[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48708-48748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18485]
[[Page 48707]]
Vol. 84
Monday,
No. 179
September 16, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48708]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-9998-85-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT08
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the
results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Lime Manufacturing Plants. We are proposing to find that risks due to
emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and
that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Under the technology review, we are proposing to find
that there are no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. We are
proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) and to add provisions regarding electronic
reporting.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before October 16, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 23, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0015, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5426; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mike
Ciolek, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-4921; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Adrian Gates at (919) 541-4860 or by
email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to register
to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public
hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For
[[Page 48709]]
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
g/dscm grams per dry standard cubic meter
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
lb/tsf pounds per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PSH processed stone handling system
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
[[Page 48710]]
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Lime
Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in producing high
calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite. However, lime
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories are not included in the source category (see 69 FR 397,
January 5, 2004).
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing.............. Lime Manufacturing 32741, 33111,
Plants. 3314, 327125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the Federal Register,
the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall
RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This
second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.''
In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA
to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to
determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into the
standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The
[[Page 48711]]
EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to
use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual
risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The NESHAP for the Lime Manufacturing source category was
promulgated on January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394), and codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA. As promulgated in 2004, the NESHAP regulates HAP
emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are
major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major
sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper
mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Other
captive lime manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those
at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the
NESHAP. See 67 FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations.
A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous
material by calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime
kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening
processes as the feedstock. Lime product means the product of the lime
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and
dead-burned dolomite.
The NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: Each lime kiln
and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling
(PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all
equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone
storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process
stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage
bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening
operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The
materials processing operations associated with lime products (such as
quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining
operations, limestone sizing operations, and fuels are not subject to
the NESHAP. Processed stone handling operations are further
distinguished in the NESHAP as: (1) Whether their emissions are vented
through a stack, (2) whether their emissions are fugitive emissions,
(3) whether their emissions are vented through a stack with some
fugitive emissions from the partial enclosure, and/or (4) whether the
source is enclosed in a building. Finally, lime hydrators and cooler
nuisance dust collectors are not included under the definition of
affected source under the NESHAP.
The NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for
lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. Particulate matter
is measured solely as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible
emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as
a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals.
The PM emission limit for the existing kilns and coolers is 0.12
pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb PM/tsf) for kilns using dry air
pollution control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that
have installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5,
2004, must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb PM/tsf. Kilns which meet
the criteria for the 0.60 lb PM/tsf emission limit must continue to use
a wet scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet
the 0.60 lb PM/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry
control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb PM/tsf emission
limit, regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The
PM emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb PM/tsf.
As a compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb
PM/tsf limit) may be applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns
and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing
plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission
limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the
individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission
level of 0.10 lb PM/tsf. Kilns that are required to meet a 0.60 lb PM/
tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually, and may not be
included in any averaging calculations. Emissions from PSH operations
that are vented through a stack are subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM
per dry standard cubic meter (g PM/dscm) and 7-percent opacity. Stack
emissions from PSH operations that are controlled by wet scrubbers are
subject to the 0.05 g PM/
[[Page 48712]]
dscm limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions
from PSH operations are subject to a 10-percent opacity limit.
For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must
be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7-percent
opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an
individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not
exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins
with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm
and 7-percent opacity. The final rule does not allow averaging of PSH
operations.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
During the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA
collected information on the emissions, operations, and location of
lime manufacturing plants. Since this information was collected prior
to the 2004 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA
prepared a questionnaire in 2017 in order to collect current
information on the location and number of lime kilns, types and
quantities of emissions, annual operating hours, types and quantities
of fuels burned, and information on air pollution control devices and
emission points. Nine companies completed the 2017 questionnaire for
which they reported data for 32 of 35 major source facilities. The EPA
used data from the 2017 questionnaires to develop the dataset for the
NESHAP risk assessment.
The list of facilities that are subject to the NESHAP was developed
using the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
database, the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI 2014) and the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS's) Directory of Lime Plants and Hydration
Plants in the United States in 2014. The list of facilities, as well as
which companies would receive the questionnaire, was reviewed by the
industry trade association. The final risk modeling datafile included
all 35 major source facilities.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to the ECHO and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the
additional information sources listed below and consulted with
stakeholders regulated under the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to determine
whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies by lime manufacturing sources. These include the
following:
Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits
submitted by facilities as part of their response to the questionnaire
and collected from state agencies;
Information on air pollution control options in the lime
manufacturing industry from the Reasonably Available Control
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC); and
Communication with trade groups and associations
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their
members.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
action.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health
[[Page 48713]]
information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety
analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the
relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting
an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific
source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic
factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source
category to source category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the
uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed
earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and
ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this action. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph
[[Page 48714]]
describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment.
The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which
provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models:
Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The
methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps
below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document
reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the
SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
A questionnaire was sent out to nine companies (covering 44
facilities) in 2017. The available test data collected were from the
1990's through 2017. Of the 44 facilities that received the
questionnaire, 32 were verified to be major sources and were included
in the modeling file. Based on the results of the questionnaire and
research into three non-questionnaire facilities, there are 96 lime
kilns at the 35 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants
NESHAP.
Particulate matter test data were provided for most of the lime
kilns and the lime kiln and coolers with common exhausts. PM particle
size by the kiln emission control type was assigned based on data from
AP-42.\5\ For kiln controls or other sources not listed in AP-42,
default particles sizes and mass distributions were used for the entire
source category. In addition to kiln data, a small amount of PSH
operations provided emissions test data in response to the
questionnaire. Because there was so little test data for PSH
operations, air emissions inventory (AEI) data \6\ were used as the
source of PSH PM emissions in lieu of the limited test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, Fifth
Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January
1995.
\6\ Title V of the Clean Air Act requires major sources of air
pollution and certain other facilities to apply for and obtain title
V operating permits. State and local authorities overseeing the
title V permitting program typically require permit holders to
develop annual air emissions inventories for the purposes of fee
determination. These annual inventories were requested in the
questionnaire and the data were used for this modeling effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test data for HAP metals were provided for 17 emission release
points of lime kilns. Data were provided both for kilns only, and for
kilns with co-mingled lime cooler exhaust. Because the data set
received was very limited and the emissions were not significantly
different, emissions data from stand-alone kilns and shared stacks were
treated as similar rather than categorized separately for purposes of
estimating emissions. For non-mercury HAP metals, test data were used
in conjunction with corresponding PM data to develop mass fractions of
HAP metals (i.e., HAP metal/PM). These were applied to PM test data to
estimate HAP metal emissions for kilns, coolers, and kilns/coolers with
common exhaust. For mercury emissions, test results were used in
conjunction with operating hours to estimate annual mercury emissions
for kilns, coolers, and kilns/coolers with common exhaust.
Test data for hydrochloric acid (HCl) were provided for 33 emission
release points of lime kilns and kilns/coolers with common exhausts.
Organic HAP test data were provided for nine emission release points of
kilns/coolers with common exhaust. Dioxins and furans (D/F) test data
were provided for five emission release points of both lime kilns and
kilns/coolers with common exhausts.
Because the HAP emissions data set received is very limited,
emission factors were developed from test data collected from the
questionnaire and AEI data. When emissions test data or AEI data were
available for an applicable emission unit, the average emission rate of
the available data was applied to that applicable emissions unit. In
cases where data were unavailable for an applicable emission unit,
default emissions values were developed and assigned as needed.
Emission defaults were determined as the average of all test or AEI
data in each applicable emission unit category (e.g., kiln vs. PSH
operations) or sub-category (e.g., existing kilns with wet scrubbers).
Due to the nature of the data provided for PM and HAP compounds
(i.e., HAP metal, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F), stand-alone kilns and
kilns/coolers with common exhausts were treated the same rather than
categorizing their emissions separately. Specifically, there were not
enough data (e.g., in the case of HAP metals, organic HAP, and D/F)
provided for stand-alone kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts or
variation (e.g., in the case of PM and HCl) in the data to justify the
development of sub-categorized emission factor sets based on the
difference between stand-alone kilns and kilns that had co-mingled kiln
and cooler stacks. PSH operations did not require review or development
of individual sub-categories.
For units that did not provide test result data, default emission
rates were developed based on the category of kiln/cooler (new or
existing) and the service date of the wet scrubber (before or after
January 5, 2004), since these factors align with the PM emission limits
of the kiln in the rule. To develop default factors for PM and HCl, the
average test results of all single kiln emission units by category/
status were determined for each of three default categories: Existing
kilns with a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, existing
kilns without a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, and new
kilns.
