[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47894-47949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15869]
[[Page 47893]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47894]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7236-5]
RIN 2060-A167 and 2060-A168
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is adding two source categories, brick and structural
clay products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing, to
the list of categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) published under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to
the source category schedule for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The two source categories being
added were originally included in the clay products manufacturing
source category, which was on the initial list of source categories to
be regulated. The EPA is, at the same time, proposing NESHAP for new
and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities and NESHAP for
new sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. The two proposed
subparts would require major sources to meet emission standards
reflecting the application of maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). The HAP emitted by facilities in the BSCP and clay ceramics
manufacturing source categories include hydrogen fluoride (HF),
hydrogen chloride (HCl), and metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and
selenium). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause
adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and kidney damage.
The EPA has classified three of the HAP as human carcinogens, four as
probable human carcinogens, and one as a possible human carcinogen. We
estimate that the proposed rules would reduce nationwide emissions of
HAP from these facilities by approximately 2,600 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr)(2,800 tons per year (tpy)), a reduction of approximately 45
percent from the current level of emissions.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 20, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 12, 2002, a public hearing will be held on
August 21, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments on BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. By U.S. Postal
Service, written comments on the proposed BSCP manufacturing NESHAP
should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-30,
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In
person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention
Docket Number A-99-30, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Comments on Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. By U.S. Postal
Service, written comments on the proposed clay ceramics manufacturing
NESHAP should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-2000-48, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-2000-48, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be
sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. on August 21, 2002 at the EPA's Environmental Research Center
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate
site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-30 contains supporting information used in
developing the proposed BSCP standards. Docket No. A-2000-48 contains
supporting information used in developing the proposed clay ceramics
standards. The dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and
may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed
rules, contact Ms. Mary Johnson, Combustion Group, Emission Standards
Division (MC-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5025, e-mail address:
[email protected]. For questions about the public hearing, contact
Ms. Tanya Medley, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MC-C504-05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422, e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect [reg] version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-99-30 for BSCP manufacturing and A-2000-48 for clay ceramics
manufacturing. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: OAQPS Document Control Officer, MC-
C404-02, Attention: Ms. Mary Johnson, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Tanya Medley at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Medley to
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The address,
telephone number, and e-mail address for Ms. Medley are listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public hearing
is held, it will provide interested parties
[[Page 47895]]
the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these
proposed emission standards.
Docket. The dockets are organized and complete files of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of the proposed
rules. The dockets are dynamic files because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated rules and
their preambles, the contents of the dockets will serve as the record
in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)
The regulatory text and other materials related to the proposed rules
are available for review in the dockets, or copies may be mailed on
request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the dockets,
an electronic copy of each proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of each rule will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those industrial facilities that manufacture BSCP and clay
ceramics. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing is
classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 3251,
Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 3253, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile; and
3259, Other Structural Clay Products. The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes for BSCP manufacturing are 327121,
Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 327122, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile
Manufacturing; and 327123, Other Structural Clay Products. Clay
ceramics manufacturing is classified under SIC codes 3253, Ceramic Wall
and Floor Tile; and 3261, Vitreous Plumbing Fixtures (Sanitaryware).
The NAICS codes for clay ceramics manufacturing are 327122, Ceramic
Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing; and 327111, Vitreous China Plumbing
Fixture and China and Earthenware Bathroom Accessories Manufacturing.
Regulated categories and entities are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category SIC NAICS entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................................. 3251 327121 Brick and structural clay tile
manufacturing facilities (BSCP
NESHAP)
Industrial................................. 3253 327122 Ceramic wall and floor tile
manufacturing facilities (Clay
Ceramics NESHAP) and extruded tile
manufacturing facilities (BSCP
NESHAP)
Industrial................................. 3259 327123 Other structural clay products
manufacturing facilities (BSCP
NESHAP)
Industrial................................. 3261 327111 Vitreous plumbing fixtures
(sanitaryware) manufacturing
facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 63.8385 of the
proposed BSCP rule and Sec. 63.8535 of the proposed clay ceramics rule.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source categories?
D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the
brick and structural clay products manufacturing and clay ceramics
manufacturing source categories?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing
A. What source category is regulated by the proposed rule?
B. What are the affected sources?
C. When must I comply with the proposed rule?
D. What are the emission limits?
E. What are the operating limits?
F. What are the performance test and initial compliance
requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
E. What are the cost impacts?
F. How can we reduce the cost of the proposed rule?
G. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
A. How did we select the emission sources and pollutants that
will be regulated?
B. How did we determine subcategories?
C. How did we determine the MACT floors for existing sources?
D. How did we determine the MACT floors for new sources?
E. How did we select the format of the proposed rule?
F. How did we determine the emission limits?
G. How did we select the operating limits and monitoring
requirements?
V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
A. What source category is regulated by the proposed rule?
B. What are the affected sources?
C. When must I comply with the proposed rule?
D. What are the emission limits?
E. What are the operating limits?
F. What are the performance test and initial compliance
requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
E. What are the cost impacts?
F. What are the economic impacts?
[[Page 47896]]
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing
A. How did we select the emission sources and pollutants that
will be regulated?
B. How did we determine subcategories?
C. How did we determine the MACT floors for existing sources?
D. How did we determine the MACT floors for new sources?
E. How did we select the format of the proposed rule?
F. How did we determine the emission limits?
G. How did we select the operating limits and monitoring
requirements?
VIII. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP
for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of
HAP are those stationary sources or groups of stationary sources that
are located within a contiguous area under common control that emit or
have the potential to emit, considering controls, 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
or more of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any
combination of HAP. Area sources are those stationary sources or groups
of stationary sources that are not major sources.
B. 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 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
five 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.
C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?
We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992
(57 FR 31576). Included on the initial source category list were major
sources of HAP emissions from the clay products manufacturing industry.
Early in the regulatory development process, four distinct
industries were identified within the clay products manufacturing
source category. In a notice published in the Federal Register on
November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63025), we stated that we anticipated
replacing the clay products manufacturing source category with four
separate source categories representing those four industries: BSCP
manufacturing, ceramics manufacturing, clay minerals processing, and
lightweight aggregate manufacturing. We further stated that we expected
to propose and promulgate separate MACT standards for each of the
anticipated four source categories, and that the proposal for each of
the standards would add the new source category to the source category
list (64 FR 63028).
After further consideration, we have decided to propose and
promulgate MACT standards for only two of the four anticipated source
categories: BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. These
two categories are included in this action. The similarity of affected
sources and types of HAP emissions within these two categories provides
the opportunity to propose rules for both industries under one action.
Consequently, today's action replaces the clay products manufacturing
source category on the source category list with BSCP manufacturing and
clay ceramics manufacturing. At this time, we do not anticipate
proposing and promulgating MACT standards for the clay minerals
processing and lightweight aggregate manufacturing industries. Because
we have not added those industries to the source category list, we need
not take formal action to remove them from the list. However, we are
providing notice of our current plans here so that interested persons
have an opportunity to comment.
D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From the Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
Source Categories?
Today's proposed rules protect air quality and promote the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the CAA. Emissions data collected during development of
the proposed rules show that HF, HCl, and metals (antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead,
and selenium) are emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities. Exposure to these HAP is associated with a variety of
adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic
health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the
kidneys), and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and
congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects
on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified three of
the HAP as human carcinogens, four as probable human carcinogens, and
one as a possible human carcinogen. We do not know the extent to which
the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse
effects do occur, today's proposed rules would reduce emissions and
subsequent exposures.
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause
severe respiratory damage in humans,
[[Page 47897]]
including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term)
exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental
cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of
osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental
fluorosis or mottling, while very high exposures through drinking water
or air can result in crippling skeletal fluorosis. One study reported
menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to fluoride.
We have not classified HF for carcinogenicity.
2. Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to
the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute (short-term) inhalation
exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and
inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic (long-term)
occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis,
bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low
concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects
of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus
cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and
decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not
classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
3. Antimony
Acute (short-term) exposure to antimony by inhalation in humans
results in effects on the skin and eyes. Respiratory effects, such as
inflammation of the lungs, chronic bronchitis, and chronic emphysema,
are the primary effects noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to
antimony in humans via inhalation. Human studies are inconclusive
regarding antimony exposure and cancer, while animal studies have
reported lung tumors in rats exposed to antimony trioxide via
inhalation. We have not classified antimony for carcinogenicity.
4. Arsenic
Acute (short-term) high-level inhalation exposure to arsenic dust
or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea,
abdominal pain), and central and peripheral nervous system disorders.
Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans
is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Human
data suggest a relationship between inhalation exposure of women
working at or living near metal smelters and an increased risk of
reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortions. Inorganic arsenic
exposure in humans by the inhalation route has been shown to be
strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic
arsenic in humans has been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to
bladder, liver, and lung cancer. We have classified inorganic arsenic
as a Group A, human carcinogen.
5. Beryllium
Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to high levels of beryllium
has been observed to cause inflammation of the lungs or acute
pneumonitis (reddening and swelling of the lungs) in humans; after
exposure ends, these symptoms may be reversible. Chronic (long-term)
inhalation exposure of humans to beryllium has been reported to cause
chronic beryllium disease (berylliosis), in which granulomatous
(noncancerous) lesions develop in the lung. Inhalation exposure to
beryllium has been demonstrated to cause lung cancer in rats and
monkeys. Human studies are limited, but suggest a causal relationship
between beryllium exposure and an increased risk of lung cancer. We
have classified beryllium as a Group B1, probable human carcinogen.
6. Cadmium
The acute (short-term) effects of cadmium inhalation in humans
consist mainly of effects on the lung, such as pulmonary irritation.
Chronic (long-term) inhalation or oral exposure to cadmium leads to a
build-up of cadmium in the kidneys that can cause kidney disease.
Cadmium has been shown to be a developmental toxicant in animals,
resulting in fetal malformations and other effects, but no conclusive
evidence exists in humans. An association between cadmium exposure and
an increased risk of lung cancer has been reported from human studies,
but these studies are inconclusive due to confounding factors. Animal
studies have demonstrated an increase in lung cancer from long-term
inhalation exposure to cadmium. We have classified cadmium as a Group
B1, probable human carcinogen.
7. Chromium
Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent chromium (chromium
III) or hexavalent chromium (chromium VI). The respiratory tract is the
major target organ for chromium VI toxicity, for acute (short-term) and
chronic (long-term) inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath,
coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure to
chromium VI, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum,
bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other
respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure. Limited
human studies suggest that chromium VI inhalation exposure may be
associated with complications during pregnancy and childbirth, while
animal studies have not reported reproductive effects from inhalation
exposure to chromium VI. Human and animal studies have clearly
established that inhaled chromium VI is a carcinogen, resulting in an
increased risk of lung cancer. We have classified chromium VI as a
Group A, human carcinogen.
Chromium III is much less toxic than chromium VI. The respiratory
tract is also the major target organ for chromium III toxicity, similar
to chromium VI. Chromium III is an essential element in humans, with a
daily intake of 50 to 200 micrograms per day ([mu]g/d) recommended for
an adult. The body can detoxify some amount of chromium VI to chromium
III. We have not classified chromium III for carcinogenicity.
8. Cobalt
Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of cobalt by inhalation
in humans and animals results in respiratory effects such as a
significant decrease in ventilatory function, congestion, edema, and
hemorrhage of the lung. Respiratory effects are also the major effects
noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to cobalt by inhalation, with
respiratory irritation, wheezing, asthma, pneumonia, and fibrosis
noted. Cardiac effects, congestion of the liver, kidneys, and
conjunctiva, and immunological effects have also been noted in humans.
Cobalt is an essential element in humans, as a constituent of vitamin
B12. Human and animal studies are inconclusive with respect to
potential carcinogenicity of cobalt. We have not classified cobalt for
carcinogenicity.
9. Mercury
Mercury exists in three forms: Elemental mercury, inorganic mercury
compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds
(primarily methyl mercury). Each form exhibits different health
effects. Brick, structural clay products, and clay ceramics
manufacturing may release elemental or inorganic mercury, but not
methyl mercury so those health effects are not addressed in this
preamble. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of elemental
mercury in humans results in central nervous system (CNS) effects such
as tremors,
[[Page 47898]]
mood changes, and slowed sensory and motor nerve function. High
inhalation exposures can also cause kidney damage and effects on the
gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system. Chronic (long-term)
exposure to elemental mercury in humans also affects the CNS, with
effects such as increased excitability, irritability, excessive
shyness, and tremors. We have not classified elemental mercury for
carcinogenicity.
Acute exposure to inorganic mercury by the oral route may result in
effects such as nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. The major
effect from chronic exposure to inorganic mercury is kidney damage.
Reproductive and developmental animal studies have reported effects
such as alterations in testicular tissue, increased embryo resorption
rates, and abnormalities of development. Mercuric chloride (an
inorganic mercury compound) exposure has been shown to result in
forestomach, thyroid, and renal tumors in experimental animals. We have
classified mercuric chloride as a Group C, possible human carcinogen.
10. Manganese
Health effects in humans have been associated with both
deficiencies and excess intakes of manganese. Chronic (long-term)
exposure to low levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be
nutritionally essential in humans, with a recommended daily allowance
of 2 to 5 milligrams per day (mg/d). Chronic exposure to high levels of
manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in CNS effects.
Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were
affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by
feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face, and
psychological disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher
levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers
afflicted with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have
classified manganese as Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
11. Nickel
Nickel is an essential element in some animal species, and it has
been suggested it may be essential for human nutrition. Nickel
dermatitis, consisting of itching of the fingers, hands, and forearms,
is the most common effect in humans from chronic (long-term) skin
contact with nickel. Respiratory effects have also been reported in
humans from inhalation exposure to nickel. No information is available
regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of nickel in
humans, but animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal
studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from
exposure to nickel refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. Animal studies
of soluble nickel compounds (i.e., nickel carbonyl) have reported lung
tumors. We have classified nickel refinery dust and nickel subsulfide
as Group A, human carcinogens, and nickel carbonyl as a Group B2,
probable human carcinogen.
12. Lead
Lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of effects at low
dose levels. Brain damage, kidney damage, and gastrointestinal distress
may occur from acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of lead in
humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to lead in humans results in
effects on the blood, CNS, blood pressure, and kidneys. Children are
particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead, with slowed
cognitive development, reduced growth, and other effects reported.
Reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm count in men and
spontaneous abortions in women, have been associated with lead
exposure. The developing fetus is at particular risk from maternal lead
exposure, with low birth weight and slowed postnatal neurobehavioral
development noted. Human studies are inconclusive regarding lead
exposure and cancer, while animal studies have reported an increase in
kidney cancer from lead exposure by the oral route. We have classified
lead as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
13. Selenium
Selenium is a naturally occurring substance that is toxic at high
concentrations but is also a nutritionally essential element. Acute
(short-term) exposure to elemental selenium, hydrogen selenide, and
selenium dioxide by inhalation results primarily in respiratory
effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema,
severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. Studies of humans
chronically (long-term) exposed to high levels of selenium in food and
water have reported discoloration of the skin, pathological deformation
and loss of nails, loss of hair, excessive tooth decay and
discoloration, lack of mental alertness, and listlessness. The
consumption of high levels of selenium by pigs, sheep, and cattle has
been shown to interfere with normal fetal development and to produce
birth defects. Results of human and animal studies suggest that
supplementation with some forms of selenium may result in a reduced
incidence of several tumor types. One selenium compound, selenium
sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. We have classified
elemental selenium as a Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human
carcinogen.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing
A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Proposed Rule?
Today's proposed rule for BSCP manufacturing applies to BSCP
manufacturing facilities that are, are located at, or are part of, a
major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP manufacturing source category
includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick,
structural brick, brick pavers, other brick); clay pipe; roof tile;
extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay
products. Brick and structural clay products primarily are produced
from common clay and shale. Production of BSCP typically consists of
processing and handling the raw materials, forming and cutting bricks
and shapes, and drying and firing the bricks and shapes. One by-product
of brick manufacturing is crushed brick, which is produced at some
facilities by crushing reject bricks.
There are a total of 189 domestic BSCP manufacturing facilities;
170 of these facilities primarily produce brick, and 19 of these
facilities primarily produce structural clay products. The 189 BSCP
manufacturing facilities are located in 39 States and are owned by 90
companies. Seventy-seven of the companies are small businesses, and
these 77 companies own 93 of the BSCP manufacturing facilities.
Thirteen of the companies are large businesses, and these 13 companies
own 96 BSCP manufacturing facilities.
All BSCP are fired either in continuous (tunnel or roller) or batch
(periodic) kilns. Because the vast majority of continuous kilns are
tunnel kilns, continuous kilns, including roller kilns, will be
referred to as tunnel kilns for the remainder of this preamble. A total
of 308 permitted and operable tunnel kilns were reported by industry;
296 of these kilns are located at facilities that are estimated, based
on uncontrolled emissions, to be major sources. Of the 296 tunnel kilns
located at major sources, 269 are located at brick manufacturing
facilities and 27 are located at structural clay products manufacturing
facilities. A total of 227 permitted and operable periodic kilns
[[Page 47899]]
were reported by industry; 164 of these kilns are located at facilities
that are estimated to be major sources. Of the 164 periodic kilns
located at major sources, 81 are located at brick manufacturing
facilities and 83 are located at structural clay products manufacturing
facilities.
Most tunnel kilns are fired with natural gas, although coal,
sawdust, landfill gas, and fuel oil also are used. Many kilns have
propane available as a back-up fuel. Most of the sawdust-fired tunnel
kilns duct some or all of the kiln exhaust to rotary sawdust dryers
prior to release to the atmosphere. Tunnel kilns range in size from
about 104 meters (m) (340 feet (ft)) to 152 m (500 ft) in length and
include a dryer, a firing zone, and a cooling zone. The dryer can be a
totally separate structure from the tunnel kiln or can be in-line (part
of the tunnel kiln). In tunnel kilns with in-line dryers, the dryer and
kiln exhaust fans are balanced so that kiln combustion gases do not
enter the dryer. A neutral point, created by the draft from the dryer
and the kiln, separates the dryer and kiln atmospheres. A similar
neutral point also exists between the firing and cooling zones of all
tunnel kilns. Some dryers that precede coal-fired kilns use kiln gases
to aid in the drying process. This process is called back-drafting and
is accomplished by changing the balance between the dryer and kiln
exhaust fans so that the dryer/kiln neutral point moves into the kiln
and allows some combustion gases to enter the dryer. Tunnel kiln firing
zones typically maintain a maximum temperature of about 1090 deg.C
(2000 deg.F). Production rates for tunnel kilns averaged about 5.7
megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (6.3 tons per hour (tph)) in 1996. During
firing, small amounts of excess fuel, typically natural gas, are
sometimes introduced to the kiln atmosphere, creating a reducing
atmosphere that adds color to the surface of the bricks. This process
is called flashing. After firing, the bricks enter the cooling zone,
where they are cooled to near ambient temperatures before leaving the
tunnel kiln. The bricks then are removed from the kiln cars, stored,
and shipped.
Periodic kilns are the most common type of kiln for firing clay
pipe and are also used to produce brick and other structural clay
products. Types of periodic kilns that are used in the BSCP industry
include beehive kilns and shuttle kilns. Beehive kilns are round, brick
structures in which bricks or structural clay products are manually
loaded or stacked. Shuttle kilns typically are steel-framed,
refractory-lined structures that are loaded with brick or structural
clay product-laden kiln cars. Following loading, periodic kilns are
fired for a set amount of time, depending on the product. Firing cycles
for brick range from 40 hours to about 200 hours. Firing cycles for
structural clay products vary over a much wider range (16 hours to
about 700 hours) because the sizes of the products vary over a wide
range. The average production rate for periodic kilns in the industry
is less than 0.5 tph (on a continuous basis). Structural clay tile that
are fired in periodic kilns typically require relatively short firing
cycles, while large clay pipe typically require hundreds of hours.
