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of
0.2, and they concluded that background HCl exposures were unlikely to
exceed an HQ of 0.2. (These HQ helped confirm that the total HQ for a
facility, including contributions from other sources (``background''),
would not be expected to exceed ``1.'' However, these background HQ
were not actually added into a facility's final HQ estimate.
Thus, we are comfortable with NLA's calculations and feel confident
that exposures to HCl emissions from the facilities in question are
unlikely to ever exceed an HQ of 0.2. Therefore, we believe that the
predicted exposures from these facilities should provide an ample
margin of safety to ensure that total exposures for nearby residents
should not exceed the short-term or long-term health based threshold
levels or health reference values, even when considering the possible
contributions of other sources of HCl or similar respiratory irritants.
The standards for emissions must also protect against significant
and widespread adverse environmental effects to wildlife, aquatic life,
and other natural resources. The NLA did not conduct a formal
ecological risk assessment. However, we have reviewed publications in
the literature to determine if there would be reasonable expectation
for serious or widespread adverse effects to natural resources.
We consider the following aspects of pollutant exposure and
effects: Toxicity effects from acute and chronic exposures to expected
concentrations around the source (as measured or modeled), persistence
in the environment, local and long-range transport, and tendency for
bio-magnification with toxic effects manifest at higher trophic levels.
No research has been identified for effects on terrestrial animal
species beyond that cited in the development of the HCl RfC. Modeling
calculations indicate that there is little likelihood of chronic or
widespread exposure to HCl at concentrations above the threshold around
lime manufacturing plants. Based on these considerations, we believe
that the RfC can reasonably be expected to protect against widespread
adverse effects in other animal species as well.
Plants also respond to airborne HCl levels. Chronic exposure to
about 600 [mu]g/m3 can be expected to result in discernible
effects, depending on the plant species. Plants respond differently to
HCl as an anhydrous gas than to HCl aerosols. Relative humidity is
important in plant response; there appears to be a threshold of
relative humidity above which plants will incur twice as much damage at
a given dose. Effects include leaf injury and decrease in chlorophyll
levels in various species given acute, 20-minute exposures of 6,500 to
27,000 [mu]g/m\3\. A field study reports different sensitivity to
damage of foliage in 50 species growing in the vicinity of an anhydrous
aluminum chloride manufacturer. American elm, bur oak, eastern white
pine, basswood, red ash and several bean species were observed to be
most sensitive. Concentrations of HCl in the air were not reported.
Chloride ion in whole leaves was 0.2 to 0.5 percent of dry weight;
sensitive species showed damage at the lower value, but tolerant
species displayed no injury at the higher value. Injury declined with
distance from the source with no effects observed beyond 300 meters.
Maximum modeled long-term HCl concentrations (less than 10 [mu]g/
m3) are well below the 600 [mu]g/m3 chronic
threshold, and the maximum short-term HCl concentration (540 [mu]g/
m3) is far
[[Page 78057]]
below the 6,500 [mu]g/m3 acute exposure threshold.
Therefore, no adverse exposure effects are anticipated.
Prevailing meteorology strongly determines the fate of HCl in the
atmosphere. However, HCl is not considered a strongly persistent
pollutant, or one where long range transport is important in predicting
its ecological effects. In the atmosphere, HCl can be expected to be
absorbed into aqueous aerosols, due to its great affinity for water,
and removed from the troposphere by rainfall. In addition, HCl will
react with hydroxy ions to yield water plus chloride ions. However, the
concentration of hydroxy ions in the troposphere is low, so HCl may
have a relatively long residence time in areas of low humidity. No
studies are reported of HCl levels in ponds or other small water bodies
or soils near major sources of HCl emissions. Toxic effects of HCl to
aquatic organisms would likely be due to the hydronium ion, or acidity.
Aquatic organisms in their natural environments often exhibit a broad
range of pH tolerance. Effects of HCl deposition to small water bodies
and to soils will primarily depend on the extent of neutralizing by
carbonates or other buffering compounds. Chloride ions are essentially
ubiquitous in natural waters and soils so minor increases due to
deposition of dissolved HCl will have much less effect than the
deposited hydronium ions. Deleterious effects of HCl on ponds and
soils, where such effects might be found near a major source emitting
to the atmosphere, likely will be local rather than widespread, as
observed in plant foliage.
Effects of HCl on tissues are generally restricted to those
immediately affected and are essentially acidic effects. The rapid
solubility of HCl in aqueous media releases hydronium ions, which can
be corrosive to tissue when above a threshold concentration. The
chloride ions may be concentrated in some plant tissues, but may be
distributed throughout the organism, as most organisms have chloride
ions in their fluids. Leaves or other tissues exposed to HCl may show
some concentration above that of their immediate environment; that is,
some degree of bioconcentration can occur. However, long-term storage
in specific organs and biomagnification of concentrations of HCl in
trophic levels of a food chain would not be expected. Thus, the
chemical nature of HCl results in deleterious effects, that when
present, are local rather than widespread.
In conclusion, acute and chronic exposures to expected HCl
concentrations around the source are not expected to result in adverse
toxicity effects. Hydrogen chloride is not persistent in the
environment. Effects of HCl on ponds and soils are likely to be local
rather than widespread. Finally, HCl is not believed to result in
biomagnification or bioaccumulation in the environment. Therefore, we
do not anticipate any adverse ecological effects from HCl.
The results of the exposure assessment showed that exposure levels
to baseline HCl emissions from lime production facilities are well
below the health threshold value. Additionally, the threshold values,
for which the RfC and AEGL values were determined to be appropriate
values, were not exceeded when considering conservative estimates of
exposure resulting from lime kiln emissions as well as considering
background exposures to HCl and therefore, represent an ample margin of
safety. Furthermore, no significant or widespread adverse environmental
effects from HCl is anticipated. Therefore, under authority of section
112(d)(4), we have determined that further control of HCl emissions
from lime manufacturing plants is not necessary.
We considered establishing a limit for mercury emissions from lime
kilns, but there is no MACT floor for mercury--that is, we know of no
way to establish an achievable floor standard for mercury beyond
selecting an arbitrarily high emission limit that any source could
achieve under any circumstance since no source controls mercury
emissions using a means of control that can be duplicated by other
sources. We also have initially determined that an emission limit for
mercury based on a beyond-the-MACT-floor option is not considered cost
effective at this time; nor is a beyond-the-floor standard justified
for mercury after otherwise taking into account cost, non-air quality
environmental and health impacts, and energy considerations.
D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at Existing
Lime Manufacturing Plants?
1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler
In establishing the MACT floor, section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA
directs us to set standards for existing sources that are no less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved in practice by
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which there are
emissions data) where there are more than 30 sources in the category or
subcategory. Among the possible meanings for the word ``average'' as
the term is used in the CAA, we considered two of the most common.
First, ``average'' could be interpreted as the arithmetic mean. The
arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the measurements
divided by the number of measurements in the set. The word ``average''
could also be interpreted as the median of the emission limitation
values. The median is the value in a set of measurements below and
above which there are an equal number of values (when the measurements
are arranged in order of magnitude). This approach identifies the
emission limitation achieved by those sources within the top 12
percent, arranges those emissions limitations achieved in order of
magnitude, and the control level achieved by, and achievable by, the
median source is selected. Either of these two approaches could be used
in developing MACT standards for different source categories.
We obtained PM data for 47 lime kilns over the course of developing
the proposed rule. The most comprehensive body of data, and we believe
the one that most accurately approximates the performance achieved by,
and achievable by, the average of the best 12 percent of existing
sources for which the Agency has emission data, are PM limitations
contained in State and local agency permits for these sources. We used
the permit limitations for the kilns (along with the supporting PM
emissions data) in our MACT floor analysis because the permit
limitations were indicative of the variability in the long-term
performance of the emission controls. We examined multiple sets of PM
emissions data obtained from the individual kilns during compliance
testing to assure that the permit limitations do not underestimate the
pollution control capabilities of these sources (i.e., that actual
performance is not superior to the permit limits, in which case the
MACT floor would need to be based on that superior performance; see
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 661-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
Simply taking the average or mean of the lowest 12 percent of the
emissions data (without considering permit limitations, i.e.,
achievability of the technology over the long-term) would not account
for the inherent variability of performance of well-designed and
operated emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based
on short durations of sampling, typically 3 hour tests (because of the
absence of PM continuous emissions monitors) and, thus, we would be
required to extrapolate these ``snapshot'' data to ascertain long-term
achievable performance. Additionally, we obtained multiple compliance
test data for the
[[Page 78058]]
top performing kilns (where available); some of the kilns' data vary
over two orders of magnitude and vary up to their permit limit.
Further, these multiple data sets indicate that some of these top
performing kilns would not be able to meet an emission limit based on a
strictly arithmetic average of the top performing kilns' emissions data
(the result being a standard not achieved by the average of the best
performing sources, and hence impermissible).
We arrayed the data by permit limitation, from lowest to highest,
in units of lbs PM/ton of limestone feed, along with the associated PM
emissions test data. The best performing 12 percent of the 47 kilns are
the best performing six kilns, with the third and fourth best
performing kilns being the median. The six best performing kilns'
permit limits for PM are 0.10, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.21, and 0.21 lb/ton
limestone feed and are equipped with either a FF or ESP. The emission
test data associated with these kilns indicate that these kilns have
indeed achieved the limits in their State permits. The test data for
the kilns permitted at or below 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone vary from
0.0091 to 0.0925 lb PM/ton limestone. We do not believe that these
kilns could consistently achieve standards which are lower than the
permit limitation of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone level, due to the
probable long-term variability. Therefore, we are proposing a MACT
floor PM emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone for lime kilns at
existing lime plants, using the median approach of the permit limits,
which the associated emissions data show to be achievable and show as
well to be a reasonable approximation of the achievable performance of
the average of the best performing 12 percent of kilns for which we
have emissions data, taking into consideration long-term variability in
performance.
Most lime coolers (approximately 96 percent) in the lime
manufacturing industry use ambient air for cooling and are integrated
with the kiln such that all the cooler exhaust goes directly to the
kiln for use as combustion air, or else the cooling of the lime takes
place within the kiln itself (e.g., in vertical kilns). Thus, for 96
percent of the lime kilns, their emissions are actually the kiln and
cooler emissions combined. The kiln PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/ton
limestone is based on kiln permit limits and associated emissions data
where the kiln and cooler emissions are combined. That is, based on our
review of the questionnaire responses, discussions with plant
personnel, and State permit information, none of the best performing
kilns has a lime cooler with a separate exhaust to the atmosphere.
Thus, the kiln PM emission limit applies to the emissions from both the
kiln and cooler. For the 96 percent of the kilns with no separate
cooler exhaust, this would have no effect; that is, the coolers'
emissions are already combined with the kiln prior to venting to the
atmosphere. For the few kilns with grate coolers that separately vent a
portion of the cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, the sum of the
emissions from the kiln(s) and the grate cooler exhaust(s) at the
existing lime manufacturing plant would be subject to the kiln and
cooler emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone feed. With this
approach, the emissions from the kiln and cooler are subject to one
emission limit, regardless of whether the kiln and cooler emissions are
combined prior to release to the atmosphere. This reflects the
performance achieved by, and achievable by (taking operating
variability into account), the median of the 12 percent best performing
kilns for which the Agency has emissions data. Further, since we have
defined the affected source to include all kilns and coolers at a lime
manufacturing plant, the kiln and cooler PM emission limit applies to
the combined emissions of PM from all of the kilns and coolers at the
existing lime manufacturing plant.