Six stand-alone lime coolers were reported through the
questionnaire. Of these, four reported PM emissions test data for a
total of eleven PM test reports. For these four coolers, emissions were
determined as the average of the reported PM test data for each
applicable emission unit. The two remaining lime coolers were assigned
a default value that was developed as the average of the emissions from
the four coolers.
All of the PSH operations were reported as fugitive sources in the
questionnaire, with the exception of eleven point source PSH emission
units. Very little PM emissions test data were provided for PSH
operations, so emissions from these sources were determined from
reported 2015 and 2016 AEIs, where available. Emissions values were
tallied in units of tpy. Most questionnaire respondents provided AEIs
in their responses. However, not all AEIs have PSH emissions reported
explicitly, and for those that did, some of the unit names/IDs did not
match with those reported in the questionnaire. The questionnaire
emission release point IDs were used as the basis for developing PM
emissions from AEI data. Emissions data per unit was assigned using
AEIs where the unit names matched, averaging the 2015 and 2016 values.
Units with no AEI data were assigned the default PM emissions average
that was developed from AEI data.
To determine the actual annual emissions of non-mercury HAP metals
in tpy from kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts, PM emissions
were first determined using available test data. Each kiln emissions
unit was assigned a PM value based on average actual EPA Method 5 test
data for the unit or assigned a default value if PM test data were
unavailable. PM
[[Page 48715]]
emissions in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr) were determined as the
average of reported test values (or developed default value) times the
rate of stone feed during the most recent performance test (collected
through questionnaire) in units of tons of stone feed per hour. When
the rate of stone feed per hour was unreported or claimed as CBI, a
default rate (determined as the average of all reported rates) was
assigned. Annual PM emissions in units of tpy were determined by
multiplying hourly PM emissions by the actual annual emission unit
operating hours reported in the Information Collection Request (ICR)
and also by the unit conversion from pounds to tons. When the emission
unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value
(determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was
assigned. Actual annual PM emissions were then speciated per the HAP
metal emission factor sets.
Actual emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions
for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were based on the test
data reported to the questionnaire (in units of lb/hr) multiplied by
the reported actual operating hours of each unit. When the emission
unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value
(determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was
assigned.
Stand-alone lime coolers only emit PM and metal HAP constituents.
Most of the lime coolers reported through the questionnaire were
annotated as being co-mingled with kiln exhaust, not stand-alone
emission units. However, six stand-alone lime coolers were reported to
the questionnaire. There were no metal HAP test data provided for
stand-alone lime coolers through the questionnaire. As such, one
universal set of default metal HAP mass fractions of PM was developed
from kiln test data. These defaults were applied to all other PM
emission units, including stand-alone coolers. When the rate of stone
feed or operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, default
rates (determined as the average of all reported rates) were assigned.
Process stone handling operations have the potential to emit HAP
metals in limestone dust. Eleven PSH units were identified as venting
emissions through a stack and the remaining PSH data were modeled as
fugitive emissions due to a lack of data in the questionnaire.
Operating hours were not specifically reported for PSH operations, so
average kiln operating hours were used when reported, otherwise kiln
default operating hours were used. Actual emissions were determined
using the reported or default PM emissions developed from the AEI
multiplied by the HAP speciation.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Allowable HAP metal emissions were calculated by using the existing
applicable PM limit, scaled production, and the maximum operating hours
per year of 8,760. The hourly production scalar (i.e., tsf scalar) was
developed by comparing the rate of production during the most recent
performance test (which is used for the actual emission calculation) to
the maximum production capacity. Site specific scalars and one default
scalar were developed to scale the test production rate to the maximum
capacity. Where production data were unreported or claimed as CBI,
default rates were developed. For more details on the development of
the default values, see the memorandum titled Development of the RTR
Emissions Dataset for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category, in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
Allowable emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions
for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were calculated using
8,760 hours. Allowable emissions for PSH operations were determined in
the same manner as described above for actual emissions, except that
emissions were scaled up according to the ratio of total operating
hours over actual operating hours.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this action were
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\7\ The HEM-3 performs
three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion
modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2)
estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals
residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3)
estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the
exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \9\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\9\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by
[[Page 48716]]
each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each
nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a
surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the
people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \10\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\11\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment.
We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or
after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\12\ reasonable
[[Page 48717]]
worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the
point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air
dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the
point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Lime
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both
are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \13\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\14\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \15\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we used the default acute multiplier of
10 to derive a conservative estimate of maximum hourly emissions from
annual emissions. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment,
acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are
less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these
HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than
1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure we have assessed the
acute HQ at an off-site location. For this source category, we did not
have to perform any refined acute assessments.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Lime Manufacturing source category, we identified PB-HAP
emissions of arsenic, D/F, cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we proceeded
to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health
risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive
tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the
magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP warrants further
evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion
exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against
previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-
HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure
scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk
Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM).
Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential,
these pollutants represent a conservative list
[[Page 48718]]
for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) The ratio of a facility's
actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is
a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer
scenario. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a
lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2
screening assessment, we use a USGS database to identify actual
waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only
consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the
differences between local meteorology near the facility and the
meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the
previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each
PB-HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure
concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use
of local meteorology and the USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption of fish \16\) and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \17\). If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\17\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the impacted lakes are fishable,
locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\18\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway
assessment approach, see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for
the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury
and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the
screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental
[[Page 48719]]
HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each
assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Lime Manufacturing source
category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Lime
Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, D/F,
HCl, cadmium, and mercury. Because one or more of the environmental HAP
above are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury
and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead,
the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of
three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening
assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is
used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model
simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the
emission rate in tons per year that results in media concentrations at
the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess
emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission
rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect
level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the screening
assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the
screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in
Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
the size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI for 31 of the 35 modeled
facilities. The remaining four facilities' emissions data were
collected using a combination of approaches, including using permit
data and substituting emissions data from similar site(s) (refer to
Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing
Source Category in
[[Page 48720]]
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action for further information).
The source category records of the dataset were removed, evaluated,
and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data
collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed
back with the remaining records for that facility. The facility-wide
file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that
are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km
of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source
category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this
action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated
with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that
risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
For this source category, the majority of the facility-wide dataset
that the EPA compiled were from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for
the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-category'' data.
Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for
the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed
risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide''
for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent
with the methods used for the source category analysis described above.
For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to
identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to
the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this
action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated
with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that
risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on a
default emission adjustment factor of 10 applied to the average annual
hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent
[[Page 48721]]
the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\19\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\21\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\20\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\21\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs
[[Page 48722]]
from models--TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental
pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (D/F, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (hydrogen fluoride
and hydrogen chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient
air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS
standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with
the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any
assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty
and input uncertainty.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, D/F, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM,
HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse
impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through
exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface
waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP
represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway
or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included
in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such
that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the
HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to
predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that
other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to
cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other
relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described above, for the Lime Manufacturing source category we
conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a
multipathway screening assessment for the PB-HAP emitted, and an
environmental risk screening assessment for the PB-HAP and HCl emitted
from the source category. We present results of the risk assessment
briefly below and in more detail in the the Residual Risk Assessment
for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The EPA estimated inhalation risk based on actual and allowable
emissions. The estimated baseline maximum inhalation cancer risk (MIR)
posed by the source category is 1-in-1 million based on actual
emissions and 2-in-1 million based upon MACT-allowable emissions. The
total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is
0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 1,000 years. The
total estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is
0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 333 years.
Emissions of metals, aldehydes, and organic HAP from the lime kiln and
cooler exhaust accounted for 93 percent to the cancer incidence. The
estimated population exposed to cancer risk of 1-in-1 million based
upon actual emissions is 12 (see Table 2 of this preamble).
The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for the source category
[[Page 48723]]
were estimated to be less than 1 (0.04) based on actual emissions and
less than 1 (0.05) based upon allowable emissions. For both actual and
allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by HCl, nickel
compounds, and acrolein emissions from lime kiln and cooler exhaust.
Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Lime Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAAA]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated
individual population at Estimated
Risk assessment Number of cancer risk (1- increased risk annual cancer Maximum chronic noncancer Maximum screening
facilities \2\ in-1 million) of cancer >= 1- incidence TOSHI \4\ acute noncancer HQ \5\
\3\ in-1 million (cases per yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
Source Category.............. 35 1 12 0.001 0.04 (respiratory)....... 0.6 (REL)
Facility-Wide................ 35 1 30 0.004 0.4 (respiratory)........ ......................