Facilities that use periodic kilns typically operate several kilns, and
groups or banks of periodic kilns often are ducted to a single stack.
Most periodic kilns are fired with natural gas, while a few periodic
kilns are fired with coal or sawdust.
The primary HAP emissions sources at BSCP manufacturing plants are
tunnel kilns and periodic kilns, which emit HF, HCl, and HAP metals.
Kilns also emit particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). Other sources of HAP emissions at BSCP manufacturing
plants are the raw material processing and handling equipment. The air
pollution control devices (APCD) that are used by the industry to
control emissions from kilns include dry lime injection fabric filters
(DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filters (DLS/FF), dry limestone
adsorbers (DLA), wet scrubbers (WS), and fabric filters. The following
paragraphs describe the control systems.
Dry lime injection fabric filters are used to control HF, HCl,
SO2, and PM emissions from tunnel kilns. These systems
inject hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) into the kiln exhaust. The
lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an exhaust duct and
are ducted to a fabric filter. Acid gas removal takes place in the
exhaust duct or reaction chamber and subsequent ductwork, and across
the lime-caked fabric filter bags. The fabric filter then removes the
lime and other PM from the exhaust stream prior to release to the
atmosphere. The spent lime and PM collected by the fabric filter are
then disposed of as solid waste. One facility ships the lime to a
landfill where it is used to solidify liquid hazardous waste. The
facility does not have to pay for spent lime disposal (other than
shipping costs) because the lime is useful to the landfill.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filters are also used to control HF, HCl,
SO2, and PM emissions from tunnel kilns. These systems mix
fresh hydrated lime, re-circulated hydrated lime, and a small amount of
water in a conditioning drum. The lime/water mixture then is injected
into a reaction chamber where it mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas
removal takes place in the reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and
across the lime-caked fabric filter bags. Additionally, the hot exhaust
gases from the kiln evaporate the water in the lime/water mixture,
thereby cooling the exhaust gases before entering the fabric filter.
From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric
filter for PM removal, and a percentage of the fabric filter catch is
reintroduced into the conditioning drum along with fresh lime and
water.
Dry limestone adsorbers are also used to control tunnel kiln
emissions. These systems feed limestone into the top of a reaction
chamber countercurrent to the kiln exhaust gases. The limestone
cascades through multiple baffles within the chamber and reacts with
and removes HF, and, to a lesser degree, HCl and SO2 from
the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for
controlling PM and may actually create PM emissions in some instances.
Depending on the system, the limestone is then pneumatically conveyed
directly back to the top of the chamber or is mechanically processed
(scraped) to remove reacted material from the surface and then
pneumatically conveyed back to the top of the reaction chamber. New
limestone is periodically added to the system as needed. We have
several concerns, which are discussed in section IV.B of this preamble,
with the DLA control technology.
Attempts are currently under way to control a periodic kiln with a
DLA, but based on available test data and discussions with the facility
manager, the system has not been successful in controlling HF emissions
from the kiln. The facility is continuing efforts to solve the problems
with the APCD, but at this point, the DLA has not been proven effective
for controlling emissions from periodic kilns.
Wet scrubbers are also used to control HF, HCl, SO2, and
PM emissions from tunnel kilns. One type of WS system currently in use
is a vertical, packed-tower scrubber. This system first quenches the
exhaust gases with a soda-ash and water solution. The exhaust gases
then pass through 5 feet of random dump packing followed by a demister.
The soda-ash and water solution is also added to the top of the packing
material, countercurrent to the gas flow. The other WS currently in
use, which recently began operation, is a fluidized bed scrubber that
uses water and sodium hydroxide as the scrubbing solution. Test data
documenting the
[[Page 47900]]
performance of the fluidized bed scrubber are not yet available. The
facility that is currently operating wet scrubbers discharges the
scrubber wastewater directly to the sewer. This water disposal option
is not available to all facilities, but some facilities have indicated
that they would have similar disposal options.
In addition, another type of wet scrubber system has been developed
specifically for the brick industry. The system is a cross-flow
scrubber that includes the addition of magnesium hydroxide
(Mg(OH)2) to the scrubber water. The Mg(OH)2
reacts with HF, HCl, and SO2 to form several salts,
including magnesium fluoride (MgF2), magnesium chloride
(MgCl2), and magnesium sulfate (MgSO4). A pilot-
scale test of the system reportedly showed HF control efficiencies
greater than 99 percent, SO2 control efficiencies greater
than 95 percent, and PM concentrations lower than 0.023 grams per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf)). The testing did not include measurements of HCl emissions.
The system can be designed to discharge directly to a sewer if
available or can include a spray dryer (i.e., evaporator) to eliminate
the liquid waste.
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
The existing affected source, which is the portion of each source
in the category for which we are setting emission standards, is any
existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than
9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Such tunnel kilns may be fired by
natural gas or other fuels, including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically
involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is
purchased wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel.
Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns have two process streams,
including: a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or
to an APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to
a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to
the atmosphere.
Today's proposed rule focuses on those process streams from
existing tunnel kilns that exhaust directly to the atmosphere or to an
APCD. For existing tunnel kilns at or above the threshold design
capacity that do not have sawdust dryers, the kiln exhaust process
stream (i.e., the only process stream) is subject to the requirements
of today's proposed rule. In accordance with CAA section 112(d)(1), we
have divided tunnel kilns that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers into two
classes for purposes of regulation. For existing tunnel kilns at or
above the threshold design capacity that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers
prior to July 22, 2002, only the process stream that is emitted
directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD is subject to the requirements
of today's proposed rule; any process stream from such kilns that is
ducted to a sawdust dryer is not subject to those requirements.
By contrast, for existing tunnel kilns at or above the threshold
design capacity that first duct exhaust to sawdust dryers on or after
July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., both the process stream that
is emitted directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD and the process
stream that is ducted to a sawdust dryer) is subject to the same level
of control requirement as a new tunnel kiln. It is important to
regulate all of the exhaust from this subset of existing tunnel kilns
in order to prevent existing tunnel kilns that do not duct exhaust to
sawdust dryers prior to July 22, 2002 from circumventing the control
requirements of today's proposed rule by ducting to sawdust dryers. It
also makes sense to subject all of the exhaust from kilns that first
duct exhaust to sawdust dryers on or after July 22, 2002 to the
requirements of today's proposed rule because these sources, like new
sources, have options for controlling their emissions that are not as
readily available to existing sources. Thus, the cost of requiring MACT
for sources that choose to first duct kiln exhaust to a sawdust dryer
on or after July 22, 2002 is considered reasonable.
In addition, each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected
source, regardless of design capacity, and all process streams from new
or reconstructed tunnel kilns are subject to the requirements of
today's proposed rule. A source is a new affected source if
construction began after July 22, 2002. An affected source is
reconstructed if the criteria defined in Sec. 63.2 are met. An affected
source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.
An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph) of fired product on a 30-day rolling average basis is not subject
to the requirements of today's proposed rule. Kilns that are used
exclusively for research and development (R&D) and not used to
manufacture products for commercial sale are not subject to the
requirements of today's proposed rule. Finally, kilns that are used
exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not
subject to the requirements of today's proposed rule.
C. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
Existing affected sources must comply within 3 years of [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. New or
reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup before [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] must comply no
later than [Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal
Register]. New or reconstructed affected sources with an initial
startup after [Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal
Register] must comply upon initial startup. Existing area sources that
subsequently become major sources have 3 years from the date they
become major sources to come into compliance. Any portion of existing
facilities that become new or reconstructed major sources and any new
or reconstructed area sources that become major sources must be in
compliance upon initial startup.
D. What Are the Emission Limits?
Today's proposed rule includes emission limits in the form of
production-based mass emission limits and percent reduction
requirements. In establishing the HAP emission limits, we selected PM
as a surrogate for HAP metals (including mercury in particulate form).
Today's proposed rule proposes HF, HCl, and PM emission limits for
existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources at BSCP manufacturing
facilities.
If you own or operate an existing tunnel kiln with a design
capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) or a new or
reconstructed tunnel kiln, regardless of capacity, you would be
required to meet an HF emission limit of 0.014 kilogram per megagram
(kg/Mg) (0.027 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of product or reduce
uncontrolled HF emissions by at least 95 percent for affected process
streams. You would be required to meet an HCl emission limit of 0.019
kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by
at least 90 percent. You would be required to meet a PM emission limit
of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of product.
E. What Are the Operating Limits?
In addition to the emission limits, today's proposed rule includes
operating limits that would apply to APCD used to comply with the
proposed rule. The operating limits require you to maintain certain
process or APCD parameters within levels
[[Page 47901]]
established during performance tests. Each facility affected by the
proposed rule would be required to prepare, implement, and revise, as
necessary, an operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The
OM&M plan generally specifies the operating parameters that will be
monitored; the frequency that parameter values will be determined; the
limits for each parameter; procedures for proper operation and
maintenance of process units, APCD, and monitoring equipment;
procedures for responding to parameter deviations; and procedures for
documenting compliance.
We have established operating limits for DIFF (dry lime injection
fabric filters), DLS/FF (dry lime scrubbers/fabric filters), and WS
(wet scrubbers). If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, you would be required
to initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection
system alarm and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M
plan, operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month reporting period, and maintain the average fabric filter inlet
temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average
temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F), established during your
performance test. You would be required to maintain free-flowing lime
in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous
injection systems and maintain the feeder setting at or above the level
established during your performance test. If you operate a DLS/FF, you
would be required to maintain the average water injection rate for each
3-hour block period at or above the level established during your
performance test.
If you operate a WS (wet scrubber), you would be required to
maintain the average scrubber pressure drop, the average scrubber
liquid pH, the average scrubber liquid flow rate, and the average
chemical addition rate, if applicable, for each 3-hour block period at
or above the average values established during your performance test.
If you own or operate an affected source equipped with an
alternative APCD or technique not listed in the proposed rule, you
would establish operating limits for the appropriate operating
parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator as
described in 40 CFR 63.8(f). You would be required to submit a request
for approval of alternative monitoring procedures that includes a
description of the alternative APCD or technique, the type of
monitoring device or procedure that would be used, the appropriate
operating parameters that would be monitored, and the frequency that
the operating parameter values would be determined and recorded. You
would establish site-specific operating limits during your performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request. You would be required to install,
operate, and maintain the parameter monitoring system for the
alternative APCD or technique according to your OM&M plan. If the
Administrator determines that parameter monitoring cannot assure
continuous compliance, a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)
to measure HF and/or HCl emissions may be required.
If a facility applies for the approval of alternative monitoring
procedures, including operating parameters, long-term APCD performance
is an important consideration. Some of the new APCD that are being
developed for controlling HF, HCl, and PM from brick kilns are similar
to DIFF and DLS/FF, but they use different dry media, such as crushed
limestone, sodium bicarbonate, and possibly other materials. One system
uses powdered limestone as a primary sorbent, followed by lesser
amounts of hydrated lime and sodium bicarbonate, each in a different
reaction chamber. This type of system is designed to minimize sorbent
costs by using the least expensive sorbent for primary control and
using more expensive (and effective) sorbents to provide additional
acid gas removal. The proposed operating limits for DIFF are
appropriate for these DIFF-type systems, but the limits will require
some modification to address specific design differences, such as the
use of multiple sorbents.
We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM CEMS
as a method to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM
emission limits for BSCP tunnel kilns. Specifically, we are soliciting
comment on 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 and the methodology for deriving
the limit from the available data for BSCP tunnel kilns.
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 BSCP tunnel kilns.
We intend to propose revisions 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) in the near future with
subsequent promulgation.
F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements?
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. A performance
test must be conducted before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating
permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance
test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being
revised. You would test at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any
releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. If meeting the
percent reduction emission limits for HF or HCl, you would test at the
APCD inlet. Under the proposed rule, you must conduct each test while
operating at the maximum production level.
Under the proposed rule, you would be required to measure emissions
of HF, HCl, and PM. You would measure HF and HCl emissions using EPA
Reference Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen
Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or any other alternative method that has been approved by
the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the general provisions. The
EPA Reference Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, may be used when
no acid particulate matter (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets
emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present.
Particulate matter emissions would be measured using EPA Reference
Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any other approved
alternative method.
To determine initial compliance with the production-based mass
emission limits for HF, HCl, and PM, you would calculate the mass
emissions per unit of production for each test run using the mass
emission rates of HF, HCl, and PM and the production rate (on a fired-
product basis) measured during your performance test. To determine
initial compliance with any of the percent reduction emission limits,
you would calculate the percent reduction for each test run using the
mass emission rates, measured during your performance test,
[[Page 47902]]
of the specific HAP (HF or HCl) entering and exiting the APCD.
Prior to your initial performance test, you would be required to
install the continuous monitoring system (CMS) (e.g., continuous
parameter monitoring system) equipment to be used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the operating limits. During your initial
test, you would use the CMS to establish site-specific operating
parameter values that represent your operating limits. If you operate a
DIFF or DLS/FF, you would be required to continuously measure the
temperature at the inlet to the fabric filter, determine and record the
average temperatures during each 1-hour test run, and determine the 3-
hour block average temperature. You would be required to ensure that
lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all
times during the performance test, and you would be required to record
the feeder setting for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate
varies, you would be required to determine the average feed rate from
the three test runs. You would be required to submit analyses and
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance
and specifications for bag leak detection systems. Additionally, if you
operate a DLS/FF, you would be required to continuously measure the
water injection rate, determine and record the average water injection
rate values for the three test runs, and determine the 3-hour block
average water injection rate. If you operate a WS, you would be
required to continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, the
scrubber liquid pH, the scrubber liquid flow rate, and the chemical
addition rate (if applicable). For each WS parameter, you would be
required to determine and record the average values for the three test
runs and the 3-hour block average value.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The proposed standards require that you demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. You would
be required to follow the requirements in your OM&M plan and document
conformance with your OM&M plan. You would be required to operate a CMS
to monitor the operating parameters established during your initial
performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CMS
would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, and you would
need to have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour)
per hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out-of-
control periods) to have a valid hour of data. You would have to
operate the CMS at all times when the process is operating. You would
also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CMS, including
inspections, calibrations, and validation checks, and maintain an
inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CMS. Using the
recorded readings, you would calculate and record the 3-hour block
average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average
for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at least 75 percent of
the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown,
malfunction, or out-of-control periods).
For DIFF and DLS/FF systems, you would have to continuously
maintain the 3-hour block average temperature at the fabric filter
inlet at or below the average temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F),
established during your performance test. You would have to maintain
free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all
times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load
cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop
measurement system, or other system, you would have to promptly
initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan.
You would also have to maintain the feeder setting at or above the
level established during your performance test and record the feeder
setting once each shift. You would have to initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete
corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You would also have to
operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time
fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time would be counted. If
corrective action is required, each alarm would be counted as a minimum
of 1 hour, and if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective
action, the alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time
taken to initiate corrective action.
Additionally, for DLS/FF, you would have to continuously maintain
the 3-hour block average water injection rate at or above the minimum
value established during your performance test. For WS, you would have
to continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber
pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate, and
chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values
established during your performance test.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and
notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the
proposed rule, which may vary depending on whether the affected source
is new or existing. In addition to the information specified in 40 CFR
63.9(h)(2)(i), you would be required to include the following in your
notification of compliance status: (1) The operating limit parameter
values established for each affected source (with supporting
documentation) and a description of the procedure used to establish the
values, and (2) analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection
systems.
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
submit semiannual compliance reports containing statements and
information concerning emission limitation deviations, out-of-control
CMS, and periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when actions
consistent with your approved startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
(SSMP) were taken. In addition, if you undertake an action that is
inconsistent with your approved SSMP, then you would be required to
submit a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report within 2 working
days of starting such action and within 7 working days of ending such
action.
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
maintain records for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You
must retain the records onsite for at least the first 2 years but may
retain the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. You would be
required to keep a copy of each notification and report, along with
supporting documentation. You would be required to keep records related
to the following: (1) Records of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; (2)
records of performance tests; (3) records to show continuous compliance
with each emission limitation; (4) records of each bag leak detection
system alarm, including the time of the alarm, the time corrective
action was initiated and completed, and a description of the cause of
the alarm and the corrective action taken; (5) records of each
[[Page 47903]]
operating limit parameter value deviation, including the date, time,
and duration of the deviation, a description of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; (6)
records of production rate; (7) records for any approved alternative
monitoring or test procedures; and (8) current copies of your SSMP and
OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting
conformance.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
At the current level of control and 1996 production levels,
nationwide emissions of HAP from the 169 BSCP facilities estimated to
be major sources are about 5,700 Mg/yr (6,300 tpy). Under the proposed
rule, it is assumed that DIFF will be installed on 81 tunnel kilns with
production capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg (10 tph) (that
currently are not controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS). This would
result in an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions of 2,500
Mg/yr (2,800 tpy). We estimated the impacts based on DIFF as the
control technology because DIFF costs provided a conservative cost
basis for the economic analyses. Based on available information on wet
scrubbers, wet scrubbers achieve similar emissions reductions to DIFF,
while compliance costs may be significantly less than those associated
with DIFF, depending on the wastewater disposal options available to
each facility.
Hydrogen fluoride emissions account for approximately 60 percent of
the baseline HAP emissions. Hydrogen chloride emissions account for
approximately 40 percent, with HAP metals comprising less than 1
percent of the baseline HAP emissions. Estimated nationwide emissions
of HF, HCl, and HAP metals from existing major source BSCP facilities
at the current level of control are 3,400 Mg/yr (3,700 tpy), 2,300 Mg/
yr (2,500 tpy), and 62 Mg/yr (68 tpy), respectively. Implementing the
rule as proposed would reduce nationwide HF emissions from existing
tunnel kilns by about 1,500 Mg/yr (1,700 tpy), and HCl would be reduced
by 1,000 Mg/yr (1,100 tpy). Emissions of HAP metals would be reduced by
24 Mg/yr (27 tpy). Implementing the rule as proposed also would reduce
PM and SO2 emissions by 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy) and 3,400
Mg/yr (3,800 tpy), respectively.
To project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed that
three large model tunnel kilns (each with a 15 tph capacity), equipped
with DIFF, would begin operation at the beginning of the first year
following promulgation of the rule as proposed. We estimate that by
implementing the rule as proposed, HF emissions from new sources would
be reduced by 96 Mg/yr (106 tpy), HCl emissions would be reduced by 65
Mg/yr (72 tpy), and HAP metals emissions would be reduced by 1.6 Mg/yr
(1.8 tpy). We also estimate that PM and SO2 emissions from
the new kilns would be reduced by 88 Mg/yr (97 tpy) and 230 Mg/yr (250
tpy), respectively.
Secondary air impacts associated with the proposed BSCP rule are
direct impacts that result from the operation of any new or additional
APCD. The generation of electricity required to operate the APCD on new
and existing kilns will result in 32 tpy of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions in the first year following promulgation of
the rule as proposed. The electricity was assumed to be generated by
natural gas-fired turbines.
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
Because compliance with the proposed rule is based on the use of
DIFF, no water pollution impacts are estimated. However, facilities
will have the option of using wet scrubbers. Facilities that use wet
scrubbers would have several options for disposing of wastewater,
including: (1) Using an evaporator and disposing of solid waste, (2)
using scrubber blowdown water as process water (this option is
currently being studied within the industry and may or may not be
possible at all brick plants), and (3) disposing of scrubber blowdown
directly to a sewer system (this option is available to some
facilities). Because of the various scenarios and considerable
uncertainty, we did not attempt to estimate overall wastewater impacts.