During the review of a draft of this proposal by the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, an issue was raised about the potential
for increases in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and HCl emissions that
may occur if sources opt to remove existing PM wet scrubbers and
replace them with dry PM control devices (such as FF or ESP) in order
to meet the proposed kiln PM standard. About 20 percent of the lime
produced in the U.S. is from kilns equipped with wet scrubbers, and
about 90 percent of the wet scrubbers on lime kilns at major source
lime plants would not meet the proposed PM limit. And although the
proposed rule would not dictate how the lime kiln PM standard would
have to be met, and our limited information indicates that one or two
lime kilns with wet scrubbers may already meet the proposed PM standard
(this may be because they burn natural gas as their primary fuel
source), some sources may elect to upgrade their existing wet scrubber
with a new venturi wet scrubber to meet the PM standard, while other
existing sources that would not meet the proposed PM emission limit
with a wet scrubber may opt to replace the wet scrubber with a FF. But
because wet scrubbers are more effective than a FF or ESP at removing
SO2 (and HCl), the SBAR Panel was concerned that the latter
approach would result in increases in SO2 emissions from
these kilns. Therefore, we request comment on establishing a
subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl
emissions and other negative environmental impacts (discussed further
below) that may result in complying with the proposed PM standard. We
note, however, that the risk analysis showed that HCl levels emitted
from lime kilns (including the increased HCl levels from kilns with wet
scrubbers that are replaced with FF) are below the threshold value
within an ample margin of safety.
Although subcategorization normally is based on differences in
manufacturing process, emission characteristics, or technical
feasibility, and is not justified by the sole fact that a different
type of air pollution control equipment is utilized, EPA solicits
comment on the possibility of establishing a subcategory for existing
lime kilns using wet scrubbers in order to avoid potentially
environmentally counterproductive effects due to increased emissions of
acid gases and increased water and energy use. (Such a subcategory
would also significantly reduce the cost impact on industry.) In
addition, we request comment on what the MACT floor PM limit would be
for this possible subcategory. If we based the MACT floor for this
possible subcategory on an inspection of the permit limit information
available to us, we would initially conclude that a PM emission limit
of 0.6 lb PM/ton limestone feed may be appropriate. We note, however,
that in order to use permit limits as a basis for a MACT floor
determination, those permit limits must accurately reflect the actual
performance of the sources used as the basis for the MACT floor
determination (considering both emission levels and operating
variability when designed and operated properly). We, therefore,
solicit information both on PM permit limits for wet scrubber equipped
kilns and on the actual emissions from those kilns. Lastly, at the
recommendation of the SBAR Panel, we specifically request comment on
any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial
constraints that would preclude installation of a FF or ESP at an
existing lime manufacturing plant.
We note, however, that following the SBAR panel, the NLA brought to
our attention the fact that if sources replace their wet scrubbers with
FF to comply with the kiln PM standard, they would most likely also
need to take steps to cool the exhaust gas stream entering the FF,
since the operating temperature of a FF may be 400[deg] less than a wet
scrubber.
[[Page 78059]]
Cooling the gas stream as such may be done using various techniques,
all with varying environmental and cost impacts. In light of this new
information presented by NLA, we analyzed the costs of three PM control
options available to sources with wet scrubbers that do not currently
meet the proposed PM limit. Sources could elect to replace the existing
wet scrubber with a new FF and cool the entering exhaust gas stream
using either a water spray system or alternatively a kiln preheater. Or
sources may elect to replace the existing wet scrubber with a new
venturi wet scrubber and thereby avoid the need for gas stream cooling.
Based on our review of the technical performance of venturi scrubbers,
we believe that a new, high efficiency venturi wet scrubber with a gas
stream pressure drop of 35 inches water guage or more could meet the
proposed lime kiln PM emission limit.
After reviewing the cost impacts of these control options, we chose
the venturi wet scrubber as the basis for estimating the proposed
rule's impacts (for kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed
PM limit) because, in general, this option was the least expensive in
terms of capital cost and, in some cases, annual cost as well. We
request comment on our cost analyses of these control options (the
details of which may be found in the docket) and on our determination
to base the impacts estimates of the proposed rule on this venturi
scrubber control option. We also acknowledge that the NLA's cost
estimates lead them to conclude that it may be less expensive for
sources to install a FF with gas stream cooling rather than install new
venturi wet scrubbers.
In addition, there would be different emission and environmental
impacts depending on the control option selected by sources with
existing wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed PM limit. For the
control option of a wet scrubber being replaced with a new FF, we
estimate that national HCl emissions would increase by about 1,000
tons/yr, and national SO2 emissions would increase by about
15,000 tons/yr. The NLA commented during the SBAR Panel that the
resulting SO2 increases under this option could cause a lime
plant to become subject to new source review (NSR) rule requirements,
and the source would, thus, incur additional costs associated with this
review. Sources utilizing this control option may or may not be
excluded from NSR if it is a pollution control project. Under the
current NSR rules and guidance, a net emissions increase of 40 tons/yr
SO2 would trigger NSR even if this increase was due to a
pollution control project, unless the control project qualified for a
Pollution Control Project Exclusion. The EPA is currently revising the
NSR rules. Finally, no change in SO2 or HCl emissions would
be expected for sources that replace existing wet scrubbers with new
venturi wet scrubbers. With no resultant SO2 emissions
increases, it would be unlikely that sources would seek an NSR
exclusion.
We also acknowledge there would be additional negative
environmental impacts if all kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the
proposed PM limit are replaced with new venturi wet scrubbers. These
impacts would include an increase in national water consumption by
about 4.2 billion gallons per year from current levels, and an increase
in electricity consumption by about 7.2 million kilowatt-hours/yr.
(Industry estimates that along with this additional electricity
consumption, an additional 8,000 tons/yr of carbon dioxide would be
emitted from fossil fuel fired electrical power generating stations.)
These increases result from the new venturi wet scrubbers requiring a
higher water flow rate and larger fans to handle the increased gas
pressure drop. We note, however, that with a higher PM limit for a
possible wet scrubber subcategory, national PM emissions from lime
kilns would be approximately 1,000 tons/yr greater than if there were
no subcategory.
2. Mercury From the Kiln
Mercury emitted from lime kilns originates from the raw materials
and fuels fed to the kiln. In considering a potential floor for mercury
from these emission units, we considered both at-the-stack controls and
substitution of feed and fuels as a potential basis for a standard.
Since no sources are controlling the mercury emissions from their lime
kilns using at-the-stack controls, such control cannot be the basis for
a floor standard.
Switching of raw material feed or fuel is also not a basis for
establishing a floor standard because these means of control are not
available, leading to unachievable standards. Nor is there any
indication that feed or fuel substitution would control mercury
emissions from these sources. The reasons for these conclusions are set
out below.
Substitution of raw materials, i.e., feedstock substitution, is not
an available means of control. First, raw materials are proprietary. No
kiln can use another's raw materials. Thus, a standard based on feed
control is not achievable because it is not even available. No second
kiln could duplicate a ``low mercury'' source's performance, even
assuming there was a low mercury source of feed material. In addition,
we are aware of no data or information indicating that a certain type
of limestone or source of limestone has a lower concentration of
mercury, and although such deposits may exist, we do not believe such
deposits of limestone exist sufficiently throughout the U.S. to supply
the industry. Further, assuming there was a widespread source of
limestone with a lower level of mercury (which is highly unlikely), it
is unclear that this would lead to lower mercury emissions (or what the
reductions of mercury emissions would be), since mercury emissions from
lime kilns also originate from the fuel.
A floor standard based on substitution of so-called clean mercury
fossil fuels is likewise not achievable due to unavailability of this
means of control. The floor for existing sources would have to be based
on either coal or natural gas substitution since there are enough
sources using coal or natural gas to constitute a MACT floor for
existing kilns. However, there are simply inadequate amounts of ``low
mercury'' coal and natural gas available to power this industry. Thus,
we see no feasible way for the lime industry to function if it can only
use the 6 percent ``cleanest'' fuels to make its product. See H.R. Rep.
No. 101-490, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 328 (``MACT is not intended * * * to
drive sources to the brink of shutdown'').
Nor do we see any evidence that ``low mercury'' coal exists. Our
analysis shows that the average mercury levels for the various coal
types--bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coals--are nearly the
same at around 0.1 part per million by weight. These data show that
there is not a certain type of coal that has a lower mercury level.
Also, based on the data in the EPA Utility Study and Report to
Congress, emissions of other HAP metals would or could increase if coal
or oil were to be substituted to try and achieve lower mercury
emissions. These data indicate that levels of HAP metals in coal are so
variable that decreases in emissions of one HAP metal are offset by
increases in others when different coals are used as fuel. These data
also show that if fuel oil is substituted for coal, nickel emissions
will increase because fuel oil typically contains more nickel than
coal. Thus, based on these data, we believe that fuel switching among
coal and oil is not an effective means of controlling HAP metal
emissions (including mercury), even if this were an available means of
control.
For new as well as existing kilns, we considered basing the floor
for mercury
[[Page 78060]]
on the use of natural gas, although the few mercury emissions data we
have cannot allow us to definitively state what effect fuel type has on
emissions. However, we do not regard natural gas fuel substitution as
an available technology for new sources. Natural gas is not readily
available throughout the U.S., i.e., the infrastructure for its
delivery (pipelines, pumping stations, etc.) is not available for all
locations where lime manufacturing plants exist and is not expected to
be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the
U.S. Although U.S. natural gas reserves may be considered plentiful,
the gas still needs to be extracted through drilling and the
construction of wells. Thus, for plants located far from a natural gas
pipeline, natural gas is not a reasonable alternative. Additionally,
although the infrastructure (pipelines, wells, storage facilities) can
be built, the delivery capacity will likely not be available to
accommodate a fuel switch to natural gas within the time frame by which
new kilns would have to comply.
We note further that the amounts of mercury emitted by these kilns
is small, roughly one pound per plant per year. Although the floor
provisions of the CAA do not provide a de minimis exception to
establishing floors, see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640, the
small amounts of mercury emitted reinforce the Agency's technical
determinations that control via substitutions of feed or fuel are
neither feasible nor likely to be effective since random variability in
these feed and fuels will likely result in equal amounts of mercury
being emitted in any case. Indeed, it is the Agency's view that not
even a single source could reliably duplicate its own performance for
mercury due to the small amounts emitted and the random variability of
fuels and feed.
3. PM and Opacity From MPO
There are numerous types of MPO such as grinding mills, storage
bins, conveying systems (such as bucket elevators and belt conveyors),
transfer points, and screening operations at each lime manufacturing
plant. We investigated whether there were any MPO subject to standards
more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO, or otherwise performing with
consistently lower emissions than required by the NSPS (i.e.,
performing at a lower level without being subject to a regulatory
limit), that would serve as a basis for a MACT floor. To this end, we
reviewed the applicable requirements for lime manufacturing plants
located in nonattainment areas for PM10 (particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns), since
presumably these areas of the U.S. would be the most likely to have
more stringent PM emission limitations. We found seven lime
manufacturing plants located in PM10 nonattainment areas. The
information available to us on these plants indicated that no MPO were
subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or
otherwise performing better. We believe that the NSPS subpart OOO
standards reasonably reflect the level of performance achieved by, and
achievable by, the average of the best performing 12 percent of
sources.
The basis for the MACT floor for these emission units is the NSPS
subpart OOO as it has been applied to lime manufacturing plants, which
serves as a reasonable measure of the performance of the average of the
best performing sources. The NSPS subpart OOO sets PM, opacity, and
visible emission limits for limestone MPO that were constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August 31, 1983. We investigated
whether enough of these MPO are located at lime manufacturing plants
subject to the NSPS subpart OOO to make a MACT floor determination.
Using the median approach to determining MACT floors, at least 6
percent would need to be subject to the NSPS subpart OOO.
In one approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime
manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, we
estimate that there are 104 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S., and
that at least seven of these were built after August 31, 1983. All of
the MPO associated with these new, greenfield lime manufacturing plants
that were built after August 31, 1983, would be subject to the NSPS
subpart OOO. Therefore, at least 6.7 percent (7/104) of the MPO are
subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, enough for the NSPS subpart OOO to
serve as a basis for the MACT floor.
In another approach to estimating the percentage of lime
manufacturing plant MPO that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, our
information shows that at least 31 lime kilns were constructed after
August 31, 1983, out of a total of about 257 lime kilns in the U.S.
Assuming that the MPO associated with these new lime kilns are also
new, we estimate that 12.1 percent (31/257) of the MPO are subject to
the NSPS subpart OOO.
Thus, with either approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime
manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, there
are enough to support a MACT floor determination. Therefore, the MACT
floor for MPO is equivalent to the NSPS subpart OOO.
E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at New Lime
Manufacturing Plants?
The CAA requires the MACT floor for new sources to be based on the
degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source.