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
Source Category.............. 35 2 450 0.003 0.05 (respiratory)....... ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 35 operating facilities subject to subpart AAAAA.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Lime Manufacturing source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute
HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1 hour dose-response value, the REL for elemental mercury. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using
the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Based on our screening analysis of reasonable worst-case acute
exposure to actual emissions from the category, no HAP exposures result
in an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1- hour REL. As discussed
in section III.C.3.c of this preamble, we used the default acute hourly
multiplier of 10 for all emission processes.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from all
35 facilities in the source category exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rates for the carcinogenic PB-HAP, D/F, and arsenic.
Emissions from 34 of the 35 facilities exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate for mercury, a PB-HAP with noncancer health
effects. Cadmium emissions from all but one facility were below the
Tier 1 noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For the PB-HAP and
facilities with Tier 1 screening values greater than 1, we conducted a
Tier 2 screening analysis.
D/F and arsenic emissions from 26 facilities exceeded the Tier 2
cancer screening value of 1. The Tier 2 fisher scenario resulted in a
maximum cancer screening value of 20 with D/F emissions driving the
risk. The Tier 2 farmer scenario resulted in a maximum cancer screening
value of 20 due to both arsenic and D/F emissions. For cadmium, the
Tier 2 noncancer screening value (0.1) did not exceed 1. Mercury
emissions from 16 facilities had Tier 2 noncancer screening values
greater than 1 under the fisher scenario, with the largest Tier 2
screen value equal to 4. When we evaluated the effect multiple
facilities within the source category could have on common lake(s) in
the modeling domain, mercury emissions exceeded the noncancer screening
value by a factor of 5.
For mercury, we continued the fisher scenario screening analysis
with a Tier 3 multipathway screen which comprises three individual
stages. These stages included lake, plume rise, and time-series
assessments. Tier 3 lake and plume rise assessments weres conducted for
all facilities with Tier 2 mercury screening values greater than 1. A
Tier 3 time series screen was conducted for the facility with the
highest mercury non-cancer screening value after conducting the lake
and plume rise assessments. After conducting the time series screen,
the facility evaluated had a Tier 3 non-cancer screening value of 2 for
mercury, including consideration of cumulative lake impacts from
facilities within the source category.
One of the facilities evaluated in the Tier 3 plume-rise screen for
mercury also had the highest Tier 2 cancer screening value under the
fisher scenario, 20 for D/F. The refined Tier 3 plume rise assessment
for this facility resulted in a cancer screening value of 10. This
cancer screening value of 10 for the fisher scenario is the highest for
the source category. Further details on the Tier 3 screening analysis
can be found in Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule.
A screening value in any of the tiers is not an estimate of the
cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value
represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For
example, facility emissions resulting in a screening value of 2 for a
non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that
the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions resulting
in a cancer screening value of 20 for a carcinogen means that we are
confident that the cancer risk is lower than 20-in-1 million. Our
confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are
incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of
the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
screens and we assume food consumption behaviors that would lead to
high total exposure. This risk assessment estimates the maximum hazard
for mercury through fish consumption based on upper bound screens and
the maximum excess cancer risks from D/F and arsenic through ingestion
of fish and farm produce.
When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3
screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment
through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced
model designs. Site-specific refinements include the following; (1)
improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed
and lakes within the watershed as they relate to surrounding facilities
within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off
amounts to target lakes based upon actual soil type(s) and elevation
changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-
case
[[Page 48724]]
assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3)
incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to
accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack
heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE's simple
dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly
distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect
of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more
accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the
dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition
contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model
domain.
As discussed above, the maximum mercury Tier 2 non-cancer screening
value for this source category is 5 with subsequent refinement
resulting in a Tier 3 screening value of 2. The EPA has determined that
it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 assessment to a site-
specific assessment. As explained above, the screening value of 2 is a
high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be and can be
interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower
than 2. Further, risk results from three site-specific mercury
assessments the EPA has conducted for three RTR source categories
resulted in noncancer HQs that were at least 50 times lower than the
respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities (refer to EPA
Docket ID No.: 2017-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\23\
Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at least a one
order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer screening values
for mercury for the Lime Manufacturing source category, if we were to
perform a site-specific assessment. In addition, based upon the
conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional
refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment,
were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion
exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1.
Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule;
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category in Support
of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the
secondary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead
concentration, of 0.0007 [micro]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS level for
lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Lime Manufacturing
source category for the following pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, D/F,
HCl, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric
chloride), and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and POM emissions had no
exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. D/F
emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at 31 facilities for a surface soil
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (mammalian insectivores--
shrew) by a maximum screening value of 30. Divalent mercury emissions
had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: Sediment threshold
level (one facility), surface soil threshold level--plant communities
(25 facilities), and surface soil threshold level--invertebrate
communities (32 facilities) by a maximum screening value of 20. Methyl
mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks:
Fish (avian/piscivores) NOAEL--Merganser (one facility), surface soil
NOAEL for mammalian insectivores--shrew (13 facilities), and surface
soil NOAEL for avian ground insectivores--woodcock (33 facilities) by a
maximum screening value of 40.
A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for D/F, divalent
mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In the Tier 2 screening
analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks
evaluated for any of the pollutants.
For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e.,
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 35
facilities, based on facility-wide emissions, is 1-in-1 million
(estimated for three facilities), with arsenic, chromium (VI)
compounds, and nickel emissions from fugitive PSH operations driving
the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from facility-wide
emissions is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every
250 years. Approximately 30 people are estimated to have cancer risk
equal to 1-in-1 million from facility-wide emissions. The maximum
facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1
(0.4), mainly driven by emissions of HCl from a facility-wide fugitive
area source.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Lime Manufacturing
source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
[[Page 48725]]
Table 3--Lime Manufacturing Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer risk at Population
or above 1-in-1 million due to with chronic
lime manufacturing hazard index
-------------------------------- above 1 due to
Source lime
Nationwide category manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 12 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 75 0
All Other Races................................................. 38 25 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 62 75 0
African American................................................ 12 17 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 17 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 83 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 22 0
Over 25 and with a.............................................. 86 78 0
High School Diploma.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Lime Manufacturing source category demographic
analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose
approximately 12 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and
no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages
of the at-risk population indicate that three of the 10 demographic
groups (White, African American and people below the poverty level)
that are living within 50 km of facilities in the source category
exceed the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic
groups.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As explained in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-
setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an
`acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk
estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of
approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information, including science
policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties, in determining whether
risk posed by emissions from the source category is acceptable.
The maximum cancer risk for inhalation exposure to actual emissions
from the Lime Manufacturing source category (1-in-1 million) is two
orders of magnitude below 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive
upper limit of acceptable risk. The maximum inhalation cancer risk
based on MACT allowable emissions (2-in-1 million) is similar. The EPA
estimates emissions from the category would result in a cancer
incidence of 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every
1,000 years. Twelve individuals are estimated to have inhalation cancer
risk equal to 1-in-1 million. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated
with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.04 based
on actual emissions, 25 times below an exposure that the EPA has
estimated is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also
are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in
an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1-hour REL.
Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 10-in-1 million
for the Tier 3 fisher scenario and below 20-in-1 million for the Tier 2
farmer exposure scenario. The Tier 3 noncancer screening analyses of
mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum HQ
for mercury would be less than 2, as explained in section III.C.4 of
this preamble. The EPA is confident that this hazard estimate would be
reduced to a HQ of less than 1 if further refined to incorporate
enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary
identification with improved soil/water run-off calculations and AERMOD
deposition outputs used in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the
health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the
uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose
that the risks posed by emissions from the Lime
[[Page 48726]]
Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP from the source category. In
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any measures that would reduce risk further.