Based on available information, each scrubber-controlled kiln could
generate as little as zero or as much as about 5 million gallons per
year of waste water (based on a 10 gallon per minute scrubber blowdown,
which is the maximum permitted amount in the industry). The solid waste
impacts discussed below may be overstated since it is likely that some
facilities will use wet scrubbers. However, wet scrubbers may be
equipped with spray dryers to eliminate wastewater (and create solid
waste).
The solid waste disposal impacts that result from the use of DIFF
include the disposal of the spent lime (or other sorbent) that is
injected into the kiln exhaust stream and subsequently captured by a
fabric filter. We calculated the solid waste by taking the difference
between the amount of lime injected into the system and the amount of
reacted lime, and adding the amount of reaction products.
Stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 2.0 have been reported for the DIFF and
DLS/FF in use in the brick manufacturing industry. The average
stoichiometric ratio of 1.35 was used in this analysis. Implementing
the rule as proposed would result in an increase in solid waste by
28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy).
To project solid waste impacts for new sources, we assumed that
three large model tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin
operation at the beginning of the first year following promulgation of
the rule as proposed. We estimate that implementing the rule as
proposed would result in the generation of 1,230 Mg/yr (1,360 tpy) of
solid waste from new sources.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the
DIFF. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by the size of the
fan needed in the APCD. We estimated the increase in electricity
consumption that would result from implementation of the rule as
proposed to be 254 terajoules per year (242 billion British thermal
units (Btu) per year).
To project energy impacts for new sources, we assumed that three
large model tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin operation at
the beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as
proposed. We estimate the increase in energy consumption that would
result from implementation of the rule as proposed to be 10.2
terajoules per year (9.7 billion Btu per year) for new sources.
D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
Reducing HAP emissions under the proposed rule would lower
occupational HAP exposure levels. The operation of APCD may increase
occupational noise levels in the facilities that do not control HAP
emissions.
The HAP controls that are likely to be installed under the proposed
rule would provide control of SO2 and PM emissions from BSCP
kilns. We estimate that SO2 emissions from existing kilns
would be reduced by 3,400 Mg/yr (3,800 tpy) and PM emissions from
existing kilns would be reduced by 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy). We also
estimate that SO2 and PM emissions from projected new kilns
would be reduced by 230 Mg/yr
[[Page 47904]]
(250 tpy) and 88 Mg/yr (97 tpy), respectively.
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
For existing sources, nationwide total capital costs to implement
the rule as proposed are estimated at $85 million, with total
annualized costs of $36 million. The capital costs include the purchase
and installation of DIFF and monitoring equipment on 81 existing tunnel
kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph). The annualized costs include annualized capital costs of the
control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses,
emission testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs
associated with installing and operating these 81 DIFF.
To project costs for new sources, we assumed that three large model
tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin operation at the
beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as
proposed. We estimate the capital costs associated with implementation
of the rule as proposed to be $3.4 million for these three new sources.
The capital cost of a DIFF corresponds to about 6 percent of the cost
of a typical new plant, including a new mill room and kiln (a typical
plant expansion would likely include a new mill room and kiln, but may
not include other equipment such as raw material processing equipment).
We estimate the annualized costs associated with implementation of the
rule as proposed to be $1.41 million per year for new sources in the
first year following promulgation of the rule as proposed.
We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are
based on procedures from EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-
006, January 1990) and cost information provided by the BSCP industry.
We estimated costs by developing model process units that correspond to
the various sizes of kilns found at BSCP manufacturing facilities and
assigning the model process units to each facility based on the kiln
sizes at each facility. The facility costs were summed to determine
total industry costs. Additional information on the model process units
and cost estimates is included in docket A-99-30.
F. How Can We Reduce the Cost of the Proposed Rule?
As described elsewhere in this preamble, we have made every effort
in developing the proposal to minimize the cost to the regulated
community and allow maximum flexibility in compliance options
consistent with our statutory obligations. However, we recognize that
the proposal may still require some facilities to take costly steps to
further control emissions even though their emissions may not result in
exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk
greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined
to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and
the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are,
therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further
ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which
pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
In connection with another rulemaking, representatives of the
plywood and composite wood products industry provided EPA with
descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed could be used to
implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. The docket for the
plywood and composite wood products rule contains ``white papers''
prepared by that industry that outline their proposed approaches (See
Docket Number A-98-44.) We welcome public comment on these approaches.
We believe that two of the three suggested approaches warrant further
consideration. We believe they could be used to focus regulatory
controls on facilities with significant risks and avoid the imposition
of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health or
the environment. One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for
threshold pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA
section 112(d)(4); the other approach, subcategorization and delisting,
would be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and
112(c)(9). The EPA requests comment on the technical and legal
viability of these approaches, as well as any modifications to these
approaches that commenters may wish to suggest. The maximum achievable
control technology, or MACT, program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is
intended to reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to
major sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is intended to
allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or
subcategories of sources that pose little risk to public health and the
environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals
described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section
112. While both approaches focus on assessing the inhalation exposures
of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically requests comment on the
appropriateness and necessity of extending these approaches to account
for non-inhalation exposures of certain HAP which may deposit from the
atmosphere after being emitted into the air or to account for adverse
environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment
noted in this section, we are also interested in any information or
comment concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost
impacts, compliance assurance, legal authority, and implementation
relevant to the approaches. We also request comment on appropriate
practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions
remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We
will evaluate all comments before determining whether either of the two
approaches will be included in the final rule.
Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 112(d)(4)
of the CAA
The first approach is an ``applicability cutoff'' for threshold
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section
112(d)(4). A ``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a
concentration or dose below which adverse effects are not expected to
occur over a lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section
112(d)(4) allows EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample
margin of safety, when establishing emissions standards. Specifically,
section 112(d)(4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are
not based upon the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
specified under section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a health
threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent
than MACT. Furthermore, EPA has interpreted 112(d)(4) to allow us to
avoid further regulation of categories of sources that emit only
threshold pollutants, if those emissions result in ambient levels that
do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin of safety.\1\
Industry's suggested approach interprets this provision to allow us to
exempt individual facilities that can demonstrate that their emissions
will not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with
an ample margin of safety, even if the category is otherwise subject to
MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 63 FR 18754, 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47905]]
For facilities to avoid being subject to the MACT standard, EPA
would have to determine that a health effects threshold exists for each
pollutant emitted by the brick and structural clay products sources at
the facility and that the ambient impacts of those emissions do not
exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common
approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air
pollutant is to calculate a ``hazard quotient'' by dividing the
pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration (often assumed to be
equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a location where
people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference
Concentration (RfC). An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation
exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the
occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive
individuals. The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying
uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the
lowest- or no-observed-adverse-effect level of a pollutant.\2\ A hazard
quotient less than one means that the exposure concentration of the
pollutant is less than the RfC. A hazard quotient greater than one
means the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than the
RfC. For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). When a pollutant does not
have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA
would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the
availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of
action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative
source such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as non-threshold
pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science
and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and
non-threshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment \3\ suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-
response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible
that dose-response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a
dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects.
It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by
this source category would determine that one or more of the
carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a
carcinogen that exhibits a non-linear dose-response relationship but
does not have a threshold. The EPA requests comment on how we should
consider the state of the science as it relates to legislative intent
when making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a
carcinogenic HAP that could be considered insignificant enough to allow
a facility to use the approaches discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.''
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff.
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As suggested above, in order for EPA to establish an applicability
cutoff under section 112(d)(4), EPA would need to define ambient air
exposure concentration limits for the threshold pollutants involved.
There are several factors to consider when establishing such
concentrations. First, we would need to ensure that the concentrations
that would be established would protect public health with an ample
margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach EPA commonly uses
when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to
calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient. Further, current EPA
guidance suggests that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants are
being evaluated, the risk assessor should calculate a hazard index by
summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the
mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same
mechanism \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical
Panel'', EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem_mix/chem_mix_08_2001.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As suggested by CAA legislative history, we would need to ensure
that the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all
the emitted HAP to which the public is exposed \5\. Our goal would thus
be to establish a hazard index limit for the mixture of pollutants from
a source which would recognize the potential for other sources to
contribute to exposure. Consistent with this goal, there are at least
several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the section
112(d)(4) analysis. One option is to allow the hazard index posed by
all threshold HAP emitted by brick and structural clay products sources
at the facility to be no greater than one. This approach assumes that
no additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other
sources in the vicinity or through other routes of exposure (i.e.,
through ingestion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990),
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second option is to adopt an approach similar to that used by
EPA's Office of Water (OW) in establishing drinking water standards.
Using this approach, we would allow that up to a certain percentage of
an individual's total exposure to all threshold HAP could be
contributed by emissions from brick and structural clay products
sources at the facility, assuming that the rest of the individual's
exposure results from other sources and through other media. In the
absence of adequate exposure data, the drinking water program usually
assumes that drinking water can account for up to 20 percent of an
individual's exposure to an individual pollutant, assuming that the
remaining 80 percent of an individual's exposure comes from other
sources, such as diet \6\. The adaptation of this approach for the
purposes of conducting an analysis to support a section 112(d)(4)
determination is to assume that an individual's exposure to the mixture
of threshold HAP emitted from the brick and structural clay products
sources at a facility accounts for 20 percent of an individual's total
exposure to those HAP and that other sources account for the remaining
80 percent of the exposure. This means that exposures to the mixture of
HAP from brick and structural clay products sources would not be
allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 0.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health (2000)'', Technical Support
Document Volume 1: Risk Assessment''. EPA-822-B-00-005. Office of
Science and Technology, Office of Water, USEPA, October 2000. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of
HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used
to estimate the exposures to HAP from non-brick and structural clay
products sources in the vicinity of an individual facility. For
example, the EPA's National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) \7\ and
[[Page 47906]]
ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles \8\ contain information about background
concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The
combined exposures from brick and structural clay products sources and
from other sources (as determined from the literature or studies) would
then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of one. The EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index
limit at one for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata
\8\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to the third option, a fourth option is to allow
facilities to estimate or measure their own facility-specific
background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to
the third and fourth options, the EPA requests comment on how these
analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how
the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from
air, water, food and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to
brick and structural clay products emissions. In addition, we request
comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in
exposures due to a new or increased use of a HAP, or the effect of
other nearby sources that release HAP. EPA requests comment on the
feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other
approaches.
Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the
section 112(d)(4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate
mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example,
would the Title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism?
Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under
section 112(d)(4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures.
The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach
for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive
refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive
successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant
concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of
analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look-up tables based on
the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative
input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters,
such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a
facility could use these look-up tables to determine easily whether the
emissions from their sources might cause a hazard index limit to be
exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative
screening analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific but
more resource-intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling
procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that their facility does not
exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's guidance could provide the
basis for conducting such a tiered analysis.\9\ The EPA requests
comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered
analytical approach for determining applicability of the section
112(d)(4) criterion to specific brick and structural clay products
sources. It is also possible that ambient monitoring data could be used
to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling approach described above,
although it is envisioned that the appropriate monitoring to support
such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on
the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E.
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated:
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``no source in the
category * * * emits [carcinogenic] air pollutants in quantities which
may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one million to
the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of
such pollutants from the source'; (2) in the case of pollutants that
cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``emissions from no source
in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate
to protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and (3) in
the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that
``no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any
source.''
Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper
prepared by representatives of the plywood and composite wood products
industry (see Docket Number A-98-44), EPA is considering whether it
would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the
larger brick and structural clay products industry category that would
meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Since each facility in such
a subcategory would be a low-risk facility (i.e., if each met these
criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with section
112(c)(9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed MACT
rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization
and delisting. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted
subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to
determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that
could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low-
risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual
risk standards. Although EPA currently is not convinced that
subcategorization based on risk is possible within the statutory
constraints of the CAA, EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk-
based approach for establishing subcategories of brick and structural
clay products facilities.
Another approach would be to define a subcategory of facilities
within the brick and structural clay products source category based
upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate,
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability.
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish brick and structural
clay products subcategories based on these, or other, source
characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in
this technologically-defined subcategory presents a low risk to the
surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in
accordance with 112(c)(9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of
identifying technologically-based subcategories that may include only
low-risk facilities within the brick and structural caly products
source category.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the
market- and industry-level impacts associated with the proposed rule.
The compliance costs of today's proposed rule are expected to increase
the price of brick and reduce their domestic production and
consumption. We project the price of brick to increase by
[[Page 47907]]
just less than 2 percent and project no change in price for structural
clay products. Domestic production of brick is expected to decline by
close to 2 percent. In addition, foreign brick imports are estimated to
increase while exports decrease, both by just under 2 percent. Since
there is no expected change in the price of structural clay products,
we predict no change in domestic production or foreign imports of
structural clay products.
In terms of industry impacts, the brick producers are projected to
experience a decrease in operating profits of about 18 percent, which
reflects the compliance costs associated with brick production and the
resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase in the price of
brick and the reduced quantity purchased. Through the market impacts
described above, the proposed rule would create both positive and
negative financial impacts on facilities within the BSCP manufacturing
industry. The majority of facilities, almost 68 percent, are expected
to experience profit increases with the proposed rule; however, there
are some facilities projected to lose profits (about 28 percent).
Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates that of the 189
BSCP manufacturing facilities, two brick facilities are at risk of
closure because of the proposed rule, while none of the structural clay
products facilities are at risk to close.
Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the
proposed rule are projected to be $34.5 million. This differs from the
annual engineering costs of the proposed rule because the social costs
account for producer and consumer behavior. These social costs are
distributed across the many consumers and producers of brick. Since
there are no price changes occurring in the structural clay products
market, the social costs of the proposed rule are confined to the brick
industry. The consumers of brick are expected to incur the $18.9
million in costs associated with the proposed rule, with domestic
consumers bearing $18.8 million and foreign consumers bearing $0.1
million. Brick producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear the
remaining $15.6 million annually in costs. Domestic producers incur
$15.65 million while foreign producers gain $0.05 million annually.
We estimate that 15 new kilns will be built during the 5 years
after promulgation of the rule as proposed. The total compliance costs
associated with these kilns are projected to be less than 0.5 percent
of the industry's value of shipments. The economic impact analysis
estimated the impact of the proposed rule on these new sources through
a sensitivity analysis. According to that analysis, it is projected
that anywhere from three to six of these new kilns will be delayed in
coming on-line in the BSCP manufacturing industry due to the proposed
rule. Additional information is included in the economic impact
analysis report located in docket A-99-30.
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
A. How Did We Select the Emission Sources and Pollutants That Will Be
Regulated?
In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the most significant sources of
HAP emissions are kilns, including continuous (tunnel and roller) kilns
and periodic kilns. For this reason, the proposed rule covers both
existing and new kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities
which meet the applicability criteria. Other sources of HAP emissions
at BSCP manufacturing facilities are the raw material processing and
handling equipment.
At the temperatures encountered in BSCP kilns, naturally occurring
fluorides and chlorides found in the raw clays and shales that are used
as raw materials are released to the atmosphere as HF and HCl. We
estimate that most BSCP manufacturing facilities emit more than 9.07
Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HF and, therefore, are major sources as defined by
the CAA. In addition, we estimate that many facilities are also major
sources of HCl emissions. In addition to HF and HCl, all of the HAP
metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, mercury (in particulate form), nickel, and selenium) listed
in section 112(b) of the CAA have been detected in brick kiln exhaust.
The HAP metals may emanate from trace quantities of metals found in raw
materials, metallic body additives and surface coatings commonly used
in the industry, or from the fuels fired in the kilns. Therefore, we
propose to regulate HF, HCl, and HAP metals (using PM as a surrogate
for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form) emissions from
BSCP kilns.
Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metals that
are emitted in particulate form because HAP metals are always expected
to be present in PM from BSCP kilns, and the same control mechanisms
that remove PM from the exhaust stream will also remove nonvolatile and
semi-volatile HAP metals. Available data show that HAP metals
constitute between 0.16 percent and 4.5 percent of PM emissions from
BSCP kilns. The use of PM as a surrogate pollutant for HAP metals
reduces the costs associated with compliance testing and monitoring
because such testing and monitoring are necessary only for one PM
emission limit, rather than for numerous emission limits for individual
HAP metals.
B. How Did We Determine Subcategories?
Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows EPA to promulgate emission
standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through
subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission
sources within a source category if differences in emissions
characteristics, processes, APCD viability, or opportunities for
pollution prevention exist within the source category. Upon initial
consideration of the available information on the BSCP manufacturing
industry, we determined that separate subcategories for periodic kilns
and tunnel kilns were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic
kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly
basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total BSCP
industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated in batch
cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously. Finally, to our
knowledge, periodic kilns have not successfully been controlled using
any of the currently available APCD, as have tunnel kilns, or through
the use of low-HAP fuels or changes in raw materials or processes.
Following this initial subcategorization, we examined the potential
for additional subcategories for tunnel kilns, including
subcategorization based on kiln fuel and kiln size. We determined that
because the HAP emissions from tunnel kilns primarily result from the
raw materials rather than the kiln fuel, subcategorization by kiln fuel
is not appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns. We then considered
subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on kiln size and, for the
reasons discussed below, decided to propose two subcategories based on
size.
A review of the available information regarding tunnel kilns showed
that DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS, which we believe represent the best
controls, generally are installed on kilns with design capacities
greater than approximately 10 tph of fired product. However, in the
absence of subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on size, the MACT
floor for all existing tunnel kilns would be the level of control
provided by DLA for all
[[Page 47908]]
pollutants. Specifically, the tunnel kiln subcategory (all tunnel
kilns) includes 296 tunnel kilns that are located at major sources of
HAP. The best-controlled 12 percent of these sources include 4 DIFF-
controlled, 4 DLS/FF-controlled, 2 WS-controlled, 11 DLA-controlled and
15 uncontrolled kilns. The level of control that corresponds to the
mean of the best-controlled 12 percent of these kilns is the 94th
percentile level of control, which corresponds to the level of control
provided by a DLA. As previously mentioned, we have several concerns
about the long-term effectiveness of the DLA control technology and the
degree to which we can assure continuous compliance for DLA-controlled
kilns. First, long-term test data that demonstrate performance over the
life of the sorbent are not available. This is important for these
systems because the sorbent (limestone) is not continuously replaced
with new sorbent, and we expect the performance of the systems to
decrease as the sorbent is re-used and the ability of the sorbent to
adsorb HF and HCl decreases. Second, representatives of DLA
manufacturers and facilities that operate DLA have stated that not all
limestone can effectively be used as a sorbent in a DLA. Because of
these two issues, we have been unable to identify any type of parameter
monitoring that could be used to assure continuous compliance. If
parameter monitoring cannot be used, some type of CEMS would be
required to assure continuous compliance with HF and HCl emission
limits if DLA were considered as MACT control. The only potential
option that we have identified for assuring continuous compliance is
the installation and continuous operation of Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FTIR) monitoring systems. The costs associated with FTIR
systems are considerable. Finally, DLA do not provide a mechanism for
PM (and, therefore, metal HAP) removal and may actually create PM in
some instances. For all of these reasons, we believe that DLA or
equivalent controls would not represent an appropriate level of MACT
control for BSCP kilns.