For HAP metals emissions from MPO at new lime manufacturing plants,
the floor is the NSPS subpart OOO (the same as for MPO at existing lime
manufacturing plants). As discussed previously, we investigated whether
there were any MPO subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS
subpart OOO, or were emitting at lower rates without being subject to
some type of regulatory standards, that would serve as a basis for MACT
for new sources. The information available to us indicates that no MPO
are subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or
otherwise performing better. Therefore, the floor is the NSPS subpart
OOO.
For HAP metals emissions from kilns and coolers, the floor for
those at new lime manufacturing plants is defined by the permit limits
and emissions data for PM, where PM is a surrogate for non-mercury HAP
metals. As previously described in this preamble, the MACT floor PM
emission limit for lime kilns and coolers at existing lime
manufacturing plants would be 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone. This
determination was based on the median approach, i.e., on the third best
kiln permit limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone. For kilns at new lime
manufacturing plants, MACT is based on the best controlled similar
source, which is the kiln permitted at the lowest emission limit (i.e.,
0.10 lb PM/ton limestone). Test data for this kiln indicated that the
emission level was 0.0925 lb PM/ton, demonstrating that this permit
limit is indeed achievable, and that the permit level reasonably
approximates the level of performance that is consistently achievable
by this kiln (so that a lower floor level would not be technically
justified). Therefore, the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a
new lime manufacturing plant is 0.10 lb/ton stone feed. As with the
existing sources, this emission limit applies to the combined emissions
from all of the kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant.
As previously described and for the same reasons that there is no
MACT floor for mercury for kilns at existing lime manufacturing plants,
and the
[[Page 78061]]
beyond-the-MACT-floor options considered for kilns at existing lime
manufacturing plants are not justified, there is no MACT for mercury
for kilns at new sources.
F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?
Raw material feed or fuel switching may be considered potential
beyond-the-floor options for mercury, but as previously stated, no data
or information is available indicating that a certain type of limestone
or source of limestone has a lower concentration of mercury or is
generally available throughout the country. In addition, even if
deposits of limestone with low levels of mercury were to be found, it
is unlikely that the limestone would be in close proximity to the
majority of lime manufacturing plants in the U.S. and, thus, the cost
of transporting the limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be
prohibitively expensive. (There would also be increased energy use
associated with this option in the form of increased fuel use to
transport raw materials.) Most, if not all, lime manufacturing plants
are sited and located adjacent to or in close proximity to their source
of limestone (usually a quarry or mine) to avoid the high cost of
transporting the material.
Regarding fuel switching as a possible mercury MACT floor or
beyond-the-MACT-floor option for existing or new kilns, using a fuel
with a lower level of mercury, such as natural gas (instead of coal),
may result in lower lime kiln mercury emissions. However, there are no
data available to quantify what the emissions reductions would be since
our analysis indicates that most mercury emissions originate from the
limestone feed material (compared with coal), and so the emissions
reductions that would be achieved via switching from coal to natural
gas are uncertain.
Further, as explained above, natural gas is not readily available
throughout the U.S. (i.e., the infrastructure for its delivery
(pipelines, pumping stations, etc.)), is not available for all
locations where lime manufacturing plants exist, and is not expected to
be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the
U.S.
We considered another beyond-the-MACT-floor option based on
activated carbon injection--a mercury control technology currently used
on various types of waste combustors. However, based on the already
relatively low levels of mercury emissions from lime kilns, we expect
that relatively low emissions reductions would be achieved from this
technology. (Use of activated carbon injection also generates a
mercury-bearing waste stream to be disposed of.) The few mercury
emissions data available (four data points) range from 0.7 to 2.5
micrograms/dry standard cubic meter (referenced to 7 percent oxygen).
These uncontrolled levels are 10 to 100 times lower than the mercury
emission standards established for various types of waste combustors
and translate to an average annual emission rate of approximately 1 lb/
year per lime kiln. Thus, this beyond-the-floor-control option would
not be cost-effective because of the low emissions reductions expected
and the high cost of control. Further, use of activated carbon
generates an additional waste to be disposed of, and there are
increases in energy use associated with the technology. After
considering cost, energy, and non-air human health and environmental
impacts, our initial conclusion is that basing beyond-the-floor
standards for mercury on use of activated carbon is not warranted.
For HAP metal (PM) emissions from the kiln and MPO, no technologies
were identified that would perform better than the technologies
representative of the MACT floors that were determined.
Raw material feed or fuel switching is not a beyond-the-MACT-floor
option for PM control from lime kilns, for reasons similar as to why it
is not an option for mercury control. Regarding feed material
switching, no data or information is available indicating that using a
certain type or source of limestone would have a lower HAP metals
content or would lead to reduced PM emissions. We do not believe that
such deposits of limestone exist or that use of a certain type of
limestone would consistently result in lower PM or metals emissions.
Further, assuming there was a widespread source of limestone with a
lower HAP metals content (which is highly unlikely), it is unclear that
this would lead to lower HAP metals emissions (or what the reductions
of the HAP metals emissions would be) since HAP metals emissions from
lime kilns would also originate from the fuel. In addition, even if
deposits of limestone with low levels of HAP metals or a lower PM-
producing limestone were to be found, the cost of transporting the
limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be prohibitively
expensive. In addition, as noted earlier, there would be increased
energy usage associated with the transport of large amounts of raw
materials.
Regarding fuel switching as a possible beyond-the-MACT-floor option
for HAP metals, using a fuel with a lower level of metals, such a
natural gas (compared to coal), may result in lower lime kiln metals
emissions. However, there are insufficient data available to quantify
what the emissions reductions would be, since as we described above,
lime kiln metals emissions also originate from the limestone feed
material. Further, natural gas is not readily available throughout the
U.S. (i.e., the infrastructure for its delivery (pipelines, pumping
stations, etc.)) and may not be available for all locations where lime
manufacturing plants exist. Further, the cost of using natural gas may
be prohibitively expensive as the cost of natural gas continues to rise
as the growing demand for it rises as well. We do not regard this as an
available means of control for this source category. See also the
discussion above as to why the use of natural gas is not a viable
control option for mercury; this rationale also applies to the use of
natural gas as a beyond-the-floor option for PM and non-mercury HAP
metals. Consequently, we are not proposing any beyond-the-floor
standard for HAP metal control based on requiring the use of natural
gas rather than other fossil fuels.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing that the floor standard for
mercury reflect no existing reduction and after considering the factors
set out in CAA section 112 (d)(2), that no beyond-the-floor
alternatives are achievable.
G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
The formats selected for the proposed emission limits vary
according to the emission source, pollutant, and the MACT basis for the
limits. The formats selected include a production-based emission limit,
pollutant concentration limits, and opacity limits.
For the kiln PM standard, the ``lb PM/ton limestone'' format was
selected to be consistent with the NSPS for lime manufacturing plants,
40 CFR 60, subpart HH. This format also encourages kiln energy
efficiency. A more energy efficient kiln emits less exhaust gas per ton
of limestone processed, which results in a higher gas concentration of
PM compared to a less energy efficient kiln for the same amount of lime
produced and PM emitted. A concentration format (e.g., grains PM/dry
standard cubic foot) would penalize more energy efficient kilns.
For the PM and opacity standards for MPO, a concentration format
for PM and the opacity limit requirements were selected to be
consistent with the NSPS for nonmetallic minerals processing, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOO.
[[Page 78062]]
H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements for
Determining Compliance With the Proposed Rule?
1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler
Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct a PM performance
test and concurrently measure the stone feed rate to the kiln during
the test. If you operate a lime cooler associated with the kiln being
tested that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would be
required to conduct a Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) test on
the cooler's exhaust concurrently with the kiln Method 5 test. Method 5
is the long-standing EPA method for measuring PM emissions from
stationary sources.
For each kiln with an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP operating
parameters in lieu of using a PM detector or a COMS, you would be
required to collect and record the input voltage and current to each
electrical field of the ESP during the PM performance test, and then
determine the 3-hour operating limit for each parameter for each
electrical field based on these data. We expect that most lime
manufacturing plants with ESP already monitor the electrical current
and voltage, which provides an indication of the ESP performance and
consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance
demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling
average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP
greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each
field of the ESP as established during the performance test. You would
be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. A
3-hour rolling average was selected to be consistent with the usual 3-
hour time required for the PM test (three test runs of at least 1
hour).
You would also have the option of monitoring PM emissions from an
ESP with a PM detector, in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters. Sources
may determine that this would allow them greater operational
flexibility. These devices would be similar to the BLDS for FF, which
are discussed below, but they are based on light scattering technology
(and not the triboelectric technology).
For each kiln with a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect
and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and
the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test, and then
establish the 3-hour operating limit for each of these parameters based
on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate are the scrubber operating
parameters most often monitored and provide an indication of the
scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For
continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain
the 3-hour rolling average pressure drop and flow rate greater than or
equal to the operating limit established for these parameters during
the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the
data as previously described.
For kilns and lime coolers (if the cooler has a separate exhaust to
the atmosphere) controlled by a FF, if you choose not to use a COMS,
you would be required to install a BLDS. These systems are usually
based on either triboelectric, electrodynamic, or light scattering
technology and provide an indication of relative changes in particle
mass loading. Leaks in filter bags or similar failures can be detected
early enough to warn if additional inspection and preventative
maintenance are needed to avoid major FF failures and excessive
emissions. When the system detects an increase in relative PM emissions
greater than a preset level, an alarm sounds automatically. The FF
would be required to then be inspected to determine if corrective
action is necessary. We believe that the monitoring of PM via BLDS is
more appropriate, i.e., a better technique, than monitoring FF
operating parameters such as pressure drop. Some other MACT standards
require the use of these types of monitors.
It should be noted that BLDS would also be required on positive
pressure FF, which typically have multiple stacks. We specifically seek
comment on the feasibility, practicality, and cost of using BLDS for
these types of FF; and on alternative monitoring options for positive
pressure FF that will provide a continuous indication of a kiln or
cooler's compliance status with regard to PM. We also seek comment on
whether EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 (manual observation
of opacity) should be allowed in lieu of BLDS for positive pressure FF.
We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) as a method to assure
continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits for lime
kilns and coolers. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the cost
of PM CEMS, and the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM
emission limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and
averaging time of a CEMS-based PM emission limit, the methodology for
deriving the limit from the available data for lime kilns, and any
additional emissions reductions that could be expected as a result of
using a PM CEMS.
We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance
of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and
through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is
sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on lime kilns. See the
revisions we made to the performance specification for PM CEMS
(Performance Specification 11 (PS-11), 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and
Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) at 66 FR 64176, December 12,
2001.
During the review of a draft of the proposed rule by the SBAR
Panel, small entity representatives and some Panel members requested
that we consider allowing COMS in lieu of requiring BLDS and other
monitoring requirements for PM. The proposed rule would allow the use
of COMS as an alternative to BLDS, PM detectors, or the monitoring of
ESP operating parameters. However, we request summary data on lime kiln
opacity levels measured with a COMS, and we request information on the
applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of using COMS and BLDS
(such as each method's sensitivity or lack of sensitivity, availability
and quality of promulgated or approved specifications and procedures to
verify initial performance, potential interferences or other quality
assurance problems, inapplicability to certain APCD designs or
configurations, cost, and precision and accuracy relative to the
operating system to be monitored and the standards to be proposed).
The proposed rule would allow sources with FF or ESP to comply with
a 15 percent opacity operating limit, as an alternative to using a
BLDS, a PM detector, or the use of ESP operating parameters. We request
comment on using a COMS to monitor opacity as an emission limit (which
would act as a surrogate for HAP metals emissions), rather than as an
operating limit, and what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit would
be. The range of opacity levels under consideration as the MACT floor
opacity limit for lime kilns would be between 10 and 15 percent.