Although we are proposing that the risks from this source category
are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 12 people in the
exposed population are equal to 1-in-1 million, caused by chromium (VI)
compounds, arsenic, nickel, and cadmium emissions (see Table 2 of this
preamble). Lime kiln and cooler exhaust emissions result in 93 percent
of the cancer incidence for this source category. The NESHAP controls
PM as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP metals. Our technology review did
not identify any practices, controls, or process options that are being
used in this industry that would result in further reduction of PM
emissions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source
Category; see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For D/F and mercury emissions, activated carbon injection (ACI)
systems installed prior to the PM control device were identified as a
potential control technology. We found that ACI systems have been used
on municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and cement
kilns. Experience with ACI on municipal waste combustors and medical
waste incinerators led the EPA to develop emission limits for D/F
emissions for these sources in the range of 0.26 to 2.5 nanograms as
toxic equivalents per dry standard cubic meter (ng TEQ/dscm). These D/F
emission levels are well above the D/F emission levels (0.008 to 0.0148
ng TEQ/dscm) that have been measured from lime kilns. Total annual
costs for an ACI system, installed prior to the existing PM control
device, are estimated to be $137,000 per lime kiln. Based on the cost
and considering the potential negligible reduction of the already low
measured D/F emissions, we do not consider the use of ACI systems to be
cost effective for the industry to further reduce D/F emissions. The
use of ACI systems would have little effect on the source category
risks.
As for mercury emissions, ACI is used on cement kilns which are
similar to lime kilns in design, fuel combusted, and feed material. In
the RTR conducted for the portland cement manufacturing industry, we
estimated that for a typical cement kiln that the addition of an ACI
system would result in a 2.3 to 3.0 lb per year reduction in mercury
(see 82 FR 44277). Assuming a similar reduction in mercury emissions
would be achieved for a typical lime kiln, the cost effectiveness of an
ACI system installed prior to the PM control device would be $46,000 to
$60,000 per lb of mercury removed. Thus, we do not consider the use of
ACI systems to be cost effective for the industry to use to further
reduce mercury emissions. Our risk analysis indicated the noncancer
risks from mercury are low and any further risk reduction from the use
of ACI would be minimal.
Because no additional cost-effective measures were identified to
further reduce HAP risk from affected sources in the Lime Manufacturing
source category, we are proposing that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Based on the results of our environmental risk screening, we do not
anticipate an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary
to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration
costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database
on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We searched the RBLC
database for RBL determinations made during the time period between
this NESHAP promulgation date (January 05, 2004) and the date the RBLC
search was conducted (August 27, 2018). Search results showed a total
of 17 facilities with RBL determinations during the 2004-2018 time
frame. These results were reviewed to identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies related to reducing
emissions of PM from lime kilns and PSH operations.
The primary controls identified were the use of fabric filters to
control PM emissions from stacks and the use of water (wet suppression)
for the control of PM emissions from fugitive PSH operations. These
methods of control served as the basis for standards promulgated in the
original NESHAP. The results of the RBLC search did not identify
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the
Lime Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(6).
To identify developments in emission control strategies, the
following questions were asked as part of the January 2017 ICR:
Do you use any alternative control devices (i.e., control
devices other than fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs),
or wet scrubbers), monitoring procedures, or operating conditions at
this facility?
Do you have any plans to install any new higher efficiency
rated control devices or have any pending applications to add on any
new controls?
Describe any procedures you use at your facility to
prevent pollution (as opposed to controlling pollution after it is
formed).
Have you implemented any work practice standards or
standard operating procedures that will further reduce HAP emissions?
The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that would warrant
revision to the existing emission standards for the Lime Manufacturing
source category.
This review did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies for PM that have been implemented in
this source category since promulgation of the current NESHAP in
January of 2004. Consequently, we propose that no revisions to the
NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For a detailed
discussion of the findings, refer to the Technology Review for the Lime
Manufacturing Source Category memorandum in the docket.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply
[[Page 48727]]
with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic reporting
of Notification of Compliance Status reports, semiannual compliance
reports, and performance test reports. Our analyses and proposed
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which appears at 40 CFR 63.7100 and in Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part
63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 8 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal
of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities
regulated under the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. Deviations
currently addressed by a facility's SSM plan are required to be
reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that
remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.7130). Facilities will no longer
need to develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 8, 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA).
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, is proposing alternate standards for those periods.
The EPA has made the determination under CAA section 112(h) that
for kilns and coolers it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
numeric standard during periods of startup and shutdown because the
application of measurement methodology is impracticable due to
technological and economic limitations. The test methods required for
demonstrating compliance are required to be conducted under isokinetic
conditions (i.e., steady-state conditions in terms of exhaust gas
temperature, moisture, flow rate), which is difficult to achieve during
periods of startup and shutdown where conditions are constantly
changing. In addition, information \26\ provided on the amount of time
required for startup and shutdown of lime kilns indicates that the
application of measurement methodology for these sources using the
required procedures, which would require more hours (6) in startup or
shutdown mode to satisfy the sample volume requirements in the rule, is
impracticable. Upon review of this information, the EPA determined that
it is not feasible to require stack testing, in particular, to complete
the multiple required test runs during periods of startup and shutdown
due to physical limitations and the short duration of startup and
shutdown periods. Based on these specific facts for the Lime
Manufacturing source category, we are proposing work practice standards
for these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Lime Kiln Principles and Operations, Terry N. Adams,
https://www.tappi.org/content/events/08Kros/manuscripts/2.2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to require sources to vent emissions to the
main stack and operate all control devices necessary to meet the normal
operating limits under this NESHAP (with the exception of ESPs) when
firing fuel in the lime kiln during startup and shutdown. We are
proposing that startup ends 1 hour after lime is produced from the
kiln.
Stakeholders in several source categories have expressed concerns
that the requirement for engaging applicable control devices does not
accommodate potential safety problems associated with ESP operation.
Recommended manufacturer operating procedures provided to the EPA
during rulemaking for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP explained the potential hazards
associated with ESP energization when unburned fuel may exist in the
presence of oxygen levels high enough that the mixture can be in the
flammable range. In addition, the stakeholders claim that the ESP
cannot practically be engaged until a certain flue gas temperature is
reached. Specifically, they claim that premature starting of this
equipment will lead to short-term stability problems that could result
in unsafe operations and longer term degradation of ESP performance due
to fouling, increased chances of wire damage, or increased corrosion
within the chambers. They also state that vendors providing this
equipment incorporate these safety and operational concerns into their
standard operating procedures. For example, they claim that some ESPs
have oxygen sensors and alarms that shut down the ESP at high flue gas
oxygen levels to avoid a fire in the unit. The oxygen level is
typically high during startup, so the ESP may not engage due to these
safety controls until more stable operating conditions are reached.
These stakeholder claims are supported by a guidance document \27\
prepared by a trade association of companies that supply air pollution
control equipment. Therefore, the EPA is proposing an alternate work
practice requirement for operating ESP control devices during periods
of startup as follows: Lime kilns owners and operators shall, when
firing fuel, vent emissions to the main stack and engage the ESP within
1 hour after the inlet exhaust temperature to the ESP reaches 300
degrees Fahrenheit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Guidance Document on Startup and Shutdown under MATS,
Institute of Clean Air Companies, July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to clarify that the work practice does not supersede any
other standard or requirements to which the affected source is subject,
the EPA is including in the proposed alternate work practice provision
a requirement that control devices operate when necessary to comply
with other standards (e.g., new source performance standards, state
regulations) applicable to the source.
In addition, to ensure compliance with the proposed definition of
startup and the work practice standard that applies during startup
periods, we are proposing that certain events and parameters be
monitored and recorded during the startup periods. These events include
the time when firing (i.e., feeding) starts for fuel and limestone; the
time when lime is produced; and the time when the PM controls are
engaged. The parameters to be monitored and recorded during each
startup period include the hourly flue gas temperature and all hourly
average continuous monitoring system data (e.g., opacity, ESP total
secondary electric power input, scrubber liquid flow rate) to
[[Page 48728]]
confirm that the control devices are engaged.
We request comments on the proposed startup and shutdown provisions
(definitions and work practices).
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2,
definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115,
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in ``normal
or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, for example,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999). ``The EPA
typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's
decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information,
rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study'.''.
See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978),
``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even
any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a
certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by
`uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other
eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance
by regulation.'' In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can
be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source
operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-
percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because information was available to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80
FR 75178, 75211-14; December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA (830 F.3d 579, 606-610; D.C.
Cir. 2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 8)
entry
[[Page 48729]]
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7100 that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.7100 does not include that language from 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.7100.
We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ``yes'' in column 3.