We also note that a rule that did not subcategorize tunnel kilns
based on size would have considerable impacts on small businesses. In
the absence of size-based subcategories, every existing tunnel kiln
that is located at a major source of HAP would be required to install a
DLA or equivalent control. We estimate that 151 of the 189 BSCP
facilities, including 70 of 93 small business-owned facilities, would
have to install at least one DLA or other equivalent APCD. In addition,
two small business-owned BSCP facilities are estimated to incur
monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting costs only. A
total of 261 tunnel kilns, including 109 small business-owned kilns,
would require the addition of controls to meet the requirements of a
rule based on this approach. The 21 tunnel kilns that are currently
equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, and DLA controls are estimated to incur
only monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting costs.
Fourteen tunnel kilns that duct all of the kiln exhaust to a sawdust
dryer would not require controls. We estimate the total annualized cost
to industry, under a regulatory approach that did not include size-
based subcategories, to be $74 million, and the annualized cost to
small business-owned facilities to be about $29 million.
We, therefore, concluded that subcategorizing tunnel kilns based on
size would enable us to ease the burden on small businesses while
fulfilling our obligations under the CAA and achieving substantial
emissions reductions. Our analysis focused on subcategorization
scenarios under which the MACT floor (for all pollutants) would be
control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control for a subset of
tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than a specific
size. The MACT floor for all pollutants for the remaining subset of
kilns (those with capacities less than the specific size) would be ``no
emissions reductions.'' To help select a design capacity upon which to
base the subcategories, we examined the design capacities of the kilns
controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS. Our initial review of the
available information showed that the smallest kiln controlled with a
DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS had a design capacity of about 11 tph of fired
product. We then examined the capacities of kilns owned by small and
large businesses, which revealed a general trend of small businesses
operating smaller kilns than large businesses. This trend was most
pronounced at and below a capacity of about 10 tph. Using this
information, we selected a design capacity of 10 tph as the basis for
subcategorization. Under this scenario, 66 of the 77 small businesses
(82 of 93 small business-owned facilities) would incur no costs for
existing operations, and the total estimated cost to small businesses
would be $7.2 million, compared to $29 million under the scenario that
does not include size-based subcategories. Since the initial review, we
have identified a new DIFF-controlled kiln with a design capacity just
under 10 tph. Although this new controlled kiln is not included in the
MACT floor calculations for existing sources (under lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) provisions in the CAA), the fact that it is
controlled with a DIFF shows that control with a DIFF is feasible for
similar-size kilns.
During the development of the proposed rule, representatives of the
brick industry pointed out that impacts on small businesses (and the
industry as a whole) could be further reduced by increasing the kiln
design capacity upon which subcategories would be based to 13.3 tph.
Upon examination of this suggestion, we determined that 13.3 tph is the
highest capacity that would maintain DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent
control as the MACT floor. Subcategories based on a capacity of 13.3
tph minimize economic impacts on small and large businesses, but also
minimize the HAP emissions reductions that would be achieved because
the MACT controls would apply to fewer sources than a lower size
cutoff. This suggestion from the brick industry representatives
prompted us to examine the situation from the opposite perspective.
Specifically, we determined a kiln design capacity that would maximize
HAP emissions reductions by maximizing the number of sources that would
be subject to the MACT controls. Based on the available information,
the capacity that maximizes HAP emissions reductions is 7 tph. However,
the small business impacts of subcategorization based on a 7 tph design
capacity would be considerable. Table 2 of this preamble shows a
summary of the estimated HAP emissions reductions and cost impacts for
the various size-based subcategories that we examined.
[[Page 47909]]
Table 2.--Impacts of Potential Tunnel Kiln Subcategories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Number of Total annual
Number of impacted annual small HAP
Design capacity \a\ impacted small cost, $ x business reduction
facil. business 10\6\ cost $ x (tpy)
facil. 10\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None \b\....................................... 160 72 74.1 29.4 4,200
7 tph.......................................... 97 27 59.4 15.7 4,358
10 tph......................................... 59 11 35.7 7.17 2,827
13.3 tph....................................... 29 3 16.0 1.42 1,378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Design capacity at or above which existing tunnel kilns would be subject to the requirements of the proposed
rule.
\b\ With no design capacity-based subcategories, the MACT floor would be a DLA, which is a less effective HAP
control device. All existing tunnel kilns would be required to install DLA or equivalent controls under this
scenario.
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, while subcategorization based
on a 7 tph design capacity provides the highest level of emissions
reductions and subcategorization based on a 13.3 tph design capacity
results in the lowest cost impacts, subcategorization based on a 10 tph
design capacity provides significant environmental benefits while
reducing the cost impacts on small businesses.
As a result of the analysis of possible subcategorization levels
presented above, we are proposing subcategorization of existing tunnel
kilns based on a 10 tph design capacity, which we believe is
reasonable. We remain interested in information that will further
inform our analysis and solicit comment on the appropriate design
capacity-based subcategorization level. We are specifically interested
in the following:
(1) Information regarding the applicability of DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or
equivalent control to kilns below 13 tph design capacity;
(2) Information about the health risks posed by emissions from
kilns below 13 tph design capacity; and
(3) Any other information regarding the feasibility, costs, and
benefits of implementing a particular subcategorization level.
C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for Existing Sources?
The CAA specifies that MACT standards be at least as stringent as
the floor for the sources in the relevant source category or
subcategory. It further specifies that we set standards for existing
sources that are no less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for
which the Administrator has emissions information) where there are 30
or more sources in the category or subcategory. Our interpretation of
the ``average emission limitation'' is that it is a measure of central
tendency, such as the arithmetic average or the mean. If the mean is
used when there are at least 30 sources, then the emission level
achievable by the source and its APCD that is at the bottom of the top
6 percent of the best-performing sources (i.e., the 94th percentile)
represents the MACT floor control level. The MACT floors for each
subcategory are based on this interpretation.
After identifying the MACT floors for existing sources, we also
consider control options more stringent than the MACT floor levels. The
selected option may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the
maximum degree of emissions reductions without imposing unreasonable
impacts (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA).
1. Existing Periodic Kilns
No existing periodic kiln is equipped with an APCD that has been
demonstrated to control HAP emissions. In addition to APCD, we
considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-HAP fuels
or raw materials. However, because available data do not show increased
HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel type is not
appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP raw material use is
not a viable MACT option because all facilities use local clays and
shales to produce BSCP, and particular clays and shales are integral to
those products. Changes in raw materials could change the end products.
The procurement of low-HAP raw materials as a control measure is not
done in the BSCP industry. After considering all of the MACT options,
we determined that the MACT floor for existing periodic kilns is ``no
emissions reductions,'' because we did not identify any means by which
existing periodic kilns are currently reducing emissions. Because no
APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe
that low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no
beyond-the-floor options for existing periodic kilns. Therefore, we
have determined that the control level for existing periodic kilns
should be ``no emissions reductions.''
2. Existing Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Less Than 10 TPH
As discussed earlier, tunnel kilns may have more than one process
stream, including the kiln exhaust process stream and the kiln/sawdust
dryer exhaust process stream.
a. Kiln Exhaust Process Stream. For tunnel kilns with design
capacities less than 10 tph of fired product, the available data show
that three of the 199 kilns (1.5 percent) that are included in this
subcategory are equipped with DLA. The best-controlled 12 percent of
these kilns includes the three DLA-controlled kilns and 21 uncontrolled
kilns. The 94th percentile level of control, or the mean of the best-
controlled 12 percent, is ``no emissions reductions.'' In addition to
APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-
HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data do not show
increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel
type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP raw
material use is not a viable MACT option because all facilities use
local clays and shales to produce BSCP, and such local materials are
integral to the end products that are manufactured. The procurement of
low-HAP raw materials as a control measure is not done in the BSCP
industry. Therefore, the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control
are ``no emissions reductions,'' because we did not identify any means
by which tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph are
currently reducing emissions from their kiln exhaust process streams
that is sufficient to constitute a MACT floor.
[[Page 47910]]
We considered beyond-the-floor controls for kiln exhaust process
streams from existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10
tph. For these analyses, the costs of installing and operating DIFF on
existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph, along
with the associated emissions reductions and other impacts, were
assessed. After analyzing all of the impacts of retrofitting the kiln
exhaust process stream from each of 189 existing BSCP tunnel kilns (10
of the 199 kilns in the subcategory duct all kiln exhaust to a sawdust
dryer and do not include a kiln exhaust process stream) with a design
capacity less than 10 tph with a DIFF to control HAP emissions, we
concluded that setting a standard reflecting this beyond-the-floor
approach would be unreasonable at this time. Our analysis included an
estimate of emissions reductions that would be achieved by this
approach, secondary air impacts, non-air quality impacts, and cost
impacts on the entire BSCP industry and on small businesses. Primary
HAP air pollution impacts of the beyond-the-floor approach consist of
the reduction of HF, HCl, and HAP metals emissions, which would be
substantial. Specifically, the beyond-the-floor approach would reduce
total HAP emissions from existing BSCP tunnel kilns with capacities
less than 10 tph by 2,949 tpy, or 98.0 percent, from a baseline HAP
emission level of 3,011 tpy. Particulate matter emissions reductions
(PM is used as a surrogate for HAP metals), and co-control of
SO2 emissions (from the baseline level) also would result
from the beyond-the-floor approach. The estimated baseline emissions
and emissions reductions for the beyond-the-floor approach for tunnel
kilns with capacities less than 10 tph are summarized in Table 3 of
this preamble. Table 4 of this preamble shows a summary of the results
of our evaluations of secondary air, solid waste, energy, and cost
impacts for this approach. Using the emissions reductions estimates
shown in Table 3 of this preamble and the beyond-the-floor cost
presented in Table 4 of this preamble, the nationwide cost
effectiveness of requiring tunnel kilns with capacities less than 10
tph to install DIFF controls is about $22,000 per ton of HAP removed.
In addition, the costs of the beyond-the-floor approach are
significantly higher than those of the floor level of control.
Specifically, the cost of the beyond-the-floor approach is estimated to
be $101 million for the BSCP industry, compared to $36 million under
the floor approach. The cost of the beyond-the-floor approach for small
businesses is estimated to be $39 million, compared to an estimated $7
million under the floor approach.
Table 3.--Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Beyond-the-
Floor Control of BSCP Tunnel Kilns With Design Capabilities Less Than 10
TPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emissions
Pollutant emissions, reductions, Percent
tpy tpy reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF.............................. 1,787 1,766 99
HCl............................. 1,192 1,152 97
HAP metals...................... 32 31.4 98
Total HAP....................... 3,011 2,949 98
PM.............................. 1,688 1,651 98
SO2............................. 8,277 4,080 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Summary of Secondary Air, Solid Waste, Energy, and Cost
Impacts for Beyond-the-Floor Control of BSCP Tunnel Kilns With Design
Capabilities Less Than 10 TPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond-the-floor
Type of impact impact Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air: NOX............ 55 tpy NOX Based on electricity
increase. provided by gas
turbines.
Solid waste................... 34,900 tpy....... Assumes facilities
must dispose of all
waste lime as solid
waste.
Energy........................ 423,000 MMBtu/yr
Cost.......................... $65 million...... Total cost of the
proposed rule would
be $101 million.
Small business cost........... $33 million (95 Total cost to small
kilns at 62 businesses would be
plants). $39 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the aforementioned analyses, we determined that the
benefits of requiring controls for the kiln exhaust process streams
from existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph do
not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not requiring
beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. Based on
these considerations, we have decided that the control level for the
kiln exhaust process stream from existing tunnel kilns with design
capacities less than 10 tph should be ``no emissions reductions.''
b. Kiln/Sawdust Dryer Exhaust Process Stream. None of the kiln/
sawdust dryer exhaust process streams from existing tunnel kilns with
design capacities less than 10 tph are equipped with APCD. Nor are such
kilns reducing emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process
streams through the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials. For the same
reasons outlined in the floor discussion for the kiln exhaust process
streams, we believe that the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials is
not a viable option. Therefore, because we did not identify any means
by which existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph
are currently reducing emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust
process streams, the MACT floor for all pollutants from the kiln/
sawdust dryer process streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
We also considered beyond-the-floor options for the kiln/sawdust
dryer exhaust process stream that is part of some sawdust-fired tunnel
kilns. The options we considered were: (1) Heating the sawdust dryer
exhaust above the dew points of the acid gases and then applying DIFF
or DLS/FF controls to the exhaust; (2) installing a DIFF or DLS/FF
prior to the sawdust dryer, and then exhausting the APCD to the sawdust
dryer; and (3) requiring that facilities purchase dry sawdust or use
other methods to dry the sawdust, thus eliminating the kiln/sawdust
dryer process stream. Because all of these
[[Page 47911]]
options involve additional costs beyond the costs of the options for
controlling the kiln exhaust process stream, we determined that the
benefits of requiring control of the kiln/sawdust dryer process stream
for existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph do
not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not requiring
beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time for the
kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process stream. The control level for the
kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process stream from existing tunnel kilns
with design capacities less than 10 tph is ``no emissions reductions.''
3. Existing Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Equal to or Greater
Than 10 TPH
As discussed earlier, tunnel kilns may have more than one process
stream, including the kiln exhaust process stream and the kiln/sawdust
dryer exhaust process stream.
a. Kiln Exhaust Process Stream. The subcategory of tunnel kilns
with design capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph of fired product
includes 97 tunnel kilns that are located at major sources of HAP. The
best-controlled 12 percent of these sources include four DIFF-
controlled, four DLS/FF-controlled, two WS-controlled, and two DLA-
controlled kilns. The level of control that corresponds to the mean of
the best-controlled 12 percent of these kilns is the 94th percentile
level of control. We consider the DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS installed on 10
of the best-controlled 12 sources to provide equivalent overall control
of HAP, and each of these controls, therefore, is representative of the
94th percentile level of control. The proposed emission limits are
based on the performance of all three control technologies. In addition
to APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of
low-HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data do not
show increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on
fuel type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP
raw material use is not a viable MACT option because all facilities use
local clays and shales to produce BSCP, and such local materials are
integral to those products. The procurement of low-HAP raw materials as
a control measure is not done in the BSCP industry. Beyond-the-floor
options for the kiln exhaust process stream were not evaluated because
emissions reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the
best control achieved by sources that would be subject to the proposed
rule.
b. Kiln/Sawdust Dryer Exhaust Process Stream. None of the kiln/
sawdust dryer exhaust process streams are equipped with APCD, and to
our knowledge, no existing tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to
or greater than 10 tph are using low-HAP fuels or raw materials to
reduce HAP emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process
streams. Therefore, the MACT floor for these kiln/sawdust dryer process
streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
We considered beyond-the-floor options for the kiln/sawdust dryer
exhaust process stream that is part of some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns.
The options we considered were: (1) Heating the sawdust dryer exhaust
above the dew points of the acid gases and then applying DIFF, DLS/FF,
WS, or equivalent control to the exhaust; (2) installing a DIFF, DLS/
FF, or equivalent control prior to the sawdust dryer, and then
exhausting the APCD to the sawdust dryer; and (3) requiring that
facilities purchase dry sawdust or use other methods to dry the
sawdust, thus eliminating the kiln/sawdust dryer process stream and
controlling the entire kiln exhaust process stream with a DIFF, DLS/FF,
WS, or equivalent control. Because the beyond-the-floor options involve
additional costs beyond the costs of the options for controlling the
kiln exhaust process stream and because limited data show that sawdust
dryers provide some degree (up to about 60 percent) of acid gas
control, we determined that the benefits of requiring control of the
kiln/sawdust dryer process stream for existing tunnel kilns with design
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph do not justify the cost at
this time. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond-the-floor levels of
emissions reductions at this time for kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust
process streams from existing tunnel kilns with a design capacity equal
to or greater than 10 tph. The level of control for such process
streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
By contrast, for the class of existing tunnel kilns with design
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph that first duct exhaust to
sawdust dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., all
process streams, including the kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process
stream) is subject to the same level of control requirement as a new
tunnel kiln. We believe it is important to regulate all of the exhaust
from this subset of existing tunnel kilns in order to prevent existing
tunnel kilns that do not duct exhaust to sawdust dryers prior to July
22, 2002 from circumventing the requirements of the proposed rule by
ducting to sawdust dryers.
4. Consideration of ``Synthetic Area Sources'' in the MACT Floor
Determinations for Existing Sources
In determining the MACT floors as discussed above, we included
``synthetic area sources'' (sometimes called ``synthetic minor
sources''). Synthetic area sources include those that emit fewer than
10 tons per year of any HAP or fewer than 25 tons per year of any
combination of HAP because they use some emission control device (or
devices) adopted under existing Federal or State regulations. In the
absence of such controls, these sources would be major. In this
proposal, however, we are requesting comment on whether or not
synthetic area sources should be included in or excluded from the MACT
floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns. Industry
representatives have stated that the MACT floor determination should
not include these synthetic area sources. Whether or not synthetic area
sources are included would affect the level of control represented by
the floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns. (By contrast, the
floor determination for existing periodic kilns would not be affected
by the inclusion or exclusion of synthetic area sources, because the
MACT floor for such kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'')
The way that including or excluding synthetic area sources would
affect the floor determinations for tunnel kilns would vary depending
on the design capacity-based subcategorization level. For example, for
existing tunnel kilns, with no subcategories based on design capacity,
the MACT floor would be a DLA if synthetic area sources are included in
the floor determination; the MACT floor would be ``no emissions
reductions'' if synthetic area sources are excluded from the floor
determination. Thus, excluding synthetic area sources from the MACT
floor determination in this example would reduce the number of impacted
facilities, the total annual cost, and the HAP emissions reductions
achieved at the floor level of control. Control options more stringent
than the MACT floor of ``no emissions reductions'' must then be
evaluated, considering the associated costs, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements, to arrive at the
requirements of the proposed rule. Furthermore, with 10 tph design
capacity-based subcategories (as proposed), the MACT floor would be a
DIFF, DLS/FF or WS if synthetic area sources are included in the floor
determination and the MACT floor
[[Page 47912]]
would be a DLA if synthetic area sources are excluded from the floor
determination. Accordingly, excluding synthetic area sources from the
MACT floor determination in this example would reduce both the total
annual cost and the HAP emissions reductions achieved. EPA specifically
solicits comment on whether or not synthetic area sources should be
included in the MACT floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns.
D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for New Sources?
For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floors to be based on
the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. In some instances, the existing source MACT
floor control levels may also represent the level of control
appropriate for new sources. In these instances, the existing source
MACT floor technology represents the greatest degree of emissions
reductions that is achievable. In other instances, the MACT floor
levels of control for new sources are more stringent than for existing
sources.
1. New Periodic Kilns
We determined, based on design differences and the fact that
periodic kilns are batch processes, that periodic kilns and tunnel
kilns are not similar sources. Two major design differences between
periodic and tunnel kilns are the varying temperature and flow profiles
associated with periodic kilns. In a single batch cycle, periodic kiln
exhaust temperatures begin at ambient temperature and minimal air flow
and gradually increase to temperatures that may exceed 315 deg.C
(600 deg.F) and flow rates in excess of 340 actual cubic meters per
minute (m\3\/min) (12,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm)). In
contrast, tunnel kiln exhaust temperatures and flow rates remain
relatively constant. In addition, periodic kilns involve a batch
process whereas tunnel kilns involve a continuous process. Another
difference in periodic kilns and tunnel kilns is that periodic kilns
generally are used to produce specialty products such as brick shapes
and structural pipe, whereas tunnel kilns typically are used to produce
face brick and other standard products. Finally, APCD have not been
proven on periodic kilns. Dry injection fabric filters, DLS/FF, and WS
that are used to control HAP emissions from tunnel kilns have not been
applied to periodic kilns, and it is not clear how these APCD would
perform on periodic kilns with highly variable temperature and flow
profiles. For these reasons, we do not consider periodic kilns and
tunnel kilns to be similar sources. Therefore, MACT for new periodic
kilns is based on the best-controlled periodic kiln. Currently, one
periodic kiln is equipped with a DLA, but the DLA has not been proven
effective in controlling emissions from the kiln. As previously
explained, MACT options such as low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not
appropriate for BSCP kilns. Therefore, the best-controlled similar
source is an uncontrolled periodic kiln, and the MACT floor level of
control for new periodic kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'' Because
no APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe
that low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no
beyond-the-floor options for new periodic kilns. Therefore, we have
determined that the control level for new periodic kilns should be ``no
emissions reductions.''