Sensitivity for COMS is dependent on the path length that the light
beam measures; the longer the path length, the more sensitive the
measurement. Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix B, gives the performance criteria for COMS used to measure
opacity for opacity limitation standards
[[Page 78063]]
but we recognize that there are potential measurement errors associated
with monitoring opacity in stacks, especially for emission units
subject to opacity limits less than 10 percent. The uncertainties in
measurement accuracy result from the following: (1) The unavailability
of calibration attenuators for opacity levels below 6 percent; (2) the
error associated with the calibration error allowances, the zero and
upscale drift specifications, the mandatory drift adjustment levels,
and the imprecision associated with the allowed compensation for dirt
accumulation; and (3) the minimum full scale range of 80 percent
required of COMS in PS-1. Because of these aforementioned limitations,
COMS are generally considered good ``catastrophic'' control equipment
indicators using opacity generally above levels greater than 10 percent
opacity.
A 15 percent opacity level is the opacity limit under the NSPS for
lime kilns (40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) and based on a preliminary
analysis, may also be the median opacity permit limit for the six top
performing lime kilns. In addition, the NLA provided information
indicating that the opacity level of one of the top performing lime
kilns (in terms of PM emissions and permit limit) often varies between
10 and 15 percent. Finally, we acknowledge that other MACT standards,
such as the Petroleum Refinery MACT (67 FR 17761) and the Secondary
Aluminum MACT (65 FR 15690), have allowed the use of COMS. In the
Petroleum Refinery MACT, the rule allows sources the option to comply
with the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) emission limitations (which
includes various opacity limits for certain emission units) in order to
comply with the MACT standard.
Another approach to using a COMS that was raised by some SBAR Panel
members was to use it in a way similar to how a BLDS would be used to
indicate the need for inspection and maintenance of the PM control
device. Under this approach, we would specify a time period over which
a significant increase in opacity level would trigger inspection of the
PM control device for leaks or other malfunctions and maintenance (if
needed). We recognize that the COMS currently being used in the lime
manufacturing industry have a potential for error at opacities below 10
percent, and that the relevant range of opacities for the
aforementioned application would be below 10 percent. If COMS were
allowed under the final rule, we would prefer to set an opacity limit
because of the COMS' ability to directly measure opacity, instead of
using the COMS in the aforementioned way (i.e., similar to how a BLDS
would be used). However, we solicit comment on this option,
specifically including comments regarding the opacity levels expected
from a kiln in compliance with the proposed PM limit and the
sensitivity of COMS at those levels.
In accordance with the SBAR Panel's recommendations, we request
comment on whether the proposed rule should specify separate, longer
averaging time periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for
demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits, or other
alternative approaches for demonstrating compliance with operating
parameter limits. For example, the Panel recommended that we request
comment on an approach for demonstrating compliance involving two tiers
of standards for monitoring operating parameters whereby, if the
conditions of the first monitoring tier are exceeded, the facility
operator would be required to implement corrective actions specified in
an established plan to bring the operating parameter levels back to
established levels and, if the conditions of the second tier are
exceeded, the exceedance would constitute a violation of the standard
in question.
The SBAR Panel recommended that we take comment about the
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that could
be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits in
lieu of or in addition to the parameters proposed in today's rule. For
example, small entity representatives suggested that for scrubber-
equipped kilns, we should consider allowing the monitoring of
parameters such as wet scrubber water pump amperage and wet scrubber
exhaust gas outlet temperature in lieu of scrubber liquid flow rate. In
addition, sources may request approval of alternative monitoring
methods according to section 40 CFR 63.8(f).
2. PM From MPO
Since the MACT basis for these emission units is the NSPS subpart
OOO, the performance test requirements for PM, opacity, and visible
emissions are based in part on those in the NSPS subpart OOO, with
additional requirements as well. Further, as is required under the NSPS
subpart OOO, the proposed rule would require the performance test
measurement of opacity from certain MPO, including fugitive emission
units, using EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We request
comment on the suitability of using Method 9 for fugitive emission
units, and whether other visual opacity measurement methods or
techniques may be more suitable, such as provisions from proposed EPA
Methods 203A, 203B, and/or 203C, 58 FR 61640, January 6, 1994.
For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet
scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas
stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow
rate during the PM performance test and then establish the 3-hour
operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data.
Pressure drop and flow rate provide an indication of the scrubber's
performance and consequently PM emissions as well.
For MPO subject to opacity limitations which do not use a wet
scrubber control device, you would be required to conduct a 1-minute
visible emissions check of each emission unit similar to the
requirements under Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A7. The
frequency of these checks is monthly but diminishes for the emission
unit if no visible emissions are observed. If visible emissions are
observed during any visible emissions check, you would be required to
conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test would be
required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions
and the 6-minute opacity reading would be required to not exceed the
applicable opacity limit. Due to the many MPO at each lime
manufacturing plant, this type of periodic monitoring for opacity was
selected. This periodic approach to monitoring rewards sources that
have no visible emissions by allowing the frequency of testing to be
reduced. Finally, this monitoring approach (visual observations of
opacity instead of continuous opacity monitoring systems) is similar to
the monitoring regime used in the NSPS subpart OOO, which is the basis
for MACT. Although we are not compelled to use identical monitoring
regimes, we believe it is appropriate to do so here because it will
``reasonably ensure compliance with the standard.'' See National Lime,
233 F. 3d at 635.
3. Other General Requirements
The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan would be required
to ensure effective performance of the air pollution control devices,
monitoring equipment (including bag leak and PM detection equipment),
and to minimize malfunctions.
[[Page 78064]]
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?
There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S.,
not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About
30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing
facilities which would not be subject to the proposed rule. We estimate
that 70 percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants would be
major sources, co-located with major sources, or part of major sources,
and, thus, 56 lime manufacturing plants would be subject to this
proposed rule.
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that all sources (not including lime manufacturing
plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source
category collectively emit approximately 9,700 Mg/yr (10,700 tons/yr)
of HAP. These HAP estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals
from existing sources and projected new sources over the next 5 years.
We estimate that the proposed standards would reduce HAP metals
emissions from the lime manufacturing source category by about 21 Mg/yr
(23 tons/yr), and would reduce HCl emissions by about 213 Mg/yr (235
tons/yr). In addition, we estimate that the proposed standards would
reduce PM emissions by about 14,000 Mg/yr (16,000 tons/yr) from a
baseline level of 29,000 Mg/yr (32,000 tons/yr), and the proposed
standards would reduce SO2 emissions by about 3,400 Mg/yr
(3,700 tons/yr) from a baseline of 128,000 Mg/yr (141,000 tons/yr). The
roughly 2 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the
projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply
with the proposed PM standards.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the baseline emissions and emissions
reductions (or increases, in parentheses) estimates, in English and
Metric units, respectively.
Table 1.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
Manufacturing Plants
[English Units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (tons/ HAP metals HCl (tons/ SO2 (tons/
Emissions yr) (tons/yr) yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources....................... 24,352 31.5 8,541 112,198
Baseline emissions--new sources............................ 7,508 10.1 2,161 28,779
Total baseline emissions................................... 31,861 41.6 10,702 140,977
Emissions reductions-- existing sources.................... 12,407 17.7 235 3,700
Emissions reductions--new sources.......................... 3,154 5.4 0 0
Total emissions reductions................................. 15,561 23 235 3,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
Manufacturing Plants
[Metric Units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP metals HCl (Mg/ SO2 (Mg/
Emissions PM (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources....................... 22,093 28.6 7,748 101,787
Baseline emissions--new sources............................ 6,811 9.2 1,961 26,108
Total baseline emissions................................... 28,904 38 9,709 127,895
Emissions reductions--existing sources..................... 11,256 16 213 3,356
Emissions reductions--new sources.......................... 2,861 4.9 0 0
Total emissions reductions................................. 14,117 21 213 3,356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Are the Water Impacts?
We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to
increase by about 4,200 million gallons per year from current levels as
a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption
that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more
efficient venturi wet scrubbers (that require more water flow rate) to
comply with the PM standards. For new sources, we expect no additional
water consumption as we do not expect new sources to install wet
scrubbers for PM control.
D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
As a result of the proposed rule, solid waste would be generated as
additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We
estimate that about 16,000 tons/yr of additional solid waste would be
generated as a result of today's proposed rule. This estimate does not
include consideration that some of this would most likely be recycled
directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material
(agricultural lime).
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by
about 7.2 million kilowatt-hours/yr (kWh/yr) as a result of the
proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources
will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi
wet scrubbers (that require more electricity). For new sources, we
expect an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/yr as
a result of the proposed rule. This electricity demand is associated
with complying with the PM standards for new sources.
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The estimated total national capital cost of today's proposed rule
is $24.2 million (for large businesses) plus $11.9 million for small
businesses for a total of $36.1 million. This capital cost applies to
projected new and existing sources and includes the cost to purchase
and install emissions control equipment (e.g., existing PM control
equipment upgrades), monitoring equipment (the cost of the rule is
estimated assuming bag leak and PM detectors would be installed on all
lime kilns located at major sources, although other monitoring options
are available, such as COMS), the costs of initial performance tests,
and emissions tests
[[Page 78065]]
to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source and
hence subject to the standards.
The estimated annualized costs of the proposed standards are $22.4
million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs
of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance
costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and
annualized costs of the initial emissions testing.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The results of our economic impact analysis indicate the average
price per ton for lime would increase by 2.1 percent (or $1.17 per
metric ton) as a result of the proposed standard for lime
manufacturers. Overall lime production is projected to decrease by 1.8
percent as a result of the proposed standard. Because of the
uncertainty of control cost information for large firms, we accounted
for these firms as a single aggregate firm in the economic model, so it
is not plausible to estimate closures for large firms. However, among
the 19 small firms in this industry, we project that two firms are at
risk for closure.
Based on the market analysis, we project the annual social costs of
the proposed rule to be $20.2 million. As a result of higher prices and
lower consumption levels, we project the consumers of lime (both
domestic and foreign) would lose $19.7 million annually, while domestic
producer surplus would decline by $0.8 million. Foreign producers would
gain as a result of the proposed regulation with profit increasing by
$0.2 million. For more information regarding the economic impacts,
consult the economic impact analysis in the docket for this rule.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we
would be required to determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted the action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the docket (see ADDRESSEES
section of this preamble).
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to
provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to
the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS would
be required to include a description of the extent of our prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft
final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, we would be required to include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that we have met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not
impose directly enforceable requirements on States, nor would it
preempt them from adopting their own more stringent programs to control
emissions from lime manufacturing facilities. Moreover, States are not
required under the CAA to take delegation of federal NESHAP and bear
their implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often
choose to do so. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the
proposed rule. Although it does not apply to the proposed rule, we have
coordinated with State and local officials in the development of the
proposed rule and we are providing them an opportunity for comment. A
summary of the concerns raised during the notice and comment process
and our response to those concerns will be provided in the final
rulemaking notice. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the
proposed rule from State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There
are no lime manufacturing plants located on tribal land. Thus Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. The EPA specifically
solicits additional
[[Page 78066]]
comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we would be required to evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the
proposed rule is not economically significant as defined by Executive
Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally would be required to prepare a written statement, including a
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why
that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have
developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan would be required to provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $22.4 million per year. The proposed rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as
(1) A small business as a lime manufacturing company with less than 500
employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite the
determination that the proposed rule would have no significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA prepared a Small
Business Flexibility Analysis that has all the components of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). An IRFA examines the impact of
the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives
that could reduce that impact. The Small Business Flexibility Analysis
(which is included in the economic impact analysis) is available for
review in the docket, and is summarized below.
Based on SBA's size definitions for the affected industries and
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 45
companies owning potentially affected facilities as small businesses.
Eight of these 45 companies manufacture beet sugar (which would not be
subject to this proposed rule), three of which are small firms.
Further, an additional 3 of the 19 small companies would not be subject
to the proposed rule because they do not manufacture lime in a kiln
(e.g., they are only depot or hydration facilities), and/or we do not
expect them to be major sources. It is therefore expected that 13 small
businesses would be subject to this proposed rule. Although small
businesses represent 40 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur 30 percent of the total industry
annual compliance costs of $22.4 million.
The economic impact analysis we prepared for this proposed rule
includes an estimate of the changes in product price and production
quantities for the firms that this proposed rule would affect. The
analysis shows that of the facilities owned by potentially affected
small firms, two may shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance
with the proposed rule. Because of the nature of their production
processes and existing controls, we expect these two firms will incur
significantly higher compliance costs than the other small firms.
Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be
noted that in general, the burden on most small firms is low when
compared to that of large firms. The average annual compliance costs
for all small firms is $358,000, compared to $592,000 per year for
large firms. If the two small firms expected to incur significantly
higher control costs are excluded, the average annual compliance cost
for the remaining firms
[[Page 78067]]
would be $205,000, which is much less than the average control costs
for large firms.
The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have
materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions
under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule
indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed
today. For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the
average total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $567,000
per small company (compared with $358,000 in today's proposal). About
85 percent (11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur
compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1
percent of sales (compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in
today's proposal). And 77 percent (10 firms) of those small businesses
expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced impacts
greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 31 percent of those
small businesses in today's proposal).
Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's
rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small
entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609(b) of the RFA
to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the
small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule
requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised
of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small
Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel
solicited advice from eight small entity representatives (SER),
including the NLA and member companies and non-member companies of the
NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel distributed a package of
descriptive and technical materials explaining the rule-in-progress to
the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met with the SER to hear their
comments on preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related
information. The Panel also received written comments from the SER in
response to both the outreach materials and the discussions at the
meeting.
Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the
elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in
the docket for the proposed rule.
The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls.
These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses:
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl
work practice standard, invoking section 112(d)(4) of CAA.
Response: The proposal does not include an emission standard for
HCl.
[sbull] Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry
should not be considered as emission units under the definition of
affected source.
Response: The MPO in the quarry are excluded from the definition of
affected source.
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the ``bubbling''
of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant,
such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime
plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each
individual kiln and cooler.
Response: The proposed rule defines the affected source as
including all kilns and coolers (among other listed emission units) at
the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average
emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination.
[sbull] Recommend that we request comment on establishing a
subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl
emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard.
Response: We are requesting comment on this issue.
[sbull] Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and
emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the
results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment
on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial
constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD.
Response: We are requesting comment on these issues and have
presented said analysis.
[sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the
ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source
determinations.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
[sbull] Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed
rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP
to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area
source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues.
Response: Today's preamble includes this language.
[sbull] Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option
of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on
various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on
what an appropriate opacity limit would be.
Response: The preamble solicits comment on these issues.
[sbull] Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options
or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time
periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating
compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with
operating parameter limits using a two-tier approach; and the
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be
monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in
lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the
draft rule.
Response: Today's preamble solicits comment on these issues.
[sbull] Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3
and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed from the proposed
rule.
Response: Today's proposed rule does not include this requirement.
[sbull] Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in
modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a
sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities
reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to
pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable
opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's
markets.
Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations
and analyses.
In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed
rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime
manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small
entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the
Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under
the CAA, and these pre-Panel efforts have been discussed previously in
this preamble. These are summarized below.
1. Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of which
three are small businesses, would not be affected sources.
[[Page 78068]]
2. Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only would
not be affected sources as well.
3. We are proposing PM emission limits which allow the affected
source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will
meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations
selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly
beyond-the-MACT-floor options that we considered. An emission limit for
mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond-the-
MACT-floor control option.
4. We are proposing that compliance demonstrations for MPO be
conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. We believe this will
reduce the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the
rule when implemented.
5. Furthermore, we are proposing the minimum performance testing
frequency (every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements specified in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A).
6. Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small
businesses would not be subject to the proposed standards because they
are area sources.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have
prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document (2072.01),
and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office
of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by email at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require development and implementation of
an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which would include
inspections of the control devices but would not require any
notifications or reports beyond those required by the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping requirements
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the rule) is estimated to be 7,766 labor hours per year, at a total
annual cost of $621,673. This estimate includes notifications that
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests;
notifications of compliance status, including the results of
performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do
not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction
reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total
capital/startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the
ICR are estimated to be $1,000,000, with annualized costs of $377,933.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2) develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; (3) adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection
of information; (5) search data sources; (6) complete and review the
collection of information; and (7) transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., the EPA
must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information
collection request in a proposed or final rule.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments
on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by
courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 ((202) 566-1700); and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
December 20, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in the proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the
OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C,
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent
with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G,
5D, 9, 22,
[[Page 78069]]
and 321. The search and review results have been documented and are
placed in the docket (A-95-41) for the proposed rule.
The three voluntary consensus standards described below were
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of the proposed rule.
The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10,
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for
its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420-99, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the proposed
rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns. The standard
ASTM D6420-99 will be incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14.
Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per
billion by volume (ppbv) and 100 ppmv.
For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the proposed rule
specifies that the additional system continuing calibration check after
each run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be
followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if
there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered
water soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM
D6420-99 does not apply.
As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in the proposed rule. The
EPA will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-
99. This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than
GC/MS.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test
Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the proposed rule
provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142
of the proposed rule are also addressed in the methodology.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the
proposed rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures
identified 15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined
that 12 of these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the
HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule
were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of
this rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for
this purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the
docket for the proposed rule.
Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC
12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320.
The standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has
been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the
ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is now undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-
98. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical
equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could
be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability.
Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to proposed subpart AAAAA list the EPA
testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. Sec. 63.7(f)
and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures.
I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Although
compliance with the proposed rule could possibly lead to increased
electricity consumption as sources may replace existing wet scrubbers
with venturi wet scrubbers that require more electricity, the proposed
rule would not require that venturi scrubbers be installed, and in
fact, there are some alternatives that may decrease electrical demand.
Further, the proposed rule would have no effect on the supply or
distribution of energy. Although we considered certain fuels as
potential bases for MACT, none of our proposed MACT determinations are
based on fuels. Finally, we acknowledge that an interpretation limiting
fuel use to the top 6 percent of ``clean HAP'' fuels (if they existed)
could potentially have adverse implications on energy supply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lime manufacturing, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(27) and
(b)(28) to read as follows:
[[Page 78070]]
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(27) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography--Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS), IBR approved [date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register] for Sec. 63.7142.
(28) ASTM D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous
Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--
Impinger Method, IBR approved [date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register] for Sec. 63.7142.
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Lime Manufacturing Plants
What This Subpart Covers
Sec.
63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations standard?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations standard?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7132 What records must I keep?
63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status?
63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Periodic Monitoring for
Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. This subpart
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission limitations.
Sec. 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lime
manufacturing plant (LMP) that is a major source, or that is located
at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, unless the LMP is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp
mill or beet sugar manufacturing plant.
(1) An LMP is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime
product (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead
burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells or other
calcareous substances.
(2) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons)
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams
(25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each existing, reconstructed, or new
LMP that is located at a major source.
(b) The affected source is the collection of all of the emission
units listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Emission units are lime kilns, lime coolers and materials
processing operations (MPO) as defined in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Materials processing operations are raw material grinding
mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points,
bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket
elevators and belt conveyors, except as provided by paragraphs (e)
through (g) of this section.
(e) Materials processing operations that process only lime product
or fuel are not subject to this subpart.
(f) Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper or
crusher is not subject to this subpart.
(g) The first emission unit in the sequence of MPO that is subject
to this subpart is the raw material storage bin. Any MPO which precedes
the raw material storage bin is not subject to this subpart.
Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart
is the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring
material from the raw material storage bin to the next emission unit.
(h) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) A new affected source is the collection of all emission units
listed in paragraph (c) of this section for which construction begins
after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.
63.7081 at the time you commenced construction.
(k) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria
for reconstruction defined in Sec. 63.2.
(l) [Reserved]
(m) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed 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 the [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply
with the emission limitations no later than [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register].
(2) If you start up your affected source after [date of publication
of the final
[[Page 78071]]
rule in the Federal Register], then you must comply with the emission
limitations for new and reconstructed affected sources upon startup of
your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing LMP, you must comply with the
applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, and
you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than
[3 years from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register]. The compliance date is site-specific for existing LMP and is
the day following completion of all the performance tests required
under Sec. 63.7110(a).
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the
deadlines specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
(1) Any portion of the LMP that is a new affected source or a
reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart
upon startup.
(2) The emission units of the existing LMP subject to emission
limitations under this subpart must be in compliance with this subpart
within 3 years after the source becomes a major source of HAP.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.7130
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.7130 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission
limits in this subpart during the times specified in Sec. 63.6(h)(1).
(c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(d) You must prepare and implement for each LMP, a written
operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. You must submit
the plan to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval
as part of the application for a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71
permit. Any subsequent changes to the plan must be submitted to the
applicable permitting authority for review and approval. Pending
approval by the applicable permitting authority of an initial or
amended plan, you must comply with the provisions of the submitted
plan. Each plan must contain the following information:
(1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to
determine compliance, along with established operating limits or
ranges, as applicable, for each emission unit.
(2) A monitoring schedule for each emission unit.
(3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each
emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the
applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2
to this subpart, respectively.
(4) Procedures for the proper installation, operation, and
maintenance of monitoring devices or systems used to determine
compliance, including:
(i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring
device;
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction systems;
(iii) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), and (4)(ii);
and
(iv) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
(5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device
parameters.
(6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the
operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, including:
(i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of a deviation or
excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and
(ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time
corrective action was initiated, and the time and date the corrective
action was completed.
(7) A maintenance schedule for each emission unit and control
device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and
recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
(e) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete all
applicable performance tests within 3 years after [date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register], according to the provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(2) and 63.7114.
(b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an LMP
between December 20, 2002 and [date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with
either the proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission
limitation no later than 180 calendar days after [date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days
after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to
Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 63.7114.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 20, 2002 and [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission
limitation when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a
demonstration of compliance with the promulgated emission limitation
within 3 years after [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] or after startup of the source, whichever is later,
according to Sec. Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 63.7114.
(d) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that
applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3-
hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units
within existing affected sources at LMP begins at 12:01 a.m. on the
compliance date for existing affected sources, that is, the day
following completion of the initial performance test(s), and ends at
3:01 a.m. on the same day.
(e) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that
applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3-
hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units
within new or reconstructed affected sources at LMP begins at 12:01
a.m. on the day following completion of the initial compliance
demonstration tests, as required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
[[Page 78072]]
section, and ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.
Sec. 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must conduct a performance test within 5 years following the
initial performance test and within 5 years following each subsequent
performance test thereafter.
Sec. 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in
this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last
at least 1 hour.
(e) The emission rate of particulate matter (PM) from the lime kiln
(and the lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere
from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using Equation 1 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.000
Where:
E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, g/dscm
(grain/dscf).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, g/dscm
(grain/dscf). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler
exhaust to the atmosphere.
Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust
to the atmosphere.
P = Stone feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 grains/lb).
(f) The combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and
coolers within an existing affected source at an LMP must be calculated
using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.001
Where:
ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at an
existing LMP, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/cooler
combination i, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
n = Number of existing kilns at the existing affected source.
(g) The combined particulate emission rate from all new or
reconstructed kilns and coolers must be calculated using Equation 3 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.002
Where:
ETN = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at a
new or reconstructed LMP, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ej = Emission rate of PM from kiln j, or from kiln/cooler
combination j, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
m = Number of kilns and kiln/cooler combinations within the new or
reconstructed affected source.
(h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (h)(1)
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant
information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made
available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing, if
requested.
(1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution
control system;
(2) Sampling location description(s);
(3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any
modifications to standard procedures;
(4) Test results, including opacity;
(5) Quality assurance procedures and results;
(6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of
standards, and calibration procedures;
(7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory
analyses;
(8) Documentation of calculations;
(9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and
(10) Any other information required by the test method.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) You must establish any applicable 3-hour rolling average
operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the
applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs
(j)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance
test and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test
report.
(2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15-minute period
of each test run.
(3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the
average of all the 15-minute parameter values for the run.
(4) Calculate the 3-hour operating limit by taking the average of
the three test run averages.
(k) For each building enclosing any MPO that is subject to a
visible emission (VE) limit, you must conduct a VE check according to
item 18 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs
(k)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of
the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other
than condensed water vapor.
(2) Select a position at least 15 but not more than 1,320 feet from
each side of the building with the sun or other light source generally
at your back.