Finally, we are proposing to revise Table 8 to remove an entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) because this paragraph is reserved and is not
applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise Table 8 for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and
include a ``no'' in column 3. Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)-(3)
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(f)(2)-(3) and adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1)-(2)
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2) and adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The current language of
40 CFR 93.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods
of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule to apply at
all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)-(4)
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)-(4) and adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1)
describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead
proposing to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.7112 to remove the language ``according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1)'' because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption. 40
CFR 63.7112(c) of the current rule specifies that performance testing
must not be conducted during periods of SSM. Section 63.7112(b) also
specifies that the performance test be conducted under the specific
conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. Operations during
periods of SSM, and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute
representative operating conditions. The current language in 40 CFR
63.7112(h) requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and the EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner and operator to include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text in the current rule already makes explicit the requirement to
record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)-(3)
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(2)-(3) and adding entries for 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering other
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) and
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead proposing to
add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.7132. When a source is
subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be
important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end
in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus,
the EPA is proposing language in 40 CFR 63.7132 requiring that sources
subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs
from the emission standard that applies at all other times must report
the date, time, and duration of such periods.
We are proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Section
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a
malfunction. A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.7131(d)
and (e). The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) differs from
the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) applies to any failure to
meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the
date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.''
The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.7132 a requirement that
sources keep records that include a list of the affected
[[Page 48730]]
source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the
standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 3. When applicable,
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7132.
We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in column 3. When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7131.
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information
concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must also
contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan because
plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 180 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and
operators of lime manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of
required Notification of Compliance Status reports (portable document
format (PDF), semiannual reports, and performance test reports through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum titled
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. The
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \28\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that
other performance test results be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_AAAAA National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants
Residual Risk and Technology
Review_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first
situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of
the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from
accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40
CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event,
which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or
[[Page 48731]]
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \30\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\32\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/documentD=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\31\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\32\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.7113 to
the provision that triboelectric bag leak detection system must be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-
98-015. Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance;
Revising 40 CFR 63.7142 to add an alternative test method
to EPA Method 320;
Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM
Method D6735-01;
Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM
Method D6420-99; and
Revising Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, to add
alternative compliance option.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
September 16, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart,
including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective
date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All
affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing affected sources, we
are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As discussed elsewhere
in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that
notifications, performance test results, and the semiannual reports
using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also
proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption
from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by
removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our
experience with similar industries that have been required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for
individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an
assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame
needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements,
the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious
compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing
affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We
solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically
request submission of information from sources in this source category
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply
with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We
note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed
compliance date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently 35 lime manufacturing facilities operating in
the United States that are subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants
NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, affected source is the lime
kiln and its associated cooler, and the PSH operation system located at
a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source
is a source that commenced construction after December 20, 2002, or
meets the definition of reconstruction and commenced reconstruction
after December 20, 2002.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are
estimated to be approximately 2,320 tpy in 2019. This represents a
reduction in HAP emissions of about 240 tpy due to the current (2004)
Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The proposed amendments will require
all affected
[[Page 48732]]
sources subject to the emission standards in the Lime Manufacturing
Plants NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reduction associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the proposed work practice
standards during SSM periods.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The 35 lime manufacturing plants that would be subject to the
proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the proposed work practice
standards for periods of startup and shutdown. Nationwide costs
associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $14,355
following promulgation of the amendments. The EPA believes that the
lime manufacturing plants which are subject to the NESHAP can meet the
proposed requirements with minimal additional capital or operational
costs. For further information on the requirements being proposed, see
section IV of this preamble. Each facility will experience costs to
read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with the
elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the
reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating
previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the
requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual
compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting
and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with
CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. We
solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing
the final rule, meeting the revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and complying with the proposed work practice standards
are estimated to be $14,355 following promulgation of the final rule.
This is an estimated cost of $250 to $2750 per facility, depending on
the number of lime kilns operated and the type of controls installed.
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms. Based on the costs associated with the elimination of the
SSM exemption and the costs associated with the requirement to
electronically submit compliance reports, we do not anticipate any
significant economic impacts from these proposed amendments.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule.
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that
they apply at all times. For facilities who choose to operate under an
initial startup period, the EPA is proposing an alternative work
practice standard that will ensure that facilities are minimizing
emissions while the source operates under non-steady state production,
which will protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the
proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will
increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden
on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for
more information.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-
[[Page 48733]]
pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-
hazardous-air.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.06. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP in the form of
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of lime
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill,
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA).
Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately 36 existing major sources will be subject to these
standards. It is also estimated that one additional respondent will
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
estimated to be 9,690 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAP is estimated to be $1,400,000 (per year), of
which $14,355 (first year) is for this proposal, and the rest is for
other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAP including
$338,000 in annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 16, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. This action only proposes to
eliminate the startup/shutdown exemption and add electronic reporting.
Neither of the changes being proposed will impact the small entities.
The proposal to remove the startup/shutdown exemption will include
proposing a work practice standard for those periods. Based on the
controls used at the small entities, they will not be impacted by the
proposed work practices. Thus, this action will not impose any
requirements on small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing
facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a
[[Page 48734]]
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual
portion only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from
stationary combustion sources. This standard may be obtained from
https://www.asme.org or from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) at Three Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016-5990.
The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR)
Spectroscopy,'' as an alternative to using EPA Method 320 under certain
conditions and incorporate this alternative by reference. ASTM D6348-
03(2010) was previously determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with
caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010)
and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct
measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the
caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. The voluntary
consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR)
Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this
time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the conditions that
must be met are defined in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(2). This field test method
employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source
effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and
quantification of gaseous compounds. The ASTM D6348-12el standard was
developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM).
The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' as
an alternative to EPA Method 321 provided that the provisions in 40 CFR
63.7142(a)(4) are followed. The EPA used ASTM D6735-01 for the
determination of HCl in EPA Methods 26, 26A, and 321 from mineral
calcining exhaust sources. This method will measure the gaseous
hydrochloric acid and other gaseous chlorides and flurides that passes
through a particulate matter filter. The ASTM D6735-01 standard was
developed and adopted by the ASTM.
The EPA proposes to use VCS ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), ``Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only when the target compunds are all known, and the
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420
should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less
than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method.
This field method determines the mass concentration of volatile organic
hazardous air pollutants.
The ASTM standards may be obtained from http://www.astm.org or from
the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
The EPA proposes to use EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance, September 1997 as guidance for how a triboelectric bag leak
detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and
maintained. This document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, set up,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.This
document may be obtained from http://www.epa.gov of from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
While the EPA has identified another 10 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Lime Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this proposed
rule for the reasons for these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the
docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Lime kilns, Lime manufacturing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 19, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 63-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continuous to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2), and revising
paragraphs (h)(85), (h)(91), (h)(96), and (n)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
(Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for
table 4 to subpart AAAAA.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
[[Page 48735]]
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.1571(a) and 63.7142(a) and (b).
* * * * *
(91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.670(j), 63.7142(b), and appendix A to this
part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
(96) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.7142(a),
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7113(d), 63.7525(j),
63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
Subpart AAAAA--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.7083 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
and (b) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004,
you must comply with the emission limitations no later than January 5,
2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no
later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004,
then you must comply with the emission limitations for new affected
sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have
completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after
startup, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source,
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later
than January 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this section.
* * * * *
(e)(1) If the start up of your existing, new, or reconstructed
source occurs on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], then the compliance date for the revised
requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112,
63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and
63.7143 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA,
published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register] for both new and existing sources is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(2) If the initial start up of your new or reconstructed source
occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], then the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121,
63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 1,
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA, published on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
0
4. Section 63.7090 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?
* * * * *
(c) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], during periods of startup and shutdown you must
meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) During startup you must fire your kiln with any one or
combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic
natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), or ultra-
low sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200
degrees Fahrenheit.
(2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the kiln
temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
(3) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a fabric
filter (FF) must comply with the opacity operating limit in Table 2 in
lieu of the particulate (PM) emission limits.
(4) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a wet
scrubber must meet the scrubber liquid flow rate operating limit in
Table 2 in lieu of the PM emission limits.
(5) For kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), the ESP must be turned on and
operating at the time the gas stream at the inlet to the ESP reaches
300 degrees Fahrenheit (five-minute average) during startup.
Temperature of the gas stream is to be measured at the inlet of the ESP
every minute.
(6) You must keep records as specified in Sec. 63.7132 during
periods of startup and shutdown.
0
5. Section 63.7100 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d)(3), (d)(4)(iii), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], 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. After
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission
limitations (including operating limits and work practices) at all
times.
(b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the opacity
and visible emission (VE) limits in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
you must be in compliance with the applicable opacity and VE limits
(including work practices) at all times.