2. New Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Less Than 10 TPH
The new source MACT floor for tunnel kilns with design capacities
less than 10 tph is based on the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar source. We identified a tunnel
kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 10 tph of fired
product as the best-controlled similar source. Although the MACT floor
levels of control for existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less
than 10 tph are ``no emissions reductions,'' we determined that the
MACT control levels for new tunnel kilns with design capacities less
than 10 tph are represented by DIFF-, DLS/FF-, or WS-based controls.
The basis of this determination is that there are no design differences
based on kiln size that would preclude the ability of a smaller (less
than 10 tph capacity) kiln to be controlled with technologies that
primarily have been applied to larger kilns. In fact, one new (on-line
in November 2000) kiln with a capacity between 9 and 10 tph is
currently controlled with a DIFF. Moreover, new sources have the
ability to plan for achieving emissions reductions efficiently during
the design phase that precedes their construction. Therefore, control
with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control represents MACT for new
tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph of fired product.
All process streams from new tunnel kilns would be subject to the
emission limitations because the best-controlled sources control 100
percent of their kiln exhaust. As previously explained, options such as
low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for BSCP kilns.
Beyond-the-floor options were not evaluated because emissions
reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the best overall
control of HAP.
3. New Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Equal to or Greater Than 10
TPH
The controls that we consider to represent the MACT floor for
existing tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than
10 tph of fired product also are considered to be the best controls
available for controlling HF, HCl, and PM emissions from such brick
kilns. Therefore, control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent
control represents the MACT floor for new tunnel kilns with design
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph.
All process streams from new tunnel kilns would be subject to the
emission limitations because the best-controlled sources control 100
percent of the kiln exhaust. As previously explained, MACT options such
as low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for BSCP kilns.
Beyond-the-floor options were not evaluated because emissions
reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the best overall
control of HAP.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
The formats for complying with today's proposed rule include
production-based emission limits and percent reduction emission limits.
Affected tunnel kilns would have the option of meeting production-based
or percent reduction emission limits for HF and HCl. The percent
reduction emission limits alternative for HF and HCl is offered to
account for the variability in the amount of these HAP in the
uncontrolled kiln emissions because kilns with higher inlet HF or HCl
concentrations may not be capable of meeting the production-based
emission limits. Affected tunnel kilns would also have to meet a
production-based emission limit for PM.
F. How Did We Determine the Emission Limits?
We have performance data for five of the nine DLS/FF and DIFF and
one of the two WS currently operating on BSCP kilns. The evaluation of
the data included analyses of APCD operating parameters to determine
whether the devices were operating properly during the emission tests.
The emissions data were used to develop production-based and percent
removal emission limits for HF and HCl emissions from tunnel kilns. In
addition, a production-based
[[Page 47913]]
PM emission limit for affected tunnel kilns was developed using the
test data. Additional details on the test data and analyses are
available in docket A-99-30.
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
The proposed HF emission limits for tunnel kilns include a
production-based emission limit of 0.0135 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired
product and a percent reduction emission limit of at least 95 percent.
To develop this percent reduction emission limit, we analyzed the
available HF test data from DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled kilns.
The individual emission tests show HF or total fluoride (TF) control
efficiencies ranging from 95.9 percent to 99.9 percent. The available
data show that TF and HF emissions from tunnel kilns are similar, and
we, therefore, consider TF control efficiencies to be good estimates of
HF control efficiencies for DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS systems. For DIFF
systems, one available test shows a TF control efficiency of 99.8
percent. Five HF emission tests conducted on four DLS/FF-controlled
kilns show control efficiencies of 95.9 percent, 96.9 percent, 98.5
percent, 99.7 percent, and 99.9 percent. Two TF emission tests
conducted on a WS-controlled kiln show control efficiencies of 98.8
percent and 99.9 percent. These data indicate that DIFF, DLS/FF, and
WS, all of which are considered representative of MACT, currently
operating on the best-controlled BSCP kilns are capable of achieving HF
control efficiencies of 95 percent. In addition, 95 percent is the
highest control level that DIFF and DLS/FF manufacturers have
guaranteed for BSCP kilns. The 95 percent control efficiency was used
in conjunction with the average uncontrolled HF emission factor for the
BSCP industry, 0.27 kg/Mg (0.54 lb/ton), to calculate the proposed HF
emission limit of 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton).
2. Hydrogen Chloride
The proposed HCl emission limits include a production-based
emission limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product and a
percent reduction emission limit of at least 90 percent. To develop
this percent reduction emission limit, we analyzed the available HCl
test data from DLS/FF-controlled kilns. Emission tests conducted on two
DLS/FF-controlled kilns showed HCl control efficiencies of 98.2 percent
and 99.8 percent. Because no data are available to quantify HCl control
efficiencies for DIFF or WS in the BSCP industry, we examined HCl data
for DIFF and WS operating in other industries. Data from DIFF that are
used to control emissions from sources within the secondary aluminum
industry indicate that the systems provide 90 percent control of HCl,
which is the HCl emission limit in the secondary aluminum NESHAP (65 FR
15690, March 23, 2000). Measured HCl concentrations from sources within
the secondary aluminum industry are within the range of concentrations
measured from brick kilns. Wet scrubbers are expected to perform at
least as well as DLS/FF and DIFF. Additionally, data from WS used on
medical waste incinerators show HCl reductions of 99 percent, although
these control efficiencies were achieved on much higher inlet HCl
loadings (61 FR 31736, June 20, 1996). Because we believe that it is
important to consider the variability in performance of the control
technologies representative of MACT, we selected 90 percent as the
percent reduction emission limit for HCl. Control device vendors have
indicated that WS can meet this emission limit. This 90 percent control
efficiency was used in conjunction with the average uncontrolled HCl
emission factor for the BSCP industry, 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton), to
calculate the proposed HCl emission limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/
ton).
3. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate pollutant for HAP
metals, including mercury in particulate form, that are emitted from
BSCP kilns. The percentages of PM emissions composed of HAP metals at
four facilities for which HAP metals and PM data are available are 0.16
percent, 0.99 percent, 2.8 percent, and 4.5 percent. The large degree
of variability in these percentages may be a result of differences in
metallic surface coatings, body additives, brick raw material
composition, kiln fuel, or a combination of these factors. The
available test data for DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled kilns
indicate that production-based outlet PM emissions range from 0.0017
kg/Mg (0.0034 lb/ton) to 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton). We selected the
high end of the range from the best-controlled kilns, 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12
lb/ton) of fired product, as the PM emission limit for tunnel kilns in
order to include WS, which would be less costly for some facilities
than DIFF and DLS/FF and which would more readily achieve high HF and
HCl removal, as a viable control option for complying with the proposed
rule.
G. How Did We Select the Operating Limits and Monitoring Requirements?
We selected operating limits and monitoring requirements that would
ensure proper operation of APCD used to comply with the proposed rule.
These operating limits and monitoring requirements would require you to
monitor and maintain certain parameters within levels established
during performance tests that documented compliance with the proposed
emission limits. We believe that these operating limits and monitoring
requirements would provide sufficient information needed to assure
continuing compliance or identify operating problems at the source. At
the same time, the provisions are not labor intensive, do not require
expensive or complex equipment, and do not require burdensome
recordkeeping. Temperature monitoring and recording equipment and lime
injection rate monitoring and recording equipment are standard features
on DIFF and DLS/FF. Water injection rate monitoring and recording
equipment is a standard feature on DLS/FF. For WS, pressure drop
monitors and liquid flow monitors often are part of standard scrubber
instrumentation.
V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Proposed Rule?
Today's proposed rule for clay ceramics manufacturing applies to
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are, are located at, or are
part of, a major source of HAP emissions. The clay ceramics
manufacturing source category includes those facilities that
manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, and other pressed
tile; or sanitaryware (toilets and sinks). Clay ceramics are primarily
composed of clay and shale, and may include many different additives,
including silica, talc, and various high purity powders produced by
chemical synthesis. Clay ceramics manufacturing generally includes raw
material processing and handling and forming of the tile or
sanitaryware shapes, followed by drying, glazing, and firing. Most clay
ceramics are coated with a glaze prior to firing. The clay ceramics
industry also includes dinnerware and pottery manufacturing, but these
industry segments are not covered by the proposed rule because we
determined that there are no dinnerware or pottery manufacturing
facilities that are major sources of HAP.
Available information shows a total of 58 facilities that produce
clay ceramics. Thirty-one of these facilities, located in 16 States,
primarily produce pressed tile, while 26 of these facilities, located
in 15 States, primarily produce
[[Page 47914]]
sanitaryware. Eight of the 58 clay ceramics manufacturing facilities
are estimated to be major sources. Thirteen clay ceramics facilities
are owned by small businesses, and none of the small business-owned
facilities are estimated to be major sources.
All clay ceramics are fired in kilns. Firing may be performed in
one or more stages. Tile can be fired in either continuous (tunnel or
roller) or batch (periodic) kilns, but most facilities use either
tunnel or roller kilns for tile production. Most newer tile kilns are
roller kilns, which are considerably more fuel efficient than tunnel
kilns. Production rates for both tunnel and roller kilns average
between 2 and 3 tph. Nearly all kilns are fueled by natural gas.
Periodic kilns are usually used at smaller facilities or are used
primarily for second-firing a product after a glaze has been applied.
Most of the periodic kiln times range from 20 to 40 hours per batch.
The sanitaryware industry uses either tunnel kilns or periodic
kilns for firing. Tunnel kilns account for most sanitaryware firing;
periodic kilns are used primarily for refiring rejected pieces that
have been repaired and re-glazed. Some smaller facilities use periodic
kilns for all firing operations. Production rates for tunnel kilns
average between 2 and 3 tph. Most sanitaryware kilns are fired with
natural gas. Most tunnel and periodic kilns operate with maximum
temperatures in the range of 950 deg. to 1260 deg.C (1750 deg. to
2300 deg.F).
The primary HAP emission sources at clay ceramics manufacturing
plants are roller, tunnel, and periodic kilns which emit HF, HCl, and
HAP metals. Kilns also emit PM and SO2. Currently, no APCD
are used by the clay ceramics industry to control emissions from kilns.
Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics manufacturing plants
are the raw material processing and handling equipment.
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the
category for which we are setting emission standards, are each new or
reconstructed tunnel and roller kiln. Kilns that are used exclusively
for R&D and not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are
not subject to the requirements of today's proposed rule. Kilns that
are used exclusively for refiring or for setting glazes on previously
fired products are not subject to the requirements of today's proposed
rule.
A source is a new affected source if construction began after July
22, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if the criteria defined
in 40 CFR 63.2 are met.
C. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
New or reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup
before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]
must comply no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register]. New or reconstructed affected sources with an
initial startup after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] must comply upon initial startup. Any portion of
existing facilities that become new or reconstructed major sources and
any new or reconstructed area sources that become major sources must be
in compliance upon initial startup.
D. What Are the Emission Limits?
Today's proposed rule includes emission limits in the form of
production-based mass emission limits and percent reduction
requirements. In establishing the HAP emission limits, we selected PM
as a surrogate for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form.
Today's proposed rule includes HF, HCl, and PM emission limits for new
and reconstructed affected sources at clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities.
If you own or operate a new or reconstructed tunnel or roller kiln,
you would be required to meet an HF emission limit of 0.014 kg/Mg
(0.027 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HF emissions by at
least 95 percent. You also would be required to meet an HCl emission
limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled
HCl emissions by at least 90 percent. If you own or operate a new or
reconstructed tunnel or roller kiln, you also would be required to meet
a PM emission limit of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton).
E. What Are the Operating Limits?
The operating limits being proposed for new and reconstructed clay
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are the same as those that are being
proposed for new and reconstructed BSCP tunnel kilns. These operating
limits are presented in section II.E of this preamble. We also are
soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM CEMS as a method
to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits
for clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns. Specifically, we are
soliciting comment on 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 and the methodology
for deriving the limit from the available data for clay ceramics tunnel
and roller kilns.
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 clay ceramics tunnel and
roller kilns.
We intend to propose revisions to the performance specification for
PM CEMS (PS-11, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and Procedure 2, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F) in the near future with subsequent promulgation.
F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements?
The performance test and initial compliance requirements being
proposed for new and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller
kilns are the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP
manufacturing kilns. These requirements are presented in section II.F
of this preamble.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The continuous compliance requirements being proposed for new and
reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are the same as
those that are being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns. These
requirements are presented in section II.G of this preamble.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements being
proposed for new and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller
kilns are the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP
manufacturing kilns. These requirements are presented in section II.H
of this preamble.
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed
rule, no air quality impacts are projected for existing sources. To
project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed that one tile
roller kiln (3.5 tph capacity) and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln (4 tph
capacity), each equipped with a DIFF, will begin operation at the
beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as
proposed. We estimate that by implementing the rule as proposed,
[[Page 47915]]
HF emissions from these new sources would be reduced by 8.1 Mg/yr (8.9
tpy), HCl emissions would be reduced by 4.8 Mg/yr (5.3 tpy), and HAP
metals emissions would be reduced by 0.19 Mg/yr (0.21 tpy). We also
estimate that PM and SO2 emissions from the new kilns would
be reduced by 9.0 Mg/yr (9.9 tpy) and 22 Mg/yr (24 tpy), respectively.
Secondary air impacts associated with the proposed clay ceramics
rule are direct impacts that result from the operation of any new APCD.
The generation of electricity required to operate the control devices
on the two projected new kilns will result in 0.4 tpy of NOX
emissions in the first year following promulgation of the rule as
proposed. The electricity was assumed to be generated by natural gas-
fired turbines.
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed
rule, no water and solid waste impacts are projected for existing
sources. Our analyses are based on the use of DIFF for controlling new
kilns and, therefore, no water impacts are projected for new sources.
To project solid waste impacts for new sources, we assumed that one
tile roller kiln and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a
DIFF, will begin operation at the beginning of the first year following
promulgation of the rule as proposed. The solid waste disposal impacts
that result from the use of DIFF will include the disposal of the spent
lime that is injected into the kiln exhaust stream and subsequently
captured by a fabric filter. We calculated the solid waste by taking
the difference between the amount of lime injected into the system and
the amount of reacted lime and adding the amount of reaction products.
Stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 1.5 have been reported for the DIFF in
use in the brick manufacturing industry. An average stoichiometric
ratio of 1.35 was used in this analysis. We estimate that implementing
the rule as proposed would result in the generation of 114 Mg/yr (126
tpy) of solid waste from new sources.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed
rule, no energy impacts are projected for existing sources. To project
energy impacts for new sources, we assumed that one tile roller kiln
and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a DIFF, will begin
operation at the beginning of the first year following promulgation of
the rule as proposed. Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed
to operate the DIFF. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by
the size of the fan needed in the control device. We estimate the
increase in energy consumption that would result from implementation of
the rule as proposed to be 3.2 terajoules per year (3.0 billion Btu per
year).
D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed
rule, no additional environmental and health impacts are projected for
existing sources. The HAP controls that are likely to be installed on
new kilns also provide control of SO2 and PM emissions. We
estimate that SO2 and PM emissions from the projected new
kilns would be reduced by 22 Mg/yr (24 tpy) and 9.0 Mg/yr (9.9 tpy),
respectively.
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed
rule, no cost impacts are projected for existing sources. To project
costs for new sources, we assumed that one tile roller kiln and one
sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a DIFF, will be built
during the first year following promulgation of the rule as proposed.
We estimate the capital costs associated with implementation of the
rule as proposed to be $1.1 million for new sources. The capital costs
include the purchase and installation of DIFF and monitoring equipment.
We estimate the annualized costs associated with implementation of the
rule as proposed to be $560,000 per year for new sources. The
annualized costs include annualized capital costs of the control and
monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, emission
testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with
installing and operating the DIFF.
We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are
based on procedures from EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-
006, January 1990) and cost information provided by the BSCP industry
and control device vendors. We estimated costs by developing model
process units that correspond to the various sizes of kilns found at
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Additional information on the
model process units and cost estimates are included in docket A-2000-
48.
F. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of clay ceramics manufacturing producers to the proposed rule
and to determine the economic effects that may result due to the
proposed rule. Because the MACT floor for existing clay ceramics kilns
is ``no emissions reductions,'' there are no compliance costs
associated with today's proposed rule. The aggregate price of ceramic
products is, therefore, expected to remain the same. Because the prices
of ceramic products are not expected to change due to the proposed
rule, there are no projected changes in domestic production, domestic
consumption, or foreign trade. Therefore, no economic impacts on
existing major sources are expected from the proposed rule.
Unlike existing sources, new sources used to produce clay ceramics
will face positive compliance costs. We estimate that two new kilns
will be constructed in the first 5 years after the rule is promulgated
as proposed. One new 3.5 tph capacity roller kiln is projected to come
on-line in the ceramic floor and wall tile industry, and one new 4 tph
capacity tunnel kiln is projected for the sanitaryware industry.
Industry compliance costs associated with these kilns are expected to
be less than 0.1 percent of industry value of shipments for each of
these industries. At the new kiln level, the share of costs to sales
generated from the output produced by the ceramic floor and wall tile
kiln is expected to be less than 1.5 percent. No level of cost-to-sales
for sanitaryware kilns could be developed due to the diversity of
product types that they produce.
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing
A. How Did We Select the Emission Sources and Pollutants That Will Be
Regulated?
In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the most significant
sources of HAP emissions are kilns, including continuous (tunnel and
roller) kilns and periodic kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities are the raw material processing
and handling equipment. The proposed rule covers new tunnel and roller
kilns at major source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.
At the temperatures encountered in clay ceramics kilns, naturally
occurring fluorides and chlorides found in raw clays and shales are
released to the atmosphere as HF and HCl. We estimate that eight clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities emit more than 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of
HF and, therefore, are major
[[Page 47916]]
sources as defined by the CAA. In addition, we estimate that some of
these facilities may emit more than 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HCl. In
addition to HF and HCl, it is likely that all of the HAP metals
(antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, mercury (in particulate form), nickel, and selenium) listed
in section 112(b) of the CAA may be emitted from clay ceramics kilns
because these pollutants have been detected in brick kiln exhaust. The
HAP metals may emanate from trace quantities of metals found in raw
materials, metallic body additives, glazes, and other surface coatings
commonly used in the industry, or from the fuels fired in the kilns.
Therefore, we propose to regulate HF, HCl, and HAP metals (using PM as
a surrogate for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form)
emissions from clay ceramics kilns. Clay ceramics kilns that are used
exclusively for refiring or for setting glazes on previously fired
products are not expected to emit HF or HCl and, therefore, would not
be subject to the proposed rule.
Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metals that
are emitted in particulate form because HAP metals are expected to be
present in the clay ceramics kiln exhaust stream, and the same control
mechanisms that remove PM from the exhaust stream also will remove
nonvolatile and semi-volatile HAP metals. Available data from the brick
industry show that HAP metals constitute between 0.16 percent and 4.5
percent of kiln PM emissions. The use of PM as a surrogate pollutant
for HAP metals also reduces the costs associated with compliance
testing and monitoring because such testing and monitoring is necessary
only for a single PM emission limit, rather than for numerous emission
limits for individual HAP metals.
B. How Did We Determine Subcategories?
Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows EPA to promulgate emission
standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through
subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission
sources within a source category if differences in emissions
characteristics, processes, APCD viability, or opportunities for
pollution prevention exist within the source category. Upon initial
consideration of the available information on the clay ceramics
manufacturing industry, we determined that separate subcategories for
periodic kilns and continuous (tunnel and roller) kilns were warranted
because periodic kilns are smaller than tunnel and roller kilns (with
lower production on an hourly basis, and accounting for only a small
percentage of total clay ceramics industry production) and are operated
in batch cycles, whereas tunnel and roller kilns operate continuously.
We also examined subcategorization by kiln fuel, but determined that
fuel-based subcategories are not appropriate for these sources because
available data from similar sources in the BSCP industry do not show
increased HAP emissions based on fuel use.
C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for Existing Sources?
The CAA specifies that we set standards for existing sources that
are no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources where there are 30
or more sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information)
in the category or subcategory, or the best performing five sources
(for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions
information) where there are fewer than 30 sources.
After identifying the MACT floors for existing sources, we also
consider control options more stringent than the MACT floor levels. The
selected option may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the
maximum degree of emissions reductions without imposing unreasonable
impacts (see section 112(d)(2)of the CAA).
1. Existing Periodic Kilns
No existing periodic kilns are equipped with APCD. In addition to
APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-
HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data from the
clay ceramics and BSCP industries do not show increased HAP emissions
based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel type is not appropriate
for these sources. In addition, procurement of low-HAP raw materials
has not been identified as a control measure that is used in the clay
ceramics industry. Therefore, the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM
control for existing periodic kilns are ``no emissions reductions.''
We consider clay ceramics periodic kilns to be similar sources to
BSCP periodic kilns. Currently, one BSCP periodic kiln is equipped with
a DLA, but the DLA has not been proven effective in controlling
emissions from the kiln. We believe that requiring the use of low-HAP
fuels would not be appropriate for these sources because, as noted
above, available data do not show increased HAP emissions based on fuel
use. We also believe that requiring procurement of low-HAP raw
materials would not be appropriate because the raw materials used in
clay ceramics manufacturing are integral to the end products
manufactured. Because no APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP
emissions from clay ceramics periodic kilns or BSCP periodic kilns, and
low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no
beyond-the-floor options for existing periodic kilns. Therefore, we
have determined that the control level for existing periodic kilns
should be ``no emissions reductions.''
2. Existing Tunnel Kilns and Roller Kilns
No existing clay ceramics tunnel kilns or roller kilns are equipped
with APCD. In addition to APCD, we considered other possible MACT
floors such as the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials. However,
because available data from the clay ceramics and BSCP industries do
not show increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based
on fuel type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition,
procurement of low-HAP raw materials has not been identified as a
control measure that is used in the clay ceramics industry. Therefore,
the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control for existing clay
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are ``no emissions reductions.''
We considered beyond-the-floor controls for existing clay ceramics
tunnel and roller kilns. For these analyses, we assessed the costs,
emissions reductions, and other impacts of installing and operating a
DIFF, which is one APCD representative of the MACT floor for new clay
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns, on each existing tunnel and roller
kiln located at a major source of HAP. After analyzing all of the
impacts of retrofitting each of the 14 existing tile tunnel kilns, 16
existing tile roller kilns, and 23 existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns
with a DIFF to control HAP emissions, we concluded that setting
standards reflecting this beyond-the-floor approach would be
unreasonable at this time. Our analysis included an estimate of
emissions reductions that would be achieved by this approach, secondary
air impacts, non-air quality impacts, and cost impacts on the clay
ceramics manufacturing industry. Primary HAP air pollution impacts from
the beyond-
[[Page 47917]]
the-floor approach consist of the reduction of HF, HCl, and HAP metals
emissions. Specifically, the beyond-the-floor approach would reduce
total HAP emissions from existing clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns
by 435 tpy, or 99 percent, from a baseline HAP emission level of 441
tpy. Particulate matter emissions reductions (PM is used as a surrogate
for HAP metals) and co-control of SO2 emissions (from the
baseline level) also would result from the beyond-the-floor approach.
The estimated baseline emissions and emissions reductions for the
beyond-the-floor approach for clay ceramics tunnel kilns and roller
kilns are summarized in Table 5 of this preamble. Table 6 of this
preamble shows a summary of the results of our evaluations of secondary
air, solid waste, energy, and cost impacts for this approach. Using the
emissions reductions estimates shown in Table 5 of this preamble and
the beyond-the-floor cost presented in Table 6 of this preamble, the
nationwide cost effectiveness of requiring clay ceramics tunnel and
roller kilns to install DIFF controls is about $36,000 per ton of HAP
removed. In addition, the costs of the beyond-the-floor approach are
significantly higher than those of the floor level of control.
Specifically, the cost of the beyond-the-floor approach is estimated to
be $15.8 million for the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, compared
to no cost for existing sources under the floor approach.
Table 5.--Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Beyond-the-
Floor Control of Clay Ceramics Tunnel Kilns and Roller Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emissions
Pollutant emissions, reductions, Percent
tpy tpy reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF............................ 267 265 99
HCl........................... 167 164 98
HAP metals.................... 5.9 5.9 99.9
Total HAP..................... 441 435 99
PM............................ 294 294 99.9
SO2........................... 1,460 730 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 6.--Summary of Secondary Air, Solid Waste, Energy, and Cost
Impacts for Beyond-the-Floor Control of Clay Ceramics Tunnel Kilns and
Roller Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond-the-floor
Type of impact impact Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air: NOX............ 12 tpy NOX Based on electricity
increase. provided by gas
turbines.
Solid waste................... 3,800 tpy........ Assumes facilities
must dispose of all
waste lime as solid
waste.
Energy........................ 92,000 MMBtu/yr..
Cost.......................... $15.8 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the aforementioned analyses, we determined that the
benefits of requiring controls for existing tunnel kilns and roller
kilns do not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not
requiring beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time.
Based on these considerations, we have decided that the control level
for existing clay ceramics tunnel kilns and roller kilns should be ``no
emissions reductions.''
D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for New Sources?
For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floors to be based on
the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source.
1. New Periodic Kilns
Because we consider clay ceramics periodic kilns to be similar
sources to BSCP periodic kilns, MACT for new clay ceramics periodic
kilns is based on the best-controlled clay ceramics or BSCP periodic
kiln. Currently, one BSCP periodic kiln is equipped with a DLA, but the
DLA has not been proven effective in controlling emissions from the
kiln. As previously explained, MACT options such as low-HAP fuels or
raw materials are not appropriate for clay ceramics kilns. Therefore,
the best-controlled similar source is an uncontrolled periodic kiln,
and the MACT floor level of control for new clay ceramics periodic
kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'' Because no APCD have been
demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe that low-HAP
fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no beyond-the-
floor options for new periodic kilns. Therefore, we have determined
that the control level for new periodic kilns should be ``no emissions
reductions.''
2. New Tunnel and Roller Kilns
For new clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns, we identified tunnel
kilns that produce BSCP as the best-controlled similar source. Although
the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control for clay ceramics
kilns are ``no emissions reductions,'' we determined that MACT for new
tunnel and roller kilns is represented by DIFF-, DLS/FF-, or WS-based
controls. These controls are considered equivalent in overall control
of HAP and are installed on the ten best performing existing BSCP
tunnel kilns. The basis of this determination is that BSCP kilns and
clay ceramics kilns process many of the same types of raw materials,
and the types of emissions (HF, HCl, HAP metals) are the same.
Therefore, control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control
represents the MACT floor level of control for new clay ceramics tunnel
and roller kilns. As previously explained, MACT options such as low-HAP
fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for clay ceramics kilns.
Beyond-the-floor options for new tunnel and roller kilns were not
evaluated because the emissions reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF,
and WS represent the best overall control of HAP.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
The formats for complying with today's proposed rule include
production-based emission limits and percent reduction emission limits.
Affected tunnel and roller kilns would
[[Page 47918]]
have the option of meeting production-based or percent reduction
emission limits for HF and HCl. The percent reduction emission limits
alternative for HF and HCl is offered to account for the variability in
the amount of these HAP in the uncontrolled kiln emissions, because
kilns with higher inlet HF or HCl concentrations may not be capable of
meeting the production-based emission limits. Affected tunnel and
roller kilns also would have to meet a production-based emission limit
for PM.
F. How Did We Determine the Emission Limits?
Because we determined clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns to be
similar sources to BSCP tunnel kilns, and we based MACT on the best-
controlled BSCP tunnel kilns, the emission limits being proposed for
clay ceramics manufacturing kilns are the same emission limits that are
being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns. The rationale for the
development of the emission limits for BSCP manufacturing kilns is
discussed in section IV.F of this preamble.
G. How Did We Select the Operating Limits and Monitoring Requirements?
Because we determined clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns to be
similar sources to BSCP tunnel kilns, and we based MACT on the best-
controlled BSCP tunnel kilns, the operating limits and monitoring
requirements being proposed for clay ceramics manufacturing kilns are
the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns.
The rationale for the development of the operating limits and
monitoring requirements is discussed in section IV.G of this preamble.
VIII. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We are seeking full public participation in arriving at our final
decisions, and we encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal
from all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses
should be submitted with comments to allow us to make maximum use of
the comments. Information on where and when to submit comments is
listed under the ADDRESSES and DATES sections. Information on
procedures for submitting proprietary information in the comments is
listed under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must 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 obligations 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, it has been
determined that the proposed rules are not ``significant regulatory
actions'' because none of the listed criteria apply to these actions.
Consequently, these actions were not submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866.
B. 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 the environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must 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 EPA.
The EPA interprets 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 rules are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically
significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety
risks.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA 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
Executive Order 13132, the EPA 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 EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA'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 EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EPA must include a certification
from EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
The proposed rules 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
[[Page 47919]]
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The
proposed rules would not impose directly enforceable requirements on
States, nor would they preempt them from adopting their own more
stringent programs to control emissions from BSCP and clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rules. Although section 6
of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rules, the EPA
is providing State and local officials an opportunity to comment on the
proposed rules. A summary of the concerns raised during the notice and
comment process and EPA's response to those concerns will be provided
in the final rulemaking action.
D. 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 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed rules do not have tribal implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments are known to own or operate BSCP or clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
the proposed rules.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
the EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed rules
from tribal officials.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because they are not significant regulatory actions under
Executive Order 12866.
F. 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, the
EPA generally must 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 the 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed rules do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost for the proposed
BSCP standards for any 1 year is estimated at $36 million. Because the
proposed clay ceramics manufacturing standards would not regulate
existing sources, the total annual cost is zero. Thus, today's proposed
rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that the proposed rules
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because they contain no regulatory
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, today's proposed rules are not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 government jurisdictions. The following
two sections provide descriptions of the small business assessments for
the two categories of sources addressed by today's proposal.
1. Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
BSCP manufacturing sources that are small entities, a small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards; (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.
Small Business Administration size standards for BSCP manufacturing, by
NAICS code, are shown in Table 7 of this preamble.
[[Page 47920]]
Table 7.--Small Business Size Standards for BSCP Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standard,
NAICS code number of
employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
327121............................................... 500
327122............................................... 500
327123............................................... 500
327125............................................... 750
327993............................................... 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the
proposed standards on small businesses within the BSCP manufacturing
industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and reported sales
and employment data, the EPA identified 77 of the 90 companies owning
BSCP manufacturing facilities as small businesses. Although small
businesses represent 86 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur 20 percent of the total industry
engineering compliance costs of $35.8 million. Additionally, 66 of the
77 small businesses will incur no costs. Under the proposed rule, the
mean annual compliance cost for this source category, as a share of
sales, for small businesses is 0.5 percent, and the median is 0.0
percent, with a range of 0.0 percent to 5.3 percent. We estimate that
one small firm in this source category may experience an impact between
1 percent and 3 percent of sales, and 9 percent of small businesses (or
eight firms) may experience an impact greater than 3 percent of sales.
We also conducted an economic impact analysis that accounted for
firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts
of the proposed rule. The analysis projected that of the 189 facilities
in this source category, two facilities are at risk of closure. Neither
of these facilities is owned by a small business. The median compliance
cost is below 1 percent of sales for both small and large firms
affected by the proposed rule (0.0 and 0.1 percent for small and large
firms, respectively).
Fifteen new BSCP manufacturing sources are projected to be
constructed during the five years after promulgation of the rule.
Industry compliance costs associated with these sources are anticipated
to be less than 0.5 percent of the BSCP manufacturing industry's value
of shipments. According to the new source economic impact analysis,
three to six of these new sources may be delayed in coming on-line due
to the compliance costs they would face. We cannot determine with
certainty whether these new sources will be built by large or small
companies. Regardless, impacts at the company level are not expected to
be significant for a substantial number of small entities.
2. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
clay ceramics manufacturing sources that are small entities, a small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to SBA size
standards; (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. Small Business Administration size
standards for clay ceramics manufacturing, by NAICS code, are shown in
Table 8 of this preamble.
Table 8.--Small Business Size Standards for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standard,
NAICS code number of
employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
326191............................................... 500
327111............................................... 750
327112............................................... 500
327122............................................... 500
327123............................................... 500
327125............................................... 750
335121............................................... 500
421220............................................... 100
421320............................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and reported sales and
employment data, the EPA identified 13 of the 29 companies owning clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities as small businesses. Because the
proposed rule does not include emissions limits or other requirements
for existing kilns in the clay ceramics manufacturing source category,
large or small, a firm's existing kilns will not be impacted by the
proposed rule. One new ceramic tile manufacturing source and one new
sanitaryware manufacturing source are projected to be constructed in
the first five years following promulgation of the rule. Industry
compliance costs associated with these sources are expected to be less
than 0.1 percent of industry value of shipments for each of these
industry segments. The share of costs to sales generated from the
output produced by the new ceramic tile manufacturing source is
expected to be less than 1.5 percent. No level of cost-to-sales for the
new sanitaryware manufacturing source could be developed due to the
diversity of product types produced. Thus, new clay ceramics
manufacturing sources are expected to face positive compliance costs;
however, we cannot determine with certainty whether these sources will
be built by large or small companies. Regardless, impacts at the
company level are not expected to be significant for a substantial
number of small entities.
3. RFA Certification
In summary, this action will regulate two source categories that
include 90 small business companies out of 119 total companies that own
BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. The mean annual
compliance cost for the BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics
manufacturing source categories, as a share of sales, for small
businesses is 0.0 percent, and the median is 0.0 percent, with a range
of 0.0 percent to 5.3 percent. Seventy-nine of the 90 small businesses
will incur no costs. One small firm is projected to have compliance
costs between 1 and 3 percent of their sales, and eight small firms are
projected to have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent. No
facilities owned by affected small firms are expected to close after
implementation of this action. Industry compliance costs associated
with the 17 new BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing sources projected
to be constructed during the five years after promulgation of this
action are anticipated to be less than 0.5 percent of each industry's
value of shipments.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities in these two source categories, I certify that this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Although the proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we have
nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the proposed
rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA.
For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we exercised flexibility in
minimizing impacts on small entities through subcategorization of
existing tunnel kilns by size, which still benefits the environment by
reducing emissions from the larger kilns. Input from small entities
within the BSCP manufacturing source category was solicited during the
data-gathering phase of the rulemaking process.
In addition, for the BSCP manufacturing source category, we
contacted the small entities estimated to
[[Page 47921]]
incur impacts in excess of 1 percent of sales to explain the proposal's
regulatory approach, as well as a potential alternative to installing
an APCD. Facilities with tunnel kilns operating at or near 10 tph could
accept a permit condition that restricts kiln production to less than
10 tph and, therefore, places the kiln in the subcategory unaffected by
the standards for existing kilns.
For both the BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing
source categories, we provided flexibility by offering a choice of
compliance options. Compliance options include mass emission limits or
percent reduction limits for HF and HCl. Compliance with the proposed
emission limits can be achieved through use of a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or
equivalent control device. The various control device options provide
an opportunity to determine the most suitable and cost-effective
control option for a kiln given the specifics of the facility site. 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.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed rules will
be submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an
Information Collection Request (ICR) document for each of the proposed
rules (ICR No. 2022.01 for BSCP manufacturing and ICR No. 2023.01 for
clay ceramics manufacturing), and a copy of either document may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at
[email protected]; or by calling (202) 260-2740. 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 EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rules would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to assure compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the
collection of information required by the proposed BSCP manufacturing
rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
final rule) is estimated to be 7,273 labor hours per year at a total
annual labor cost of $334,000. This burden estimate includes a one-time
submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP, with
immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were
not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance inspections;
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup
costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year
period of the ICR are estimated at $217,500, with operation and
maintenance costs of $16,900/yr.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the
collection of information required by the proposed clay ceramics
manufacturing rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule) is estimated to be 238 labor hours per year at
a total annual labor cost of $10,900. This burden estimate includes a
one-time submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP,
with immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan
were not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance
inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized
capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over
the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $4,300, with operation
and maintenance costs of $400/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on EPA'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. Send comments on either ICR to the
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822); U.S. EPA; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
Office of Management and Budget; 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 July 22, 2002, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by August 21, 2002. The final rulemaking action will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in these proposals.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
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 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 rules involve technical standards. The EPA proposes in
these rules to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 4, 5,
26, and 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the NTTAA,
the EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these EPA
[[Page 47922]]
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified
for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, and 2G. The search and review results
have been documented and are in the dockets for the proposed rules.
The search for emission measurement procedures identified 14
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the proposed
rules. The EPA determined that 11 of these 14 standards were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the
proposed rules. Therefore, the EPA does not propose to adopt these
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the 11
standards are discussed in the dockets for the proposed rules.
The following three of the 14 voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of the proposed rules because they are under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2);
ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging
Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and an ASTM impinger
method for measuring HCl. While we are not proposing to include these
three voluntary consensus standards in today's proposed rules, the EPA
will consider the standards when final.
The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
in the proposed rules and specifically invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should
also explain why the proposed rules should adopt these voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards.
Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for
evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation,
including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the
candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A was used).
Table 3 of the proposed BSCP rule and Table 3 of the proposed clay
ceramics rule list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed
rules. Under Sec. 63.7(f), a source may apply to EPA for permission to
use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 17, 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.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart JJJJJ to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.8405 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?
General Compliance Requirements
63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8490 What records must I keep?
63.8495 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for
Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay
products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.
Sec. 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP
manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major
source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures
brick (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers, other brick) and/or
structural clay products (clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall
tile; or other extruded, dimensional clay products). Brick and
structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw
clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and
dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of
[[Page 47923]]
stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control 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.
Sec. 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.
(b) The existing affected source is an existing tunnel kiln with a
design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/
hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product according to paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For existing tunnel kilns that do not have sawdust dryers, the
kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the only process stream) is subject
to the requirements of this subpart.
(2) For existing tunnel kilns that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers
prior to July 22, 2002, only the kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the
process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air
pollution control device (APCD)) is subject to the requirements of this
subpart. As such, any process stream that is ducted to a sawdust dryer
is not subject to these requirements.