(3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to
conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must
meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to your OM&M plan required
by Sec. 63.7100(d) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section,
and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
General Provisions and according to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 of
this chapter.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15 minute period.
(2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least three
of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is
not out of control according to your OM&M plan.
(3) To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, you
must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period
using only hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e.,
not from out-of-control periods). The 3-hour rolling average is updated
each hour.
[[Page 78073]]
(4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your OM&M plan.
(5) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
according to the OM&M plan.
(b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the
flow rate.
(2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (c)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet any
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(2) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output
of relative PM emissions.
(3) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will
sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM
emissions greater than a preset level.
(4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(5) For a positive-pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell
must have a bag leak detector. For a negative-pressure or induced-air
fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of
the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required (for
either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system
instrumentation and alarm.
(6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
(7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified
in the OM&M plan required by Sec. 63.7100(d). In no event may the
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than
50 percent over a 365 day period unless a responsible official, as
defined in Sec. 63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that
the fabric filter has been inspected and found to be in good operating
condition.
(e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (e)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be
capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams
per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
(2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative
PM emissions.
(3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound
automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions
greater than a preset level.
(4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(5) For a positive-pressure electrostatic precipitator (ESP), each
compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative-pressure or
induced-air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the
ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required (for either type of ESP),
detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm.
(6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
(7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified
in the OM&M plan required by Sec. 63.7100(d). In no event may the
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official as
defined in Sec. 63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that
the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(f) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system
is operating in accordance with the operating requirements in item 6 of
Table 2 to this subpart and record the results of each inspection.
(g) For each COMS used to monitor an add-on air pollution control
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device.
(2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS-1
of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to
Table 3 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7112(j) and Table 4 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7130(e).
[[Page 78074]]
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero adjustments), you must
monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all
times that the emission unit is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
Sec. 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you
according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this
subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7131.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
(d) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e).
(e) For each MPO subject to an opacity limitation as specified in
Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an
opacity limitation, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in
Table 6 to this subpart, and as follows:
(1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of
each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify
if there are visible emissions, other than condensed water vapor.
(2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the
affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at
your back.
(3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to
conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must
meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 of appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter.
Notification, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9
(a) through (j) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120
calendar days after [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you startup your
affected source.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3
to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the
initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the
requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.
63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section:
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.7083.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified
for your affected source in Sec. 63.7083.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and
subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting
authority has established instead of according to the dates in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
[[Page 78075]]
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the
compliance report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the operating parameter
monitoring systems was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
a statement that there were no periods during the which the continuous
monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an
affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation
in this subpart, you must include the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (12) of this section.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of
the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the
affected source.
(9) A brief description of the process units.
(10) A brief description of the CMS.
(11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report
shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit
authority.
Sec. 63.7132 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity and VE observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for VE
observations.
(c) You must keep the records required by Tables 5 and 6 to this
subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation
that applies to you.
(d) You must keep the records which document the basis for the
initial applicability determination as required under Sec. 63.7081.
Sec. 63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
(a) Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. When there is
overlap between subpart A and subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the
``Explanations'' column in Table 8, subpart AAAAA takes precedence.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or by a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S.
EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
[[Page 78076]]
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations in Sec. 63.7090(a).
(2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in Sec.
63.7090(a).
(3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7090(b).
(4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source
status?
(a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must
measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns at your
plant using either:
(1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part,
(2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or
(3) ASTM Method D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14),
provided that the provisions in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of
this section are followed.
(i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of
samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section
11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
63.14).
(ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set
of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.003
(Eq. 1)Where:
RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation of sample
pair a, percent.
C1a and C2a = The HCl concentrations, mg/dscm,
from the paired samples.
(iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard
deviation according to Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.004
Where:
RSDTA = The test average relative standard deviation,
percent.
RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation for sample
pair a.
p = The number of test runs, =3.
(iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are
invalid and the test must be repeated.
(v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM
Method D6735-01 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) is
conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated according to section
12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
63.14).
(vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent,
inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of
this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be
repeated.
(b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of
specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability
determinations under Sec. 63.7081, you may use either:
(1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
(2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or
(3) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS), (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14),
provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of
this section are followed:
(i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14);
(ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by
volume and 100 ppmv;
(iii) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14), but potentially
detected by mass spectrometry, the additional system continuing
calibration check after each run, as detailed in section 10.5.3 of ASTM
D6420-99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14), is conducted,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is
no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble; and
(iv) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14), and not amenable to
detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14) may not be used.
Sec. 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Bag leak detector means the monitoring device and system for a
fabric filter that identifies an increase in PM emissions resulting
from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an alarm.
Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material
from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
Bucket elevator means a material conveying device consisting of a
head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single or
double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached.
Building means any frame structure with a roof.
Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods,
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM generated
by one or more process operations to a control device.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process
operations at an LMP.
Conveying system means a device for transporting material from one
piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant.
Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt
conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any
[[Page 78077]]
emission limitation (including any operating limit);
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction,
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or VE limit.
Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, raw material grinding
mill, raw material storage bin, conveying system transfer point, bulk
loading or unloading operation, bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an
LMP.
Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture
system.
Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing
of any feed material. Grinding mills include, but are not limited to,
the hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The
grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air separator, or air
classifier, where such systems are used.
Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium
hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product and water.
Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln (or part of
the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime
produced by the kiln.
Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater,
used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln
types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln,
rotary hearth kiln, double-shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln.
Lime manufacturing plant (LMP) means any plant which uses a lime
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous
material by calcination.
Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process
including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.
Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium
carbonate (referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium
limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/or the double carbonate of both
calcium and magnesium (referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or
dolomite).
Material means the raw limestone or stone feed used at an LMP.
Materials processing operation (MPO) means the equipment and
transfer points between the equipment used to prepare, process, or
transport limestone, or stone feed, and includes grinding mills, raw
material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading
or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt
conveyors.
Particulate matter (PM) detector means the monitoring device and
system for an ESP that identifies relative levels in PM emissions and
sounds an alarm at a preset level.
Positive pressure fabric filter or ESP means a fabric filter or ESP
with the fan(s) on the upstream side of the control device.
Screening operation means a device for separating material
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more
mesh surfaces (screens) in series and retaining oversize material on
the mesh surfaces (screens).
Stack emission means the PM that is released to the atmosphere from
a capture system.
Stone feed means the limestone feedstock and mill scale or other
iron oxide additives that are fed to the lime kiln. Stone feed does not
include the fuels used in the lime kiln to produce the heat needed to
calcine the limestone into the lime product.
Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins) of
material prior to further processing or loading.
Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the
material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor (except where the
material is being transferred to a stockpile).
Truck dumping means the unloading of material from movable vehicles
designed to transport material from one location to another. Movable
vehicles include but are not limited to trucks, front end loaders, skip
hoists, and railcars.
Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM
emissions from one or more emission units.
Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Emission Limits
[You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies
to you, as required in Sec. 63.7090(a)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For . . . emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All lime kilns and their associated The sum of the PM emissions
lime coolers at an existing LMP. from all of the kilns and
associated lime coolers must
not exceed 0.06 kilograms per
megagram (kg/Mg) (0.12 pounds
per ton) of stone feed.
2. All lime kilns and their associated The sum of the PM emissions
lime coolers at a new or reconstructed from all of the kilns and
LMP. associated lime coolers must
not exceed 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10
pounds per ton) of stone feed.
3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a PM emissions must not exceed
new, reconstructed or existing 0.05 grams per dry standard
affected source. cubic meter (g/dscm).
4. Stack emissions from all MPO at a Emissions must not exceed 7
new, reconstructed or existing percent opacity.
affected source, unless the stack
emissions are discharged through a wet
scrubber control device.
5. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a Emissions must not exceed 10
new, reconstructed or existing percent opacity.
affected source, except as provided by
item 6 of this Table 1.
6. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or All of the individually
existing affected source enclosed in a affected MPO must comply with
building. the applicable PM and opacity
emission limitations in items
3 through 5 of this Table 1,
or the building must comply
with the following: there must
be no visible emissions from
the building, except from a
vent; and vent emissions must
not exceed the stack emissions
limitations in items 3 and 4
of this Table 1.
[[Page 78078]]
7. Each fabric filter that controls Emissions must not exceed 7
emissions from only an individual, percent opacity.
enclosed storage bin.
8. Each set of multiple storage bins at You must comply with the
a new, reconstructed or existing emission limits in items 3 and
affected source, with combined stack 4 of this Table 1.
emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Operating Limits
[You must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies
to you, as required in Sec. 63.7090(b)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler Maintain and operate the fabric
(if there is a separate exhaust to the filter such that the bag leak
atmosphere from the associated lime detector alarm is not
cooler) equipped with a fabric filter. 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 the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(d) and (f)
and Table 5 to this subpart.
In lieu of a bag leak
detector, maintain the fabric
filter such that the 6-minute
average opacity for any 6-
minute block period does not
exceed 15 percent; and comply
with the requirements in Sec.
63.7113(f) and (g) and Table
5 to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Maintain the 3-hour rolling
scrubber. average exhaust gas stream
pressure drop across the wet
scrubber greater than or equal
to the pressure drop operating
limit established during the
most recent PM performance
test; and maintain the 3-hour
rolling average scrubbing
liquid flow rate greater than
the flow rate operating limit
established during the most
recent performance test.
3. Each lime kiln equipped with an Maintain the 3-hour rolling
electrostatic precipitator. average current and voltage
input to each electrical field
of the ESP greater than or
equal to the average current
and voltage input to each
field of the ESP established
during the most recent
performance test; or, in lieu
of complying with these ESP
parameter operating limits,
install a PM detector and
maintain and operate the ESP
such that the PM detector
alarm is not activated and
alarm condition does not exist
for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-
month period, and comply with
Sec. 63.7113(e); or,
maintain the ESP such that the
6-minute average opacity for
any 6-minute block period does
not exceed 15 percent, and
comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(g); and
comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(f) and Table
5 to this subpart.
4. Each materials processing operation Maintain the 3-hour rolling
subject to a PM limit which uses a wet average exhaust gas stream
scrubber. pressure drop across the wet
scrubber greater than or equal
to the pressure drop operating
limit established during the
PM performance test; and
maintain the 3-hour rolling
average scrubbing liquid flow
rate greater than or equal to
the flow rate operating limit
established during the
performance test.
5. All affected sources................ Prepare a written OM&M plan;
the plan must include the
items listed in Sec.
63.7100(d) and the corrective
actions to be taken when
required in Table 5 to this
subpart.
6. Each emission unit equipped with an (1) Vent captured emissions
add-on air pollution control device. through a closed system,
except that dilution air may
be added to emission streams
for the purpose of controlling
temperature at the inlet to a
fabric filter.
(2) Operate each capture/
collection system according to
the procedures and
requirements in the OM&M plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78079]]
Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
[You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the
following table, as required in Sec. 63.7114]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For the emission limitation . . compliance, if after following
For . . . . the requirements in Sec.
63.7112 . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All lime kilns and their associated lime If the lime cooler associated The kiln outlet PM emissions
coolers at a new or reconstructed affected with the kiln has no separate (and if applicable, summed
source and all lime kilns and their exhaust to the atmosphere, PM with the separate cooler PM
associated lime coolers at an existing emissions from all kilns and emissions), based on the PM
affected source. coolers at an existing LMP must emissions measured using
not exceed 0.06 kg PM per Mg of Method 5 in appendix A to part
stone feed (0.12 lb PM per ton 60 of this chapter and the
of stone feed); PM emissions stone feed rate measurement,
from all kilns and coolers at a over the period of the initial
new or reconstructed LMP must performance test, do not
not exceed 0.05 kg PM per Mg of exceed the emission limit; if
stone feed (0.10 lb PM per ton the lime kiln is controlled
of stone feed); if a lime with an ESP (and you are not
cooler associated with a kiln opting to monitor PM emissions
has a separate exhaust to the from the ESP with a PM
atmosphere, the sum of all kiln detector or COMS) or wet
and cooler PM emissions must scrubber, you have a record of
not exceed 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 the applicable operating
pounds per ton) of stone feed parameters over the 3-hour
for existing LMP and 0.05 kg/Mg performance test during which
(0.1 pounds per ton) of stone emissions did not exceed the
feed for kilns at new or emissions limitation; if the
reconstructed LMP. lime kiln is controlled by a
fabric filter or ESP and you
are opting to monitor PM
emissions from the ESP with a
PM detector or you are opting
to monitor PM emissions from
the fabric filter with a bag
leak 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 a fabric
filter or ESP and you are
opting to monitor PM emissions
using a COMS, you have
installed and are operating
the monitoring device
according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.7113(g).
2. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, PM emissions must not exceed The outlet PM emissions, based
reconstructed or existing affected source. 0.05 g/dscm. on Method 5 or Method 17 in
appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter, over the period of
the initial performance test
do not exceed 0.05 g/dscm; and
if the emission unit is
controlled with a wet
scrubber, you have a record of
the scrubber's pressure drop
and liquid flow rate operating
parameters over the 3-hour
performance test during which
emissions did not exceed the
emissions limitation.
3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, Emissions must not exceed 7 Each of the thirty 6-minute
reconstructed or existing affected source, percent opacity. opacity averages during the
unless the stack emissions are discharged initial compliance period,
through a wet scrubber control device. using Method 9 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter,
does not exceed the 7 percent
opacity limit.
4. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new, Emissions must not exceed 10 Each of the 6-minute opacity
reconstructed or existing affected source. percent opacity. averages during the initial
compliance period, using
Method 9 in appendix A to part
60 of this chapter, does not
exceed the 10 percent opacity
limit.
5. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or All of the individually affected All the MPO enclosed in the
existing affected source, enclosed in a MPO must comply with the building have demonstrated
building. applicable PM and opacity initial compliance according
emission limitations for items to the applicable requirements
2 through 4 of this Table 3, or for items 2 through 4 of this
the building must comply with Table 3; or if you are
the following: there must be no complying with the building
visible emissions from the emission limitations, there
building, except from a vent, are no visible emissions from
and vent emissions must not the building according to item
exceed the emission limitations 18 of Table 4 to this subpart
in items 2 and 3 of this Table and Sec. 63.7112(k), and you
3. demonstrate initial compliance
with applicable building vent
emissions limitations
according to the requirements
in items 2 and 3 of this Table
3.
6. Each fabric filter that controls emissions Emissions must not exceed 7 Each of the ten 6-minute
from only an individual storage bin. percent opacity. averages during the 1-hour
initial compliance period,
using Method 9 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter,
does not exceed the 7 percent
opacity limit.
7. Each set of multiple storage bins with You must comply with the You demonstrate initial
combined stack emissions. emission limitations in items 2 compliance according to the
and 3 of this Table 3. requirements in items 2 and 3
of this Table 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78080]]
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
[You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in Sec.
63.7112]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each associated Select the location of Method 1 or 1A of Sampling sites must be
lime cooler, if there is a separate the sampling port and appendix A to part 60 located at the outlet
exhaust to the atmosphere from the the number of traverse of this chapter; and of the control
associated lime cooler. ports. Sec. 63.7(d)(1)(i). device(s) and prior to
any releases to the
atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each associated Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate volumetric flow rate. 2F, or 2G in appendix
exhaust to the atmosphere from the A to part 60 of this
associated lime cooler. chapter.
3. Each lime kiln and each associated Conduct gas molecular Method 3, 3A, or 3B in Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate weight analysis. appendix A to part 60
exhaust to the atmosphere from the of this chapter.
associated lime cooler.
4. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A Not applicable.
lime cooler, if there is a separate content of the stack to part 60 of this
exhaust to the atmosphere from the gas. chapter.
associated limit cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure PM emissions... Method 5 in appendix A Conduct the test(s) at
lime cooler, if there is a separate to part 60 of this the highest production
exhaust to the atmosphere from the chapter. level reasonably
associated lime cooler, and which expected to occur; the
uses a negative pressure PM control minimum sampling
device. volume must be 0.85
dscm (30 dscf); if
there is a separate
lime cooler exhaust to
the atmosphere, you
must conduct the
Method 5 test of the
cooler exhaust
concurrently with the
kiln exhaust test.
6. Each lime kiln and each associated Measure PM emissions... Method 5D in appendix A Conduct the test(s) at
lime cooler, if there is a separate to part 60 of this the highest production
exhaust to the atmosphere from the chapter. level reasonably
associated lime cooler, and which expected to occur; if
uses a positive pressure fabric there is a separate
filter or ESP. lime cooler exhaust to
the atmosphere, you
must conduct the
Method 5 test of the
separate cooler
exhaust concurrently
with the kiln exhaust
test.
7. Each lime kiln.................... Determine the mass rate Any suitable device.... Calibrate and maintain
of stone feed to the the device according
kiln during the kiln to manufacturer's
PM emissions test. instructions; the
measuring device used
must be accurate to
within +/-5 percent of
the mass rate over its
operating range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Establish the operating Data for the gas stream The continuous pressure
scrubber. limit for the average pressure drop drop measurement
gas stream pressure measurement device device must be
drop across the wet during the kiln PM accurate within plus
scrubber. performance test. or minus 1 percent;
you must collect the
pressure drop data
during the period of
the performance test
and determine the
operating limit
according to
63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet Establish the operating Data from the liquid The continuous
scrubber. limit for the average flow rate measurement scrubbing liquid flow
liquid flow rate to device during the kiln rate measuring device
the scrubber. PM performance test. must be accurate
within plus or minus 1
percent; you must
collect the flow rate
data during the period
of the performance
test and determine the
operating limit
according to
63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with an Establish the operating The ESP operating data You must collect the
ESP, except ESP monitored with a PM limits for the average during the kiln PM current and voltage
detector in lieu of monitoring ESP current and the performance test. data during the period
parameters. average voltage of the performance
supplied to each field test and determine the
of the ESP. operating limits for
both parameters
according to
63.7112(j).
[[Page 78081]]
11. (a) Each lime kiln equipped with Have installed and have Standard operating According to the
a fabric filter or ESP that is operating the bag leak procedures requirements in Sec.
monitored with a PM detector. detector or PM incorporated into the 63.7113(d) or (e),
detector, respectively OM&M plan. respectively.
prior to the
performance test.
11. (b) Each lime kiln equipped with Have installed and have Standard operating According to the
a fabric filter or ESP that is operating the COMS procedures requirements in Sec.
monitored with a COMS. prior to the incorporated into the 63.7113(g).
performance test. OM&M plan and as
required by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A,
General Provisions and
according to PS-1 of
appendix B to part 60
of this chapter.
12. Each stack emission from an MPO, Measure PM emissions... Method 5 or Method 17 The sample volume must
vent from a building enclosing an in appendix A to part be at least 1.70 dscm
MPO, or set of multiple storage bins 60 of this chapter. (60 dscf); for Method
with combined stack emissions, which 5, if the gas stream
is subject to a PM emission limit. being sampled is at
ambient temperature,
the sampling probe and
filter may be operated
without heaters; and
if the gas stream is
above ambient
temperature, the
sampling probe and
filter may be operated
at a temperature high
enough, but no higher
than 121[deg]C
(250[deg]F), to
prevent water
condensation on the
filter (Method 17 may
be used only with
exhaust gas
temperatures of not
more than 250 [deg]F).
13. Each stack emission from an MPO, Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
vent from a building enclosing an observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 3
MPO, or set of multiple storage bins chapter. hours and you must
with combined stack emissions, which obtain at least
is subject to an opacity limit. thirty, 6-minute
averages.
14. Each stack emissions source from Establish the average Data for the gas stream The pressure drop
an MPO subject to a PM or opacity gas stream pressure pressure drop measurement device
limit, which uses a wet scrubber. drop across the wet measurement device must be accurate
scrubber. during the MPO stack within plus or minus 1
PM performance test. percent; you must
collect the pressure
drop data during the
period of the
performance test and
determine the average
level.
15. Each stack emissions source from Establish the operating Data from the liquid The continuous
an MPO subject to a PM or opacity limit for the average flow rate measurement scrubbing liquid flow
limit, which uses a wet scrubber. liquid flow rate to device during the MPO rate measuring device
the scrubber. stack PM performance must be accurate
test. within plus or minus 1
percent; you must
collect the flow rate
data during the period
of the performance
test and determine the
operating limit
according to Sec.
63.7112(c).
16. Each fabric filter that controls Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
emissions from only an individual, observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 1 hour
enclosed, new or existing storage chapter. and you must obtain
bin. ten 6-minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any MPO Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A The test duration must
subject to an opacity limit. observations. to part 60 of this be for at least 3
chapter. hours, but the 3-hour
test may be reduced to
1 hour if 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.
[[Page 78082]]
18. Each building enclosing any MPO, Conduct VE check....... The specifications in The performance test
that is subject to a VE limit. Sec. 63.7112(k).. must be conducted
while all affected
materials processing
operations within the
building are
operating; the
performance test for
each affected building
must be at least 75
minutes, with each
side of the building
and roof being
observed for at least
15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits
[You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit
that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in
Sec. 63.7121]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For the following continuous
For . . . operating limit . . compliance by . . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled Maintain the 3-hour Collecting the wet
by a wet scrubber. rolling average scrubber operating
exhaust gas stream according to all
pressure drop applicable
across the wet requirements in
scrubber greater Sec. 63.7113 and
than or equal to reducing the data
the pressure drop according to Sec.
operating limit 63.7113(a);
established during maintaining the 3-
the PM performance hour rolling
test; and maintain average exhaust gas
the 3-hour rolling stream pressure
average scrubbing drop across the wet
liquid flow rate scrubber greater
greater than or than or equal to
equal to the flow the pressure drop
rate operating operating limit
limit established established during
during the the PM performance
performance test. test; and
maintaining the 3-
hour rolling
average scrubbing
liquid flow rate
greater than or
equal to the flow
rate operating
limit established
during the
performance test
(the continuous
scrubbing liquid
flow rate measuring
device must be
accurate, within +/-
1% and the
continuous pressure
drop measurement
hour rolling device
must be accurate
within +/-1%).
2. Each lime kiln or lime a. Maintain and (i) Operating the
cooler equipped with a operate the fabric fabric filter or
fabric filter and using a filter or ESP such ESP so that the
bag leak detector, and each that the bag leak alarm on the bag
lime kiln equipped with an or PM detector leak or PM
ESP using a PM detector in alarm, detection system,
lieu of ESP parameter respectively, is respectively, is
monitoring. not activated and not activated and
alarm condition alarm condition
does not exist for does not exist for
more than 5 percent more than 5 percent
of the total of the total
operating time in a operating time in
6-month period. each 6-month
reporting period;
and continuously
recording the
output from the bag
leak or PM
detection system.
(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
fabric filter or
ESP system
demonstrates that
no corrective
actions are
necessary, no alarm
time will be
counted.
3. Each lime kiln equipped Maintain the 3-hour Collecting the ESP
with an ESP, except an ESP rolling average operating data
monitoring PM with a PM current and voltage according to all
detector or COMS. input to each applicable
electrical field of requirements in
the ESP greater Sec. 63.7113 and
than or equal to reducing the data
the average current according to Sec.
and voltage input 63.7113(a), and
to each field of maintaining the 3-
the ESP established hour rolling
during the average voltage
performance test. input and current
input to each field
greater than or
equal to voltage
input and current
input operating
limits for each
field established
during the
performance test.
[[Page 78083]]
4. Each stack emissions Maintain the 3-hour Collecting the wet
source form a MPO subject rolling average scrubber operating
to an opacity limit, which exhaust gas stream data according to
is controlled by a wet pressure drop all applicable
scrubber. across the wet requirements in
scrubber greater Sec. 63.7113 and
than or equal to reducing the data
the pressure drop according to Sec.
operating limit 63.7113(a);
established during maintaining the 3-
the PM performance hour rolling
test; and maintain average exhaust gas
the 3-hour rolling stream pressure
average scrubbing drop across the wet
liquid flow rate scrubber greater
greater than or than or equal to
equal to the flow the pressure drop
rate operating operating limit
limit established established during
during the the PM performance
performance test. test; and
maintaining the 3-
hour rolling
average scrubbing
liquid flow rate
greater than or
equal to the flow
rate operating
limit established
during the
performance test
(the continuous
scrubbing liquid
flow rate measuring
device must be
accurate within +/-
1% and the
continuous pressure
drop measurement
device must be
accurate within +/-
1%).