(c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], 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). After
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control
[[Page 48736]]
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
(d) * * *
(3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each
emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the
applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2
to this subpart, respectively. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], your OM&M plan must
address periods of startup and shutdown.
(4) * * *
(iii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing operation and maintenance
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (3), and (4)(ii). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing
operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section and Sec. Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (3), and (4)(ii); and
* * * * *
(e) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
0
6. Section 63.7112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (k)(3),
paragraph (l) introductory text, and adding paragraph (m).
Sec. 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], each performance test must be conducted
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the
specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. After [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], each performance test must be conducted based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source and under the specific conditions in
Table 4 to this subpart. Representative conditions exclude periods of
startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
(c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you may not conduct performance tests during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], during startup and shutdown, you must
follow the requirements in Sec. 63.7090(c).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, but
must meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 in
appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter.
(l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for
fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 8 of Table 1 to this
subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of
this chapter according to item 17 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in
accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(m) After to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP,
the run average temperature must be calculated for each run, and the
average of the run average temperatures must be determined and included
in the performance test report and will be used to determine compliance
with Sec. 63.7090(c)(5).
0
7. Section 63.7113 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (d);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (d)(4)
through (9);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d)(3);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(7), the introductory text
to newly redesignated paragraph (d)(8), and newly redesignated
paragraph (d)(9); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (d)(10) and (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1)
through (9) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record
the output signal from the sensor.
* * * * *
(7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated,
operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed,
operated, calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's
written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating
procedures must be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
(8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways,
according to section 5.0 of the EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag
Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14):
* * * * *
(9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted
except as specified in the OM&M plan required by Sec. 63.7100(d). In
no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or
decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such
adjustment follows a complete FF inspection that demonstrates that the
FF is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the
EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). Record each adjustment.
[[Page 48737]]
(10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
* * * * *
(h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, you
must demonstrate compliance with the startup requirements in Sec.
63.7090(c)(5) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through
(5) of this section.
(1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate
a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases at the inlet to,
or upstream of, the ESP.
(2) The temperature recorder response range must include zero and
1.5 times the average temperature established during your performance
test according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7112(m).
(3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or alternate reference,
subject to approval by the Administrator.
(4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature
sensors must be verified at least once every three months.
(5) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the
exhaust gases from the kiln and cooler, if applicable, at the inlet to
the kiln and/or cooler ESP.
0
8. Section 63.7121 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations standard?
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2
and 6 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from
the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7131.
* * * * *
(d) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec. 63.6(e)(1). 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).
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.7130 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii). Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent
Notification of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in
Sec. 63.7131(h).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.7131 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6).
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2).
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(12)
0
f. Revising paragraph (f).
0
g. Adding paragraphs (g) through (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
* * * * *
(6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent compliance reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(c) * * *
(4) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE
limit) that apply to you, the compliance report must include a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations
during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring
systems (CMS), including CPMS, were out-of-control as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which
the CMS were out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) that
occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply
with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report
must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
and (d)(1) and (2) of this section. The deviations must be reported in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(d) prior to [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]
and the requirements in Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(4) after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), and the corrective action
taken.
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring
at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the
emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (11) of
this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] the semiannual
compliance report must also include the information included in
paragraph (e)(12) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
[[Page 48738]]
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
(12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
(including any operating limit and work practice), submission of the
compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report
the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However,
submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any
obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements
to the permit authority.
(g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit
a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(h) Performance Tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (i) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report or
notification through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occured within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(j) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
[[Page 48739]]
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure
or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g.,
large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
11. Section 63.7132 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7132 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the
records in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each
startup and/or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject
to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard
applicable at other times.
(ii) You must keep records of the date, time, cause and duration of
each malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an
applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the
date, time, cause, and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the
record must list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which
the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions.
(iii) For kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, the average of
the run average temperatures determined in accordance with Sec.
63.7112(m) must be recorded.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.7133 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7133 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
13. Section 63.7140 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. When there is overlap
between 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA,
as indicated in the ``Explanations'' column in Table 8, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA takes precedence.
0
14. Section 63.7141 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) as paragraphs (c)(5)
through (c)(7).
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(4).
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(8).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of
this section.
* * * * *
(4) Approval of alternatives to the work practices in Sec.
63.7090(c).
* * * * *
(8) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
15. Section 63.7142 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and
(4);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2);
0
d. Revising newly designated paragraph (a)(4) introductory text, and
paragraphs (a)(4)(i), and (a)(4)(v);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (b)(2); and
0
g. Revising newly designated paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source
status?
(a) * * *
(1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
(2) As an alternative to EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348-12e1,
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section are followed:
(i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
(ii) In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than
or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) x
100; or
* * * * *
(4) As an alternative to EPA Method 321, ASTM Method D6735-01
(Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous
Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--
Impinger Method (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), provided
that the provisions in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this
section are followed.
(i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of
samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section
11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
(v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM
Method D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) is conducted, and the percent
recovery is
[[Page 48740]]
calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01
(Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) As an alternative to Method 320, ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination
of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14),
provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section are followed:
(i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
(ii) In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than
or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) x
100;
(3) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter; or
(4) As an alternative to Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved
2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic
Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/
MS) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), provided that the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section are
followed:
(i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010) as measurable;
(ii) This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because
their atomic mass is less than 35; and
(iii) ASTM D6420 (Reapproved 2010) should never be specified as a
total VOC.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.7143 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (3) under the definition of ``Deviation.''
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Emission limitation.''
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Shutdown'' and
``Startup.''
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation * * *
* * * * *
(3) Prior to [Date 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit or work practice) in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is allowed by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, work practice, or VE limit.
* * * * *
Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins
when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation
ceases.
* * * * *
Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins
firing fuel. Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the induced
draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup ends 60
minutes after the lime kiln generates lime product.
* * * * *
0
17. Table 1 to subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For . . . limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing lime kilns and their PM emissions must not exceed 0.12
associated lime coolers that did pounds per ton of stone feed (lb/
not have a wet scrubber installed tsf).
and operating prior to January 5,
2004.
2. Existing lime kilns and their PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/
associated lime coolers that have tsf. If, at any time after January
a wet scrubber, where the 5, 2004, the kiln changes to a dry
scrubber itself was installed and control system, then the PM
operating prior to January 5, emission limit in item 1 of this
2004. Table 1 applies, and the kiln is
hereafter ineligible for the PM
emission limit in item 2 of this
Table 1 regardless of the method of
PM control.
3. New lime kilns and their PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/
associated lime coolers. tsf.
4. All existing and new lime kilns Weighted average PM emissions
and their associated coolers at calculated according to Eq. 2 in
your LMP, and you choose to Sec. 63.7112 must not exceed 0.12
average PM emissions, except that lb/tsf (if you are averaging only
any kiln that is allowed to meet existing kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if
the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit you are averaging only new kilns).
is ineligible for averaging. If you are averaging existing and
new kilns, your weighted average PM
emissions must not exceed the
weighted average emission limit
calculated according to Eq. 3 in
Sec. 63.7112, except that no new
kiln and its associated cooler
considered alone may exceed an
average PM emissions limit of 0.10
lb/tsf.
5. All new and existing lime kilns After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
and their associated coolers PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
during startup and shutdown. Federal Register], work practices
in Sec. 63.7090(c).
6. Stack emissions from all PSH PM emissions must not exceed 0.05
operations at a new or existing grams per dry standard cubic meter
affected source. (g/dscm).
7. Stack emissions from all PSH Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
operations at a new or existing opacity.
affected source, unless the stack
emissions are discharged through
a wet scrubber control device.
8. Fugitive emissions from all PSH Emissions must not exceed 10 percent
operations at a new or existing opacity.
affected source, except as
provided by item 9 of this Table
1.
9. All PSH operations at a new or All of the individually affected PSH
existing affected source enclosed operations must comply with the
in a building. applicable PM and opacity emission
limitations in items 6 through 8 of
this Table 1, or the building must
comply with the following: There
must be no VE from the building,
except from a vent; and vent
emissions must not exceed the stack
emissions limitations in items 6
and 7 of this Table 1.
[[Page 48741]]
10. Each FF that controls Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
emissions from only an opacity.
individual, enclosed storage bin.