(3) For existing tunnel kilns that first duct exhaust to sawdust
dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., all process
streams) is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(c) An existing tunnel kiln whose design capacity is increased such
that it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(d) An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph) of fired product on a 30-day rolling average basis is not subject
to the requirements of this subpart.
(e) Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected source
regardless of design capacity. All process streams from each new or
reconstructed tunnel kiln are subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
(f) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are
not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(g) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
(h) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(i) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(j) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.8395 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 the initial startup of your affected source is before [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the emission limitations for existing sources no later than [3 YEARS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source
of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart according to
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the existing facility must be in compliance
with this subpart by 3 years after the date the area source becomes a
major source.
(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which
construction or reconstruction was commenced after July 22, 2002) that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8480
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8480 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.8405 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
Sec. 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?
To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart,
you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an APCD and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD
meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8420 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 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). During the period between the
compliance date specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.8395 and
the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g.,
continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and
verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must
maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process
and emissions control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must prepare and implement a written operation,
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.8425.
[[Page 47924]]
(e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 7 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?
(a) You must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M
plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section.
Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting
authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8405. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each process unit and APCD, including a maintenance and
inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Secs. 63.8450
and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1),
and (e)(2)(i).
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,
including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions for correcting the deviation and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
You must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after
the compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8395
and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR
part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the
initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.
Sec. 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 3
to this subpart.
(d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
(e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(f) You must conduct at least 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.
(g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine
compliance with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM)
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.000
Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons)
of fired product per hour.
(2) To determine compliance with any of the emission limits based
on percent reduction across an emissions control system in Table 1 to
this subpart, you must calculate the percent reduction for each test
run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.001
Where:
PR = percent reduction, percent
ERi = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl)
entering the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ERo = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) exiting
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
(h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(i) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means
[[Page 47925]]
of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must
meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
3 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to
your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your
OM&M plan.
(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you
must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour)
for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out-of-
control periods).
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of
the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
or out-of-control periods).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but
not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment.
(b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity
of 2.2 deg.C (4.0 deg.F) or 0.75 percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger.
(3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 11.1 deg.C (20 deg.F).
(5) At least semiannually, perform an electronic calibration
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7oC (30.1oF) of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating temperature range, conduct calibration and validation
checks or install a new temperature sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(c) For each liquid flow measurement device (e.g., to determine dry
lime scrubber/fabric filter water injection rate or wet scrubber liquid
flowrate), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the liquid flowrate.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(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 measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks 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.
(e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(f) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement Center
Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other types of bag leak detection
systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a
manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
(2) 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.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
[[Page 47926]]
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition. Record each adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(g) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Secs. 63.8445(i) and 63.8(f).
Sec. 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 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. 63.8445 and Table 3 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. 63.8480(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8465 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 periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the
affected source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing
compliance of the APCD and associated control system. Any averaging
period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data
are required constitutes a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
Sec. 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this
subpart.
(b) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established
as required in Sec. 63.8445(i)(2) according to the methods specified in
your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described
in Secs. 63.8445(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit and each operating limit in 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. 63.8485.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate according to your SSMP.
(e) Consistent with Secs. 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 according to your SSMP and your OM&M plan. 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).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and
(c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply
to you, by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your
affected source before the [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 start up 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 become subject
to this subpart.
(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 as specified
in Table 3 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a
[[Page 47927]]
performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 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).
(2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must
include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section in your Notification of Compliance Status.
(i) The operating limit parameter values established for each
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the
procedure used to establish the values.
(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, analysis and
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance
and specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8450(f).
Sec. 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 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 6 to this subpart and as specified 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. 63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least
6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on
March 1 and end on December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(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 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), 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 in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(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 and
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance
report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating 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 in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source 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
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(4) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in your OM&M plan.
(5) 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.
(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a
deviation.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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 source operating time during that reporting period.
(10) A brief description of the process units.
(11) A brief description of the CMS.
(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 6 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report
[[Page 47928]]
deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.
Sec. 63.8490 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed 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 as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken.
(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a
fired-product basis.
(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) Current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan, including any
revisions, with records documenting conformance.
Sec. 63.8495 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 onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or 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, in addition to 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
implementation and enforcement of 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 section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Secs. 63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in
Sec. 63.8395, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec. 63.8405.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.8515 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:
Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that
reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility
means a plant site that manufactures brick (face brick, structural
brick, brick pavers, other brick) and/or structural clay products (clay
pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded,
dimensional clay products). Brick and structural clay products
manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the
processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks
or shapes.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an air pollution
control device that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or
other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric
filter.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an air pollution
control device that includes continuous injection of humidified
hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a
fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of
the sorbent.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture
PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a
baghouse.
Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a
tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an air
pollution control device), rather than to a sawdust dryer.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions,
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),
[[Page 47929]]
and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates
including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP.
Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including: a process stream
that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control
device, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a
sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to
the atmosphere.
Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick that
a kiln is designed to produce in 1 hour. If a kiln is modified to
increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the
capacity following modifications.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an air pollution control device that uses
water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the
sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to
increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the
following table that applies to you:
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the Or you must comply
For each . . . following emission with the following
limits . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing tunnel kiln with a a. HF emissions Reduce
design capacity of [ge]9.07 Mg/ must not exceed uncontrolled HF
hr (10 tph) of fired product, 0.014 kilograms emissions by at
excluding any process stream per megagram (kg/ least 95 percent.
that is ducted to a sawdust Mg) (0.027 pounds
dryer prior to July 22, 2002; per ton (lb/ton))
or including any process stream of fired product.
that exhausts directly to the
atmosphere or to an APCD and
any process stream that is
first ducted to a sawdust dryer
on or after July 22, 2002.
---------------------------------------
b. HCl emissions Reduce
must not exceed uncontrolled HCl
0.019 kg/Mg emissions by at
(0.037 lb/ton) of least 90 percent.
fired product.
---------------------------------------
c. PM emissions Not applicable.
must not exceed
0.06 kg/Mg (0.12
lb/ton) of fired
product.
---------------------------------------
2. New or reconstructed tunnel a. HF emissions Reduce
kiln, regardless of design must not exceed uncontrolled HF
capacity and including all 0.014 kg/Mg emissions by at
process streams. (0.027 lb/ton) of least 95 percent.
fired product.
b. HCl emissions Reduce
must not exceed uncontrolled HCl
0.019 kg/Mg emissions by at
(0.037 lb/ton) of least 90 percent.
fired product.
c. PM emissions Not applicable.
must not exceed
0.060 kg/Mg (0.12
lb/ton) of fired
product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a dry a. Initiate corrective action within 1
lime injection fabric filter hour of a bag leak detection system
(DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/ alarm and complete corrective actions in
fabric filter (DLS/FF). accordance with your OM&M plan; operate
and maintain the fabric filter such that
the alarm is not engaged for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period; and
b. Maintain the average fabric filter
inlet temperature for each 3-hour block
period at or below the average
temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F),
established during the performance test;
and
c. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed
hopper or silo and to the APCD at all
times for continuous injection systems;
maintain the feeder setting at or above
the level established during the
performance test for continuous
injection systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/ Maintain the average water injection rate
FF. for each 3-hour block period at or above
the level established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a wet a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure
scrubber (WS). drop for each 3-hour block period at or
above the average pressure drop
established during the performance test;
and
b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
pH for each 3-hour block period at or
above the average scrubber liquid pH
established during the performance test;
and
[[Page 47930]]
c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
flow rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the average scrubber liquid
flow rate established during the
performance test; and
d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber
water, maintain the average scrubber
chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average scrubber
chemical feed rate established during
the performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8445, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln............................ a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
If you choose to meet the
percent emission reduction
requirements for HF or
HCl, a sampling site must
also be located at the
APCD inlet.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A. 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
volumetric flow rate. part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use 3A or 3B of 40
molecular weight part 60, appendix A. CFR part 60, appendix A,
analysis. as appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR
content of the stack part 60, appendix A.
gas.
e. Measure HF and HCl Method 26A of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level. You may
use Method 26 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, as an
alternative to using
Method 26A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, when no
acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by a
wet scrubber) is present.
f. Measure PM Method 5 of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln that is complying with Determine the Production data You must measure and record
production-based emission limits. production rate collected during the the production rate, on a
during each test run performance tests fired-product basis, of
in order to determine (e.g., of the affected source for
compliance with pushes per hour, each of the three test
production-based of bricks runs.
emission limits. per kiln car, weight
of a typical fired
brick).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ a. Establish the Data from the You must continuously
FF. operating limit for temperature measure the temperature at
the average fabric measurement device the inlet to the fabric
filter inlet during the filter, determine and
temperature. performance test. record the block average
temperatures for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded temperature
measurements for the three
test runs.
b. Establish the Data from the lime For continuous lime
operating limit for feeder during the injection systems, you
the lime feeder performance test. must ensure that lime in
setting. the feed hopper or silo
and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times
during the performance
test and record the feeder
setting for the three test
runs. If the feed rate
setting varies during the
three test runs, determine
and record the average
feed rate from the three
test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF..... Establish the Data from the water You must continuously
operating limit for injection rate measure the water
the average water measurement device injection rate, determine
injection rate. during the and record the block
performance test. average water injection
rate values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded water injection
rate measurements for the
three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47931]]
5. Kiln equipped with a WS......... a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the pressure drop, determine
pressure drop. performance test. and record the block
average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.
b. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the liquid pH, determine and
liquid pH. performance test. record the block average
pH values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH measurements
for the three test runs.
c. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average flow rate
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that Establish the Data from the chemical You must continuously
includes chemical addition to the operating limit for feed rate measurement measure the scrubber
water. the average scrubber device during the chemical feed rate,
chemical feed rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average chemical
feed rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded chemical feed
rate measurements for the
three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:
Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have demonstrated
For each . . . emission initial compliance if
limitation . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln................ a. HF emissions i. The HF emissions
must not exceed measured using
0.014 kg/Mg Method 26A of 40 CFR
(0.027 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A,
of fired over the period of
product; or the initial
uncontrolled HF performance test,
emissions must according to the
be reduced by at calculations in Sec.
least 95 63.8445(g)(1), do
percent; and not exceed 0.014 kg/
Mg (0.027 lb/ton);
or Uncontrolled HF
measured using
Method 26A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A,
over the period of
the initial
performance test are
reduced by at least
be reduced by at 95
percent, according
to the calculations
least in Sec.
63.8445(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which HF
emissions did not
exceed 0.014 kg/Mg
(0.027 lb/ton) or
uncontrolled HF
emissions were
reduced by at least
95 percent.
-----------------------------------------
b. HCl emissions The HC1 emissions
must not exceed measured using
0.019 kg/Mg Method 26A of 40 CFR
(0.037 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A,
of fired over the period of
product; or the initial
uncontrolled HC1 performance test,
emissions must according to the
be reduced by at calculations in
least 90 63.8445(g)(1), do
percent; and not exceed 0.019 kg/
Mg (0.037 lb/ton);
or uncontrolled HC1
emissions measured
using Method 26A of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, over the
period of the
initial performance
test are reduced by
at least 90 percent,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8445(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which HC1
emissions did not
exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
(0.037 lb/ton) or
uncontrolled HC1
emissions were
reduced by at least
90 percent.
-----------------------------------------
c. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
must not exceed measured using
0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of fired part 60, appendix A,
product. over the period of
the initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.06 kg/
Mg (0.12 lb/ton);
and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.06 kg/Mg
(0.12 lb/ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to
you according to the following table:
[[Page 47932]]
Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission limits You must demonstrate
For each . . . and operating continuous compliance
limits . . . by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DIFF a. Each emission i. Initiating
or DLS/FF. limit in Table 1 corrective action
to this subpart within 1 hour of a
and each bag leak detection
operating limit system alarm and
in Item 1 of completing
Table 2 to this corrective actions
subpart for in accordance with
kilns equipped your OM&M plan;
with DIFF or DLS/ operating and
FF. maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time taken by you to
initiate corrective
action; and
ii. Collecting the
fabric filter inlet
temperature data
according to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the fabric filter
inlet temperature
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average fabric
filter inlet
temperature for each
3-hour block period
at or below the
average temperature,
plus 14 deg.C (25
deg.F), established
during the
performance test;
and
iii. Verifying that
lime is free-flowing
via a load cell,
carrier gas/lime
flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure
drop measurement
system, or other
system; recording
all monitor or
sensor output, and
if lime is found not
to be free flowing,
promptly initiating
and completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder
setting once each
shift of operation
to verify that the
feeder setting is
being maintained at
or above the level
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF Each emission Collecting the water
limit in Table 1 injection rate data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8450(a); reducing
operating limit the water injection
in Item 2 of rate data to 3-hour
Table 2 to this block averages
subpart for according to Sec.
kilns equipped 63.8450(a);
with DLS/FF. maintaining the
average water
injection rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average water
injection rate
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a WS.... a. Each emission i. Collecting the
limit in Table 1 scrubber pressure
to this subpart drop data according
and each to Sec. 63.8450(a);
operating limit reducing the
in Item 3 of scrubber pressure
Table 2 to this drop data to 3-hour
subpart for block averages
kilns equipped according to Sec.
with WS. 63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
pressure drop for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average pressure
drop established
during the
performance test;
and
ii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid pH
data according to
Sec. 63.8450(a);
reducing the
scrubber liquid pH
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-
hour block period at
or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during
the performance
test; and
iii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec. 63.8450(a);
reducing the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data to 3-hour
block averages
according to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average scrubber
liquid flow rate
established during
the performance
test; and
iv. If chemicals are
added to the
scrubber water,
collecting the
scrubber chemical
feed rate data
according to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the scrubber
chemical feed rate
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8485, you must submit each report that applies
to you according to the following table:
[[Page 47933]]
Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report........ a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limitations the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit) that Sec. 63.8485(b
apply to you, a )
statement that there
were no deviations
from the emission
limitations during
the reporting period.
If there were no
periods during which
the CMS was out-of-
control as specified
in your OM&M plan, a
statement that there
were no periods
during which the CMS
was out- of-control
during the reporting
period.
b. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to
emission limitation the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit) Sec. 63.8485(b
during the reporting )
period, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8485(d) or (e). If
there were periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control,
as specified in your
OM&M plan, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8485(e).
c. If you had a Semiannually
startup, shutdown or according to
malfunction during the
the reporting period requirements in
and you took actions Sec. 63.8485(b
consistent with your )
SSMP, the compliance
report must include
the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An immediate startup, a. Actions taken for By fax or
shutdown, and malfunction the event according telephone
report if you took actions to the requirements within 2
during a startup, shutdown, in Sec. working days
or malfunction during the 63.10(d)(5)(ii). after starting
reporting period that are not actions
consistent with your SSMP. inconsistent
with the plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The information in By letter within
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 7 working days
after the end
of the event
unless you have
made
alternative
arrangements
with the
permitting
authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8505, you must comply with the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1-63.15 that apply to you according to the
following table:
Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject Brief Description JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................... Applicability.......... ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............ ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and Abbreviation. ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited Activities.. Compliance date; Yes.
circumvention,
severability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.5........................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. applications;
approvals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(a)........................ Applicability.......... General Provisions (GP) Yes.
apply unless
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)................. Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and Reconstructed effective date; 3
sources. years after effective
date; Upon startup; 10
years after
construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)..................... Notification........... ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)..................... [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)..................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that Yes.
New and Reconstructed become major must
Area Sources That comply with major
Become Major. source standards
immediately upon
becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply
when they were area
sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47934]]
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................. Compliance Dates for Comply according to Yes.
Existing Sources. date in subpart, which
must be no later than
3 years after
effective date; for
section 112(f)
standards, comply
within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................. [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)..................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that Yes.
Existing Area Sources become major must
That Become Major. comply with major
source standards by
date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time period
(for example, 3 years).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(d)........................ [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................. Operation & Maintenance Operate to minimize Yes.
emissions at all
times; correct
malfunctions as soon
as practicable;
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operations and
maintenance
requirements were met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)..................... Startup, Shutdown, and ....................... Yes.
Malfunction Plan
(SSMP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)..................... Compliance Except You must comply with Yes.
During SSM. emissions standards at
all times except
during SSM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................. Methods for Determining Compliance based on Yes.
Compliance. performance test,
operation and
maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(g)........................ Alternative Standard... Procedures for getting Yes.
an alternative
standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(h)........................ Opacity/Visible ....................... No, not applicable.
Emission (VE)
Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(i)........................ Compliance Extension... Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(j)........................ Presidential Compliance President may exempt Yes.
Exemption. source category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................. Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting Yes.
initial performance
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations; must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)..................... Sec. 114 Authority.... Adminstrator may Yes.
require a performance
test under CAA Sec.
114 at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)..................... Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)..................... Notification of Must notify Yes.
Rescheduling. Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(c)........................ Quality Assurance (QA) Requirements; test plan Yes.
Test Plan. approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(d)........................ Testing Facilities..... ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)..................... Conditions for Performance tests must No, Sec. 63.8445
Conducting Performance be conducted under specifies
Tests. representative requirements.
conditions.
Cannot conduct Yes.
performance tests
during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47935]]
63.7(e)(2)-(3)....................... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes.
Conducting Performance to subpart and EPA
Tests. test methods unless
Administrator approved
alternative; must have
at least three test
runs of at least 1
hour each; compliance
is based on arithmetic
mean of three runs;
conditions when data
from an additional
test run can be used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(f)........................ Alternative Test Method ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(g)........................ Performance Test Data ....................... Yes.
Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(h)........................ Waiver of Test......... ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)..................... Applicability of ....................... Yes.
Monitoring
Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)..................... Performance Performance Yes.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)..................... [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Monitoring with Flares. ....................... No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)..................... Monitoring............. Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................. Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements Yes.
Multiple Monitoring for installing and
System. reporting on
monitoring systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)..................... Monitoring System Maintenance consistent Yes.
Operation and with good air
Maintenance. pollution control
practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).................. Routine and Predictable Reporting requirements Yes.
SSM. for SSM when action is
described in SSMP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................. SSM not in SSMP........ Reporting requirements Yes.
for SSM when action is
not described in SSMP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)................ Compliance with How Administrator Yes.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................. Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative
emission and parameter
measurements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... Continuous Monitoring ....................... No, Sec. 63.8465
System (CMS) specifies
Requirements. requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)..................... Continuous Opacity ....................... No, not applicable.
Monitoring System
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)..................... CMS Requirements....... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8425
specifies
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................. CMS Requirements....... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8425
specifies
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(d)........................ CMS Quality Control.... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8425
specifies
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(e)........................ CMS Performance ....................... No, Sec. 63.8425
Evaluation. specifies
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-5).................. Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes.
Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(f)........................ Alternative to Relative ....................... No, not applicable.
Accuracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(g)........................ Data Reduction......... ....................... No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47936]]
Sec. 63.9(a)........................ Notification ....................... Yes.
Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(b)........................ Initial Notification... ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(c)........................ Request for Compliance ....................... Yes.
Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(d)........................ Notification of Special ....................... Yes.
Compliance
Requirements for New
Source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(e)........................ Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(f)........................ Notification of VE/ ....................... No, not applicable.
Opacity Test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)..................... Additional Notification ....................... Yes.
When Using CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3)................. Additional Notification ....................... No, not applicable.
When Using CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(h)........................ Notification of ....................... Yes.
Compliance Status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(i)........................ Adjustment of Submittal ....................... Yes.
Deadlines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(j)........................ Change in Previous ....................... Yes.
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(a)....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).................... General Recordkeeping ....................... Yes.
Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(1)-(v)............. Records Related to ....................... Yes.