5. For each lime kiln or a. Maintain and i. Installing,
lime cooler equipped with a operate the fabric maintaining,
fabric filter or an ESP filter or ESP such calibrating and
that uses a COMS as the that the average operating a COMS as
monitoring device. opacity for any 6- required by 40 CFR
minute block period part 63, subpart A,
does not exceed 15 General Provisions
percent. and according to PS-
1 of appendix B to
part 60 of this
chapter.
ii. Collecting the
COMS data at a
frequency of at
least once every 15
seconds,
determining block
averages for each 6-
minute period and
demonstrating for
each 6-minute block
period the average
opacity does not
exceed 15 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Periodic Monitoring for Compliance
with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
[You must periodically demonstrate compliance with each opacity and
visible emission limit that applies to you, according to the following
table, as required in Sec. 63.7121]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You must demonstrate
For . . . emission limitation ongoing compliance .
. . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each MPO subject to an a. 7-15 percent (i) Conducting a
opacity limitation as opacity, depending monthly 1-minute VE
required in Table 1 to this on the materials check of each
subpart, or any vents from processing emission unit in
buildings subject to an operation, as accordance with
opacity limitation. required in Table 1 Sec. 63.7121(e);
to this subpart. the check must be
conducted while the
affected source is
in operation.
(ii) If no VE are
observed in 6
consecutive monthly
checks for any
emission unit, you
may decrease the
frequency of VE
checking from
monthly to semi-
annually for that
emission unit; if
VE are observed
during any
semiannual check,
you must resume VE
checking of that
emission unit on a
monthly basis and
maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed in
6 consecutive
monthly checks.
(iii) If no VE are
observed during the
semiannual check
for any emission
unit, you may
decrease the
frequency of VE
checking from semi-
annually to
annually for that
emission unit; if
VE are observed
during any annual
check, you must
resume VE checking
of that emission
unit on a monthly
basis and maintain
that schedule until
no VE are observed
in 6 consecutive
monthly checks.
[[Page 78084]]
(iv) If VE are
observed during any
VE check, you must
conduct a 6-minute
test of opacity in
accordance with
Method 9 of
appendix A to part
60 of this chapter;
you must begin the
Method 9 test
within 1 hour of
any observation of
VE and the 6-minute
opacity reading
must not exceed the
applicable opacity
limit.
2. Any building subject to a a. No VE............ (i) Conducting a
VE limit, according to item monthly VE check of
6 of Table 1 to this the building, in
subpart. accordance with the
specifications in
Sec. 63.7112(k);
the check must be
conducted while all
the enclosed
according MPO are
in operation.
(ii) The check for
each affected
building must be at
least 5 minutes,
with each side of
the building and
roof being observed
for at least 1
minute.
(iii) If no VE are
observed in 6
consecutive monthly
checks of the
building, you may
decrease the
frequency of
checking from
monthly to semi-
annually for that
affected source; if
VE are observed
during any semi-
annual check, you
must resume
checking on a
monthly basis and
maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed in
6 consecutive
monthly checks.
(iv) If no VE are
observed during the
semi-annual check,
you may decrease
the frequency of
checking from semi-
annually to
annually for that
affected source;
and if VE are
observed during any
annual check, you
must resume
checking of that
emission unit on a
monthly basis and
maintain that
schedule until no
VE are observed in
6 consecutive
monthly checks (the
source is in
compliance if no VE
are observed during
any of these
checks).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
[You must submit each report in this table that applies to you, as
required in Sec. 63.7131]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ....................
periods during
which the CMS,
including the
operating parameter
monitoring systems,
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 ....................
deviation from any
emission limitation
(emission limit,
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
VE) during the
reporting period,
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.7131(c).
d. If there were ....................
periods during
which the CMS,
including the
operating parameter
monitoring systems,
was out-of-control,
as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.7131(e).
[[Page 78085]]
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).
2. An immediate startup, Actions taken for By fax or telephone
shutdown, and malfunction the event. within 2 working
report if you had a days after starting
startup, shutdown, or actions
malfunction during the inconsistent with
reporting period that is the SSMP.
not consistent with your
SSMP.
3. An immediate startup, The information in By letter within 7
shutdown, and malfunction Sec. working days after
report if you had a 63.10(d)(5)(ii). the end of the
startup, shutdown, or event unless you
malfunction during the have made
reporting period that is alternative
not consistent with your arrangements with
SSMP. the permitting
authority. See Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(4)....................... Applicability.......... Yes.
63.1(a)(5)........................... ....................... No.
63.1(a)(6)........................... Applicability.......... Yes.
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9).................... ....................... No.
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14).................. Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.1(b)(1)........................... Initial Applicability Yes.................... Sec. Sec. 63.7081
Determination. and 63.7142 specify
additional
applicability
determination
requirements.
63.1(b)(2)........................... ....................... No.
63.1(b)(3)........................... Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination.
63.1(c)(1)........................... Applicability After Yes.
Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)........................... Permit Requirements.... No..................... Area sources not
subject to subpart
AAAAA, except all
sources must make
initial applicability
determination.
63.1(c)(3)........................... ....................... No.....................
63.1(c)(4)-(5)....................... Extensions, Yes.
Notifications.
63.1(d).............................. ....................... No.
63.1(e).............................. Applicability of Permit Yes.
Program.
63.2................................. Definitions............ ....................... Additional definition
in Sec. 63.7143.
63.3(a)-(c).......................... Units and Abbreviations Yes.
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2).................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes.
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5).................... ....................... No.
63.4(b)-(c).......................... Circumvention, Yes.
Severability.
63.5(a)(1)-(2)....................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes.
63.5(b)(2)........................... ....................... No.
63.5(b)(3)-(4)....................... Construction Approval, Yes.
Applicability.
63.5(b)(5)........................... ....................... No.
63.5(b)(6)........................... Applicability.......... Yes.
63.5(c).............................. ....................... No.
63.5(d)(1)-(4)....................... Approval of Yes.
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(e).............................. Approval of Yes.
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)-(2)....................... Approval of Yes.
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.6(a).............................. Compliance for Yes.
Standards and
Maintenance.
63.6(b)(1)-(5)....................... Compliance Dates....... Yes.
63.6(b)(6)........................... ....................... No.
63.6(b)(7)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes.
63.6(c)(1)-(2)....................... Compliance Dates....... Yes.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4).................... ....................... No.
63.6(c)(5)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes.
63.6(d).............................. ....................... No.
63.6(e)(1)........................... Operation & Maintenance Yes.................... See also Sec. 63.7100
for OM&M requirements.
63.6(e)(2)........................... ....................... No.
63.6(e)(3)........................... Startup, Shutdown Yes.
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(3)....................... Compliance with Yes.
Emission Standards.
63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3).................... Alternative Standard... Yes.
63.6(h)(1)-(2)....................... Opacity/VE Standards... Yes....................
63.6(h)(3)........................... ....................... No.
[[Page 78086]]
63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)................. Opacity/VE Standards... Yes.................... This requirement only
applies to opacity and
VE performance checks
required in Table 4 to
subpart AAAAA.
63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iii)................. Opacity/VE Standards... No..................... Test durations are
specified in subpart
AAAAA; subpart AAAAA
takes precedence.
63.6(h)(5)(iv)....................... Opacity/VE Standards... No.
63.6(h)(5)(v)........................ Opacity/VE Standards... Yes.
63.6(h)(6)........................... Opacity/VE Standards... Yes.
63.6(h)(7)........................... COM Use................ No..................... No COM required under
subpart AAAAA.
63.6(h)(8)........................... Compliance with Opacity Yes.
and VE.
63.6(h)(9)........................... Adjustment of Opacity Yes.
Limit.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)................... Extension of Compliance Yes.
63.6(i)(15).......................... ....................... No.
63.6(i)(16).......................... Extension of Compliance Yes.
63.6(j).............................. Exemption from Yes.
Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(3).................... Performance Testing Yes.................... Sec. 63.7110
Requirements. specifies deadlines;
Sec. 63.7112 has
additional specific
requirements.
63.7(b).............................. Notification........... Yes.
63.7(c).............................. Quality Assurance/Test Yes.
Plan.
63.7(d).............................. Testing Facilities..... Yes.
63.7(e)(1)-(4)....................... Conduct of Tests....... Yes.
63.7(f).............................. Alternative Test Method Yes.
63.7(g).............................. Data Analysis.......... Yes.
63.7(h).............................. Waiver of Tests........ Yes.
63.8(a)(1)........................... Monitoring Requirements Yes.................... See also Sec.
63.7113.
63.8(a)(2)........................... Monitoring............. Yes.
63.8(a)(3)........................... ....................... No.
63.8(a)(4)........................... Monitoring............. No..................... Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3)....................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes.
63.8(c)(1)-(3)....................... CMS Operation/ Yes.
Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)........................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... See Sec. 63.7121.
63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)................... Cycle Time for COM and No..................... No COM or CEMS are
CEMS. required under subpart
AAAAA; see Sec.
63.7113 for CPMS
requirements.
63.8(c)(5)........................... Minimum COM procedures. No COM not required.
63.8(c)(6)........................... CMS Requirements....... No See Sec. 63.7113.
63.8(c)(7)-(8)....................... CMS Requirements....... Yes.
63.8(d).............................. Quality Control........ No..................... See Sec. 63.7113.
63.8(e).............................. Performance Evaluation No.
for CMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5).................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.
Method.
63.8(f)(6)........................... Alternative to Relative No.
Accuracy test.
63.8(g)(1)-(g)(5).................... Data Reduction; Data No..................... See data reduction
That Cannot Be Used. requirements in Sec.
Sec. 63.7120 and
63.7121.
63.9(a).............................. Notification Yes.................... See also Sec. 63.7130
Requirements.
63.9(b).............................. Initial Notifications.. Yes.
63.9(c).............................. Request for Compliance Yes.
Extension.
63.9(d).............................. New Source Notification Yes.
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
63.9(e).............................. Notification of Yes.
Performance Test.
63.9(f).............................. Notification of VE/ Yes.................... This requirement only
Opacity Test. applies to opacity and
VE performance tests
required in Table 4 to
subpart AAAAA.
Notification not
required for VE/
opacity test under
Table 6 to subpart
AAAAA.
63.9(g).............................. Additional CMS No..................... Not required for
Notifications. operating parameter
monitoring.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3).................... Notification of Yes.
Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)........................... ....................... No.....................
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6).................... Notification of Yes.
Compliance Status.
63.9(i).............................. Adjustment of Deadlines Yes.
63.9(j).............................. Change in Previous Yes.
Information.
63.10(a)............................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes.................... See Sec. Sec.
General Requirements. 63.7131 through
63.7133.
63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii).............. Records................ Yes.
63.10(b)(2)(xiii).................... Records for Relative No.
Accuracy Test.
63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..................... Records for Yes.
Notification.
63.10(b)(3).......................... Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
63.10(c)............................. Additional CMS No..................... See Sec. 63.7132.
Recordkeeping.
63.10(d)(1).......................... General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
[[Page 78087]]
63.10(d)(2).......................... Performance Test Yes.
Results.
63.10(d)(3).......................... Opacity or VE Yes.................... For the periodic
Observations. monitoring
requirements in Table
6 to subpart AAAAA,
report according to
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)
only if VE observed
and subsequent visual
opacity test is
required.
63.10(d)(4).......................... Progress Reports....... Yes.
63.10(d)(5).......................... Startup, Shutdown, Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)............................. Additional CMS Reports. No..................... See specific
requirements in
subpart AAAAA, see
Sec. 63.7131.
63.10(f)............................. Waiver for Yes.
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
63.11(a)-(b)......................... Control Device No..................... Flares not applicable.
Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c)......................... State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
63.13(a)-(c)......................... State/Regional Yes.
Addresses.
63.14(a)-(b)......................... Incorporation by Yes. ASTM 6420-99 and 6735-
Reference. 01 (see Sec. 63.14).
63.15(a)-(b)......................... Availability of Yes....................
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-31233 Filed 12-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P