11. Each set of multiple storage You must comply with the emission
bins at a new or existing limits in items 6 and 7 of this
affected source, with combined Table 1.
stack emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
18. Table 2 of subpart AAAAA is amended by adding an entry for ``7'' to
read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7. During startup and shutdown, each After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
lime kiln and each lime cooler (if OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
there is a separate exhaust to the IN THE Federal Register], meet
atmosphere from the associated lime the work practice requirements
cooler) subject to an emission limit in Sec. 63.7090(c).
that is equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
19. Revise Table 4 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
As required in Sec. 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to
you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each Select the location Method 1 or 1A of appendix Sampling sites must be
associated lime cooler, if there of the sampling port A to part 60 of this located at the outlet of
is a separate exhaust to the and the number of chapter; and Sec. the control device(s)
atmosphere from the associated traverse ports. 63.6(d)(1)(i). and prior to any
lime cooler. releases to the
atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each Determine velocity Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, Not applicable.
associated lime cooler, if there and volumetric flow or 2G in appendix A to
is a separate exhaust to the rate. part 60 of this chapter.
atmosphere from the associated
lime cooler.
3. Each lime kiln and each Conduct gas molecular Method 3, 3A, or 3B in You may use ASME PTC
associated lime cooler, if there weight analysis. appendix A to part 60 of 19.10-1981 (2010)--Part
is a separate exhaust to the this chapter. 10 \a\ as an alternative
atmosphere from the associated to using the manual
lime cooler. procedures (but not
instrumental procedures)
in Method 3B.
4. Each lime kiln and each Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A to Not applicable.
associated lime cooler, if there content of the stack part 60 of this chapter.
is a separate exhaust to the gas.
atmosphere from the associated
lime cooler.
[[Page 48742]]
5. Each lime kiln and each Measure PM emissions. Method 5 in appendix A to Conduct the test(s) when
associated lime cooler, if there part 60 of this chapter. the source is operating
is a separate exhaust to the at representative
atmosphere from the associated operating conditions in
lime cooler, and which uses a accordance with Sec.
negative pressure PM control 63.7(e) before [DATE 181
device. DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register] and Sec.
63.7112(b) after [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register]; the minimum
sampling volume must be
0.85 dry standard cubic
meter (dscm) (30 dry
standard cubic foot
(dscf)); if there is a
separate lime cooler
exhaust to the
atmosphere, you must
conduct the Method 5
test of the cooler
exhaust concurrently
with the kiln exhaust
test.
6. Each lime kiln and each Measure PM emissions. Method 5D in appendix A to Conduct the test(s) when
associated lime cooler, if there part 60 of this chapter. the source is operating
is a separate exhaust to the at representative
atmosphere from the associated operating conditions in
lime cooler, and which uses a accordance with Sec.
positive pressure FF or ESP. 63.7(e) [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register] and Sec.
63.7112(b) after [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register]; if there is a
separate lime cooler
exhaust to the
atmosphere, you must
conduct the Method 5
test of the separate
cooler exhaust
concurrently with the
kiln exhaust test.
7. Each lime kiln................. Determine the mass Any suitable device....... Calibrate and maintain
rate of stone feed the device according to
to the kiln during manufacturer's
the kiln PM instructions; the
emissions test. measuring device used
must be accurate to
within 5
percent of the mass rate
of stone feed over its
operating range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a Establish the Data for the gas stream The continuous pressure
wet scrubber. operating limit for pressure drop measurement drop measurement device
the average gas device during the kiln PM must be accurate within
stream pressure drop performance test. plus or minus 1 percent;
across the wet you must collect the
scrubber. pressure drop data
during the period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a Establish the Data from the liquid flow The continuous scrubbing
wet scrubber. operating limit for rate measurement device liquid flow rate
the average liquid during the kiln PM measuring device must be
flow rate to the performance test. accurate within plus or
scrubber. minus 1 percent; you
must collect the flow
rate data during the
period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a Have installed and Standard operating According to the
FF or ESP that is monitored with have operating the procedures incorporated requirements in Sec.
a PM detector. BLDS or PM detector into the OM&M plan. 63.7113(d) or (e),
prior to the respectively.
performance test.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a Have installed and Standard operating According to the
FF or ESP that is monitored with have operating the procedures incorporated requirements in Sec.
a COMS. COMS prior to the into the OM&M plan and as 63.7113(g).
performance test. required by 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, General
Provisions and according
to PS-1 of appendix B to
part 60 of this chapter,
except as specified in
Sec. 63.7113(g)(2).
12. Each stack emission from a PSH Measure PM emissions. Method 5 or Method 17 in The sample volume must be
operation, vent from a building appendix A to part 60 of at least 1.70 dscm (60
enclosing a PSH operation, or set this chapter. dscf); for Method 5, if
of multiple storage bins with the gas stream being
combined stack emissions, which sampled is at ambient
is subject to a PM emission limit. temperature, the
sampling probe and
filter may be operated
without heaters; and if
the gas stream is above
ambient temperature, the
sampling probe and
filter may be operated
at a temperature high
enough, but no higher
than 121 [deg]C (250
[deg]F), to prevent
water condensation on
the filter (Method 17
may be used only with
exhaust gas temperatures
of not more than 250
[deg]F).
[[Page 48743]]
13. Each stack emission from a PSH Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A to The test duration must be
operation, vent from a building observations. part 60 of this chapter. for at least 3 hours and
enclosing a PSH operation, or set you must obtain at least
of multiple storage bins with thirty, 6-minute
combined stack emissions, which averages.
is subject to an opacity limit.
14. Each stack emissions source Establish the average Data for the gas stream The pressure drop
from a PSH operation subject to a gas stream pressure pressure drop measurement measurement device must
PM or opacity limit, which uses a drop across the wet device during the PSH be accurate within plus
wet scrubber. scrubber. operation stack PM or minus 1 percent; you
performance test. must collect the
pressure drop data
during the period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source Establish the Data from the liquid flow The continuous scrubbing
from a PSH operation subject to a operating limit for rate measurement device liquid flow rate
PM or opacity limit, which uses a the average liquid during the PSH operation measuring device must be
wet scrubber. flow rate to the stack PM performance test. accurate within plus or
scrubber. minus 1 percent; you
must collect the flow
rate data during the
period of the
performance test and
determine the operating
limit according to Sec.
63.7112(j).
16. Each FF that controls Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A to The test duration must be
emissions from only an observations. part 60 of this chapter. for at least 1 hour and
individual, enclosed, new or you must obtain ten 6-
existing storage bin. minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A to The test duration must be
PSH operation subject to an observations. part 60 of this chapter. for at least 3 hours,
opacity limit. but the 3-hour test may
be reduced to 1 hour if,
during the first 1-hour
period, there are no
individual readings
greater than 10 percent
opacity and there are no
more than three readings
of 10 percent during the
first 1-hour period.
18. Each building enclosing any Conduct VE check..... The specifications in Sec. The performance test must
PSH operation, that is subject to 63.7112(k). be conducted while all
a VE limit. affected PSH operations
within the building are
operating; the
performance test for
each affected building
must be at least 75
minutes, with each side
of the building and roof
being observed for at
least 15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14.
0
20. Table 7 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As required in Sec. 63.7131, you must submit each report in this table
that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report.......... a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limitations the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit, work Sec.
practice, opacity 63.7131(b).
limit, and VE limit)
that applies to you,
a statement that
there were no
deviations from the
emission limitations
during the reporting
period;.
b. If there were no Semiannually
periods during which according to
the CMS, including the
any operating requirements in
parameter monitoring Sec.
system, was out-of- 63.7131(b).
control as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
a statement that
there were no periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control
during the reporting
period;.
c. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to
emission limitation the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit, work Sec.
practice, opacity 63.7131(b).
limit, and VE limit)
during the reporting
period, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.7131(d);.
[[Page 48744]]
d. If there were Semiannually
periods during which according to
the CMS, including the
any operating requirements in
parameter monitoring Sec.
system, was out-of- 63.7131(b).
control, as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.7131(e); and.
e. Before [DATE 181 Semiannually
DAYS AFTER DATE OF according to
PUBLICATION OF FINAL the
RULE IN THE Federal requirements in
Register], if you had Sec.
a startup, shutdown 63.7131(b).
or malfunction during
the reporting period
and you took actions
consistent with your
SSMP, the compliance
report must include
the information in
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). After
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], if
you had a startup,
shutdown or
malfunction during
the reporting period
and you failed to
meet an applicable
standard, the
compliance report
must include the
information in Sec.
63.7131(c)(3)..