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) and (xiv) CMS Records............ ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............. Records................ Records when using No, not applicable.
alternative to
relative accuracy test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).................... Records................ Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(15)............... Records................ ....................... No, Secs. 63.8425 and
63.8490 specify
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) and (2)............ General Reporting Requirements for Yes.
Requirements. reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).................... Reporting Opacity or VE ....................... No, not applicable.
Observations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).................... Progress Reports....... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).................... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(3)................ Additional CMS Reports. ....................... No, Secs. 63.8425 and
63.8485 specify
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).................... Reporting COMS data.... ....................... No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(f)....................... Waiver for ....................... Yes.
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.11.......................... Flares................. ....................... No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.12.......................... Delegation............. ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.13.......................... Addresses.............. ....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.14.......................... Incorporation by ....................... Yes.
Reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.15.......................... Availability of ....................... Yes.
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47937]]
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart KKKKK to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.8555 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?
General Compliance Requirements
63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
operating plans?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8640 What records must I keep?
63.8645 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations.
Sec. 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay
ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a
major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section.
(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and
sanitaryware products.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control 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.
Sec. 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new or reconstructed affected
source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.
(b) Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln and roller kiln is an
affected source.
(c) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are
not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(d) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
previously fired products or for refiring are not subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(e) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(f) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.8545 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 the initial startup of your affected source is before [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing area source that increases its
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source
of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must
be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your
affected source as a major source.
(c) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which
construction or reconstruction was commenced after July 22, 2002) that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8630
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8630 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.8555 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
[[Page 47938]]
Sec. 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?
To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart,
you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and
demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet
the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture
and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8570 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 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). During the period between the
compliance date specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.8545 and
the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g.,
continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and
verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must
maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process
and emissions control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must prepare and implement a written operation,
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.8575.
(e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 7 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?
(a) You must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M
plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section.
Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting
authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each process unit and APCD, including a maintenance and
inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Secs. 63.8600
and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1),
and (e)(2)(i).
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,
including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions for correcting the deviation and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
You must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after
the compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8545
and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR
part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the
initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.
Sec. 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 3
to this subpart.
(d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
(e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(f) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance
[[Page 47939]]
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each
test run must last at least 1 hour.
(g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine
compliance with the emission limitations:
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM)
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.002
Where:
MP = mass per unit production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons)
of fired product per hour.
(2) To determine compliance with any of the emission limits based
on percent reduction across an emissions control system in Table 1 to
this subpart, you must calculate the percent reduction for each test
run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.003
Where:
PR = percent reduction, percent
ERi = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl)
entering the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ERo = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) exiting
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
(h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(i) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs
(i)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
3 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to
your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your
OM&M plan.
(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you
must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour)
for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out-of-
control periods).
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of
the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
or out-of-control periods).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but
not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment.
(b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity
of 2.2 deg.C (4.0 deg.F) or 0.75 percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger.
(3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 11.1 deg.C (20 deg.F).
(5) At least semiannually, perform an electronic calibration
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7 deg.C (30.1 deg.F) of the process temperature sensor's
reading.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating temperature range, conduct calibration and validation
checks or install a new temperature sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(c) For each liquid flow measurement device (e.g., to determine dry
lime scrubber/fabric filter water injection rate or wet scrubber liquid
flow rate), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the liquid flowrate.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(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 measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating pressure range, conduct
[[Page 47940]]
calibration checks 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.
(e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(f) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement
Center, Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other types of bag leak
detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(2) 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.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition. Record each adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(g) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Secs. 63.8595(i) and 63.8(f).
Sec. 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 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. 63.8595 and Table 3 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. 63.8630(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8615 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 periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the
affected source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing
compliance of the APCD and associated control system. Any averaging
period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data
are required constitutes a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
Sec. 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this
subpart.
(b) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established
as required in Sec. 63.8595(i)(2) according to the methods specified in
your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described
in Secs. 63.8595(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These
instances are
[[Page 47941]]
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8635.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate according to your SSMP.
(e) Consistent with Secs. 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 according to your SSMP and your OM&M plan. 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).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and
(c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to
you, by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), 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 start up 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 become subject
to this subpart.
(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 as specified
in Table 3 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance
test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 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).
(2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must
include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section in your Notification of Compliance Status:
(i) The operating limit parameter values established for each
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the
procedure used to establish the values.
(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, analysis and
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance
and specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8600(f).
Sec. 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 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 6 to this subpart and as specified 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. 63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least
6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on
March 1 and end on December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(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 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), 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 in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate and complete.
(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 and
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance
report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating 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 in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source 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
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
[[Page 47942]]
(3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(4) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in your OM&M plan.
(5) 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.
(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a
deviation.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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 source operating time during that reporting period.
(10) A brief description of the process units.
(11) A brief description of the CMS.
(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 6 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.
Sec. 63.8640 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed 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 as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken.
(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a
fired-product weight basis.
(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) Current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan, including any
revisions, with records documenting conformance.
Sec. 63.8645 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 onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or 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, in addition to 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
implementation and enforcement of 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 section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Secs. 63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in
Sec. 63.8545, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.8665 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:
Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that
reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various
[[Page 47943]]
additives, form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware
shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to
many tile and sanitaryware products.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an air pollution
control device that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or
other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric
filter.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an air pollution
control device that includes continuous injection of humidified
hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a
fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of
the sorbent.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture
PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a
baghouse.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions,
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and as a
surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but
not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Roller kiln means any continuous kiln that uses rollers to convey
individual ceramic pieces through the kiln, rather than using kiln cars
such as those used in tunnel kilns.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln (that is not a roller kiln)
that is used to fire clay ceramics.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an air pollution control device that uses
water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the
sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to
increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in the
following table that applies to you:
Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the Or you must comply
For each . . . following emission with the following .
limits . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed a. HF emissions must Reduce uncontrolled
tunnel or roller kiln. not exceed 0.014 HF emissions by at
kilograms per least 95 percent.
megagram (kg/Mg)
(0.027 pounds per
ton (lb/ton)) of
fired product.
b. HCl emissions Reduce uncontrolled
must not exceed HCl emissions by at
0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 least 90 percent.
lb/ton) of fired
product.
c. PM emissions must Not applicable.
not exceed 0.06 kg/
Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of
fired product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:
Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a dry a. Initiate corrective action within 1
lime injection fabric filter hour of a bag leak detection system
(DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/ alarm and complete corrective actions in
fabric filter (DLS/FF). accordance with your OM&M plan; operate
and maintain the fabric filter such that
the alarm is not engaged for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period; and
b. Maintain the average fabric filter
inlet temperature for each 3-hour block
period at or below the average
temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F),
established during the performance test;
and
c. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed
hopper or silo and to the APCD at all
times for continuous injection systems;
maintain the feeder setting at or above
the level established during the
performance test for continuous
injection systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/ Maintain the average water injection rate
FF. for each 3-hour block period at or above
the level established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a wet a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure
scrubber (WS). drop for each 3-hour block period at or
above the average pressure drop
established during the performance test;
and
b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
pH for each 3-hour block period at or
above the average scrubber liquid pH
established during the performance test;
and
c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
flow rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the average scrubber liquid
flow rate established during the
performance test; and
[[Page 47944]]
d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber
water, maintain the average scrubber
chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average scrubber
chemical feed rate established during
the performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8595, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:
Table 3.--to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln............................ a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
If you choose to meet the
percent emission reduction
requirements for HF or
HCl, a sampling site must
also be located at the
APCD inlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A. 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
volumetric flow rate. part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR
content of the stack part 60, appendix A.
gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Measure HF and HCl Method 26A of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level. You may
use Method 26 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, as an
alternative to using
Method 26A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, when no
acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by a
wet scrubber) is present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Measure PM Method 5 of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln that is complying with Determine the Production data You must measure and record
production-based emission limits. production rate collected during the the production rate, on a
during each test run performance tests fired-product weight
in order to determine (e.g., the number of basis, of the affected
compliance with ceramic pieces and kiln for each of the three
production-based weight per piece in test runs.
emission limits. the kiln during a
test run divided by
the amount of time to
fire a piece).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ a. Establish the Data from the You must continuously
FF. operating limit for temperature measure the temperature at
the average fabric measurement device the inlet to the fabric
filter inlet during the filter, determine and
temperature. performance test. record the block average
temperatures for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded temperature
measurements for the three
test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Establish the Data from the lime For continuous lime
operating limit for feeder during the injection systems, you
the lime feeder performance test. must ensure that lime in
setting. the feed hopper or silo
and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times
during the performance
test and record the feeder
setting for the three test
runs. If the feed rate
setting varies during the
three test runs, determine
and record the average
feed rate from the three
test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF..... Establish the Data from the water You must continuously
operating limit for injection rate measure the water
the average water measurement device injection rate. determine
injection rate. during the and the record the block
performance test. average water injection
rate values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded water injection
rate measurements for the
three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47945]]
5. Kiln equipped with a WS......... a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the pressure drop determine
pressure drop. performance test. and record the block
average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the liquid pH, determine and
liquid pH. performance test. record the block average
pH values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH measurements
for the three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average flow rate
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that Establish the Data from the chemical You must continuously
includes chemical addition to the operating limit for feed rate measurement measure the scrubber
water. the average scrubber device during the chemical feed rate,
chemical feed rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average chemical
feed rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded chemical feed
rate measurements for the
three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have demonstrated
For each . . . emission initial compliance if
limitation . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed tunnel a. HF emissions i. The HF emissions
or roller kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.014 kg/Mg Method 26A of 40 CFR
(0.027 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A,
of fired over the period of
product; or the initial
uncontrolled HF performance test,
emissions must according to the
be reduced by at calculations in Sec.
least 95 63.8595(g)(1), do
percent; and not exceed 0.014 kg/
Mg (0.027 lb/ton);
or uncontrolled HF
emissions measured
using Method 26A of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, over the
period of the
initial performance
test are reduced by
at least 95 percent,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which HF
emissions did not
exceed 0.014 kg/Mg
(0.027 lb/ton) or
uncontrolled HF
emissions were
reduced by at least
95 percent.
-----------------------------------------
b. HCl emissions i. The HCl emissions
must not exceed measured using
0.019 kg/Mg Method 26A of 40 CFR
(0.037 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A,
of fired over the period of
product; or the initial
uncontrolled HCl performance test,
emissions must according to the
be reduced by at calculations in Sec.
least 90 63.8595(g)(1), do
percent; and not exceed 0.019 kg/
Mg (0.037 lb/ton);
or uncontrolled HCl
emissions measured
using Method 26A of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, over the
period of the
initial performance
test are reduced by
at least 90 percent,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which HCl
emissions did not
exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
(0.037 lb/ton) or
uncontrolled HCl
emissions were
reduced by at least
90 percent.
-----------------------------------------
c. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
must not exceed measured using
0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of fired part 60, appendix A,
product.. over the period of
the initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.06 kg/
Mg (0.12 lb/ton);
and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.06 kg/Mg
(0.12 lb/ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to
you according to the following table:
[[Page 47946]]
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission limits You must demonstrate
For each . . . and operating continuous compliance
limits . . . by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DIFF a. Each emission i. Initiating
or DLS/FF. limit in Table 1 corrective action
to this subpart within 1 hour of a
and each bag leak detection
operating limit system alarm and
in Item 1 of completing
Table 2 to this corrective actions
subpart for in accordance with
kilns equipped your OM&M plan;
with DIFF or DLS/ operating and
FF. maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time take by you to
initiate corrective
action; and
ii. Collecting the
fabric filter inlet
temperature data
according to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing
the fabric filter
inlet temperature
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average fabric
filter inlet
temperature for each
3-hour block period
at or below the
average temperature,
plus 14 deg.C (25
deg.F), established
during the
performance test;
and
iii. Verifying that
lime is free-flowing
via a load cell,
carrier gas/lime
flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure
drop measurement
system, or other
system; recording
all monitor or
sensor output, and
if lime is found not
to be free flowing,
promptly initiating
and completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder
setting once each
shift of operation
to verify that the
feeder setting is
being maintained at
or above the level
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF Each emission Collecting the water
limit in Table 1 injection rate data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8600(a); reducing
operating limit the water injection
in Item 2 of rate data to 3-hour
Table 2 to this block averages
subpart for according to Sec.
kilns equipped 63.8600(a);
with DLS/FF. maintaining the
average water
injection rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average water
injection rate
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a WS.... a. Each emission i. Collecting the
limit in Table 1 scrubber pressure
to this subpart drop data according
and each to Sec. 63.8600(a);
operating limit reducing the
in Item 3 of scrubber pressure
Table 2 to this drop data to 3-hour
subpart for block averages
kilns equipped according to Sec.
with WS. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
pressure drop for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average pressure
drop established
during the
performance test;
and
ii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid pH
data according to
Sec. 63.8600(a);
reducing the
scrubber liquid pH
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-
hour block period at
or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during
the performance
test; and
iii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec. 63.8600(a);
reducing the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data to 3-hour
block averages
according to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average scrubber
liquid flow rate
established during
the performance
test; and
iv. If chemicals are
added to the
scrubber water,
collecting the
scrubber chemical
feed rate data
according to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing
the scrubber
chemical feed rate
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
chemical feed rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8635, you must submit each report that applies
to you according to the following table:
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report........ a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limitations the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit) that Sec. 63.8635(b
apply to you, a ).
statement that there
were no deviations
from the emission
limitations during
the reporting period.
If there were no
periods during which
the CMS was out-of-
control as specified
in your OM&M plan, a
statement that there
were no periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control
during the reporting
period.
[[Page 47947]]
b. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to
emission limitation the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit) Sec. 63.8635(b
during the reporting ).
period, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8635(d) or (e) If
there were periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control,
as specified in your
OM&M plan, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8635(e).
c. If you had a Semiannually
startup, shutdown or according to
malfunction during the
the reporting period requirements in
and you took actions Sec. 63.8635(b
the consistent with ).
your SSMP, compliance
report must include
the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An immediate startup, a. Actions taken for By fax or
shutdown, and malfunction the event according telephone
report if you took actions to the requirements within 2
during a startup, shutdown, in Sec. working days
or malfunction during the 63.10(d)(5)(ii). after starting
reporting period that are not actions
consistent with your SSMP. inconsistent
with the plan.
b. The information in By letter within
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 7 working days
after the end
of the event
unless you have
made
alternative
arrangements
with the
permitting
authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8655, you must comply with the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1-63.15 that apply to you according to the
following table:
Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................... Applicability.......... ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............ ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and Abbreviations ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited Activities.. Compliance date; Yes.
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5........................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. applications;
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)........................ Applicability.......... General Provisions (GP) Yes.
apply unless
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)................. Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and Reconstructed effective date; 3
sources. years after effective
date; Upon startup; 10
years after
construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)..................... Notification........... ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)..................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)..................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that Yes.
New Reconstructed Area become major must
Sources That Become comply with major
Major. source standards
immediately upon
becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply
when they were area
sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................. Compliance Dates for Comply according to Yes.
Existing Sources. date in subpart, which
must be no later than
3 years after
effective date; for
section 112(f)
standards, comply
within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................. [Reserved].............
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)..................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that Yes.
Existing Area Sources become major must
That Become Major. comply with major
source standards by
date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time period
(for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)........................ [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................. Operation & Maintenance Operate to minimize Yes.
emissions at all
times; correct
malfunctions as soon
as practicable;
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)..................... Startup, Shutdown, and ....................... Yes.
Malfunction Plan
(SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)..................... Compliance Except You must comply with Yes.
During SSM. emission standards at
all times except
during SSM.
[[Page 47948]]
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................. Methods for Determining Compliance based on Yes.
Compliance. performance test,
operation and
maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)........................ Alternative Standard... Procedures for getting Yes.
an alternative
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)........................ Opacity/Visible ....................... No, not applicable.
Emission (VE)
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)........................ Compliance Extension... Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)........................ Presidential Compliance President may exempt Yes.
Exemption. source category.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................. Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting Yes.
initial performance
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations; must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)..................... Sec. 114 Authority.... Administrator may Yes.
require a performance
test under CAA Sec.
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)..................... Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)..................... Notification of Must notify Yes.
Rescheduling. Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)........................ Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirements; test plan Yes.
Test Plan. approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)........................ Testing Facilities..... ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)..................... Conditions for Performance tests must No, Sec. 63.8595
Conducting Performance be conducted under specifies
Tests. representative requirements.
conditions.
Cannot conduct Yes.
performance tests
during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3)................. Conditions for Must conduct according Yes.
Conducting Performance to subpart and EPA
Tests. test methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative; must have
at least three test
runs of at least 1
hour each; compliance
is based on arithmetic
mean of three runs;
conditions when data
from an additional
test run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f)........................ Alternative Test Method ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(g)........................ Performance Test Data ....................... Yes.
Analysis.
Sec. 63.7(h)........................ Waiver of Test......... ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)..................... Applicability of ....................... Yes.
Monitoring
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)..................... Performance Performance Yes.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)..................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Monitoring with Flares. ....................... No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)..................... Monitoring............. Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................. Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements Yes.
Multiple Monitoring for installing and
Systems. reporting on
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)..................... Monitoring System Maintenance consistent Yes.
Operation and with good air
Maintenance. pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).................. Routine and Predictable Reporting requirements Yes.
SSM. for SSM when action is
described in SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................. SSM not in SSMP........ Reporting requirements Yes.
for SSM when action is
not described in SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)................ Compliance with How Administrator Yes.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................. Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative
emission and parameter
measurements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... Continuous Monitoring ....................... No, Sec. 63.8615
System (CMS) specifies
Requirements. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)..................... Continuous Opacity ....................... No, not applicable.
Monitoring System
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)..................... CMS Requirements....... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8575
specifies
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................. CMS Requirements....... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8575
specifies
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(d)........................ CMS Quality Control.... ....................... No, Sec. 63.8575
specifies
requirements.
[[Page 47949]]
Sec. 63.8(e)........................ CMS Performance ..................... No, Sec. 63.8575
Evaluation. specifies
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................. Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes.
Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)..................... Alternative to Relative ....................... No, not applicable.
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.8(g)........................ Data Reduction......... ....................... No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.9(a)........................ Notification ....................... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)........................ Initial Notifications.. ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c)........................ Request for Compliance ....................... Yes.
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)........................ Notification of Special ....................... Yes.
Compliance
Requirements for New
Source.
Sec. 63.9(e)........................ Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)........................ Notification of VE/ ....................... No, not applicable.
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)..................... Additional ....................... Yes.
Notifications When
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3)................. Additional ....................... No, not applicable.
Notifications When
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)........................ Notification of ....................... Yes.
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i)........................ Adjustment of Submittal ....................... Yes.
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)........................ Change in Previous ....................... Yes.
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).................... General Recordkeeping ....................... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)............. Records Related to ....................... Yes.
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) and (xiv) CMS Records............ ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............. Records................ Records when using No, not applicable.
alternative to
relative accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).................... Records................ Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c) (1)-(15).............. Records................ ....................... No, Secs. 63.8575 and
63.8640 specify
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) and (2)............ General Reporting Requirements for Yes.
Requirements. reporting.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).................... Reporting Opacity or VE ....................... No, not applicable.
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).................... Progress Reports....... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).................... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(3)................ Additional CMS Reports. ....................... No, Secs. 63.8575 and
63.8635 specify
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).................... Reporting COMS data.... ....................... No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.10(f)....................... Waiver for ....................... Yes.
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11.......................... Flares................. ....................... No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.12.......................... Delegation............. ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.13.......................... Addresses.............. ....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.14.......................... Incorporation by ....................... Yes.
Reference.
Sec. 63.15.......................... Availability of ....................... Yes.
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-15869 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P