2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER Actions taken for the By fax or
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL event. telephone
RULE IN THE Federal within 2
Register], an immediate working days
startup, shutdown, and after starting
malfunction report if you had actions
a startup, shutdown, or inconsistent
malfunction during the with the SSMP.
reporting period that is not
consistent with your SSMP.
3. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER The information in By letter within
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL Sec. 7 working days
RULE IN THE Federal 63.10(d)(5)(ii). after the end
Register], an immediate of the event
startup, shutdown, and unless you have
malfunction report if you had made
a startup, shutdown, or alternative
malfunction during the arrangements
reporting period that is not with the
consistent with your SSMP. permitting
authority. See
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)
.
(4) Performance Test Report... The information According to the
required in Sec. requirements of
63.7(g). Sec. 63.7131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Table 8 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
As required in Sec. 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I subject to this
Citation Summary of requirement requirement? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4)............ Applicability............ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)................ Applicability............ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)......... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)....... Applicability............ Yes.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................ Initial Applicability Yes..................... Sec. Sec. 63.7081 and
Determination. 63.7142 specify
additional
applicability
determination
requirements.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................ Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................ Applicability After Yes.
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................ Permit Requirements...... No...................... Area sources not subject
to subpart AAAAA,
except all sources must
make initial
applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4)............ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)................ Area Source Becomes Major Yes.
Sec. 63.1(d)................... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.1(e)................... Applicability of Permit Yes.
Program.
Sec. 63.2...................... Definitions.............. Yes..................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.7143.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)............... Units and Abbreviations.. Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)......... Prohibited Activities.... Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)......... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)............... Circumvention, Yes.
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2)............ Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)................ Compliance Dates......... Yes.
[[Page 48745]]
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............ Construction Approval, Yes.
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................ Applicability............ Yes.
Sec. 63.5(c)................... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)-(4)............ Approval of Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1)-(2)............ Approval of Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Compliance for Standards Yes.
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)............ Compliance Dates......... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................ Compliance Dates......... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............ Compliance Dates......... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)......... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................ Compliance Dates......... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(d)................... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. General Duty to Minimize Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
Emissions. DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7100 for general
AFTER DATE OF duty requirement.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Requirement to Correct Yes before [DATE 181
Malfunctions ASAP. DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register]
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........... Operation and Maintenance Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................ ......................... No...................... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ Startup, Shutdown Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
Malfunction Plan. DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], the OM&M
No after [DATE 180 DAYS plan must address
AFTER DATE OF periods of startup and
PUBLICATION OF FINAL shutdown. See Sec.
RULE IN THE Federal 63.7100(d).
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ SSM exemption............ Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], for periods
No after [DATE 180 DAYS of startup and
AFTER DATE OF shutdown, see Sec.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL 63.7090(c).
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............ Methods for Determining Yes.
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)......... Alternative Standard..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................ SSM exemption............ Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], for periods
No after [DATE 180 DAYS of startup and
AFTER DATE OF shutdown, see Sec.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL 63.7090(c).
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)................ Methods for Determining Yes.
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)(3)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)...... Opacity/VE Standards..... Yes..................... This requirement only
applies to opacity and
VE performance checks
required in Table 4 to
subpart AAAAA.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5) (ii)-(iii)..... Opacity/VE Standards..... No...................... Test durations are
specified in subpart
AAAAA; subpart AAAAA
takes precedence.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(iv)............ Opacity/VE Standards..... No.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(v)............. Opacity/VE Standards..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)(6)................ Opacity/VE Standards..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)................ COM Use.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)(8)................ Compliance with Opacity Yes.
and VE.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9)................ Adjustment of Opacity Yes.
Limit.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)........ Extension of Compliance.. Yes.
[[Page 48746]]
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)............... ......................... No.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)............... Extension of Compliance.. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)................... Exemption from Compliance Yes.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(a)(3)......... Performance Testing Yes..................... Sec. 63.7110 specifies
Requirements. deadlines; Sec.
63.7112 has additional
specific requirements.
Sec. 63.7(b)................... Notification............. Yes.
Sec. 63.7(c)................... Quality Assurance/Test Yes.
Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d)................... Testing Facilities....... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conduct of Tests......... Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7112(b).
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)............ Conduct of Tests......... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f)................... Alternative Test Method.. Yes.
Sec. 63.7(g)................... Data Analysis............ Yes.
Sec. 63.7(h)................... Waiver of Tests.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................ Monitoring Requirements.. Yes..................... See Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................ Monitoring............... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Monitoring............... No...................... Flares not applicable.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)-(3)............ Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............. CMS Operation/Maintenance Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7100 for OM&M
AFTER DATE OF requirements.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............ CMS Spare Parts.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........... Requirement to Develop Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
SSM Plan for CMS. DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], no longer
No after [DATE 180 DAYS required.
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............ CMS Operation/Maintenance Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ CMS Requirements......... No...................... See Sec. 63.7121.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)........ Cycle Time for COM and Yes..................... No CEMS are required
CEMS. under subpart AAAAA;
see Sec. 63.7113 for
CPMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................ Minimum COM procedures... Yes..................... COM not required.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ CMS Requirements......... No...................... See Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)............ CMS Requirements......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)............ Quality Control.......... Yes..................... See also Sec. 63.7113.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................ Quality Control.......... Yes before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(e)................... Performance Evaluation Yes. See also Sec. 63.7113
for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)......... Alternative Monitoring Yes.
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to Relative No...................... No CEMS required in
Accuracy Test for CEMS. subpart AAAAA.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(g)(5)......... Data Reduction; Data That No...................... See data reduction
Cannot Be Used. requirements in Sec.
Sec. 63.7120 and
63.7121.
Sec. 63.9(a)................... Notification Requirements Yes..................... See Sec. 63.7130.
Sec. 63.9(b)................... Initial Notifications.... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c)................... Request for Compliance Yes.
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)................... New Source Notification Yes.
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)................... Notification of Yes.
Performance Test
Sec. 63.9(f)................... Notification of VE/ Yes..................... This requirement only
Opacity Test. applies to opacity and
VE performance tests
required in Table 4 to
subpart AAAAA.
Notification not
required for VE/opacity
test under Table 6 to
subpart AAAAA.
[[Page 48747]]
Sec. 63.9(g)................... Additional CMS No...................... Not required for
Notifications. operating parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)......... Notification of Yes.
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)................ ......................... No.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)......... Notification of Yes.
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i)................... Adjustment of Deadlines.. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(j)................... Change in Previous Yes.
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a).................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes..................... See Sec. Sec. 63.7131
General Requirements. through 63.7133.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... Records.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.10 (b)(2)(i)........... Recordkeeping of Yes before [DATE 181
Occurrence and Duration DAYS AFTER DATE OF
of Startups and PUBLICATION OF FINAL
Shutdowns. RULE IN THE Federal
Register]
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
to Meet a Standard. DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7132 for
AFTER DATE OF recordkeeping of (1)
PUBLICATION OF FINAL date, time and
RULE IN THE Federal duration; (2) listing
Register]. of affected source or
equipment, and an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Maintenance Records...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....... Actions Taken to Minimize Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
Emissions During SSM. DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7100 for OM&M
AFTER DATE OF requirements.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii)..... Recordkeeping for CMS.... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... Records for Relative No.
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......... Records for Notification. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............... Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c).................. Additional CMS No...................... See Sec. 63.7132.
Recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Performance Test Results. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Opacity or VE Yes..................... For the periodic
Observations. monitoring requirements
in Table 6 to subpart
AAAAA, report according
to Sec. 63.10(d)(3)
only if VE observed and
subsequent visual
opacity test is
required.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............... Progress Reports......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)............ Periodic Startup, Yes before [DATE 181 After [DATE 180 DAYS
Shutdown, Malfunction DAYS AFTER DATE OF AFTER DATE OF
Reports. PUBLICATION OF FINAL PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Register], see Sec.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS 63.7131 for malfunction
AFTER DATE OF reporting requirements.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)........... Immediate Startup, Yes before [DATE 181
Shutdown, Malfunction DAYS AFTER DATE OF
Reports. PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register]
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(e).................. Additional CMS Reports... No...................... See specific
requirements in subpart
AAAAA, see Sec.
63.7131.
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11(a)-(b).............. Control Device and Work No...................... Flares not applicable.
Practice Requirements.
Sec. 63.12(a)-(c).............. State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13(a)-(c).............. State/Regional Addresses. Yes.
Sec. 63.14(a)-(b).............. Incorporation by No.
Reference.
Sec. 63.15(a)-(b).............. Availability of Yes.
Information and
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16..................... Performance Track Yes.
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48748]]
[FR Doc. 2019-18485 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P