Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-27994

Proposed Rule2022-27994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 5, 2023

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP), as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of HAP from sources in the source category are regulated, the EPA is proposing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards for the following pollutants: hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, total hydrocarbon (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/ F).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 805-820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27994]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-5948.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV59

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 806]]

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP),
as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of
HAP from sources in the source category are regulated, the EPA is
proposing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards for the
following pollutants: hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, total
hydrocarbon (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/
F).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2023. 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 February 6, 2023.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before January 10, 2023, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
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:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88e9a5e9e6eca5faa5ece7ebe3edfcc8edf8e9a6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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 Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e794938895829ec985958e8689a7829786c9808891">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fba8ababbf8b8e99979298939e9a8992959cbb9e8b9ad59c948d">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If requested, the hearing will be
held via virtual platform on January 20, 2023. The hearing will convene
at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. ET. The
EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered
speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will
announce further details at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous</a>.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document
in the Federal Register. To register to speak at the virtual hearing,
please use the online registration form available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous</a> or contact the public hearing
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f3c3f3f2b1f1a0d03060c070a0e1d0601082f0a1f0e41080019">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be January 17,
2023. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous</a>. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at
(888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60333030241015020c090308050112090e07200510014e070f16">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine if
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January
12, 2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. 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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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 electronically to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted 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

[[Page 807]]

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 additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. 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, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and 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 and note the docket ID.
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 CFR part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the
email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#355a5444454656575c755045541b525a43">[email&#160;protected]</a>, and as described above, should include
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e9e7f7f6f5e5e4efc6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0">[email&#160;protected]</a> to request a file transfer link.
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it
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. The
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use
of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACI activated carbon injection
APCD air pollution control device
BDL below detection level
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DB dead burned dolomitic lime
D/F dioxin/furans
DL dolomitic lime
DSI dry sorbent injection
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FB fluidized bed
FF fabric filter
FR Federal Register
g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
IQV intra-quarry variability
lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced at
the kiln
lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PR preheater rotary kiln
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSH process stone handling
QL quick lime
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SR straight rotary kiln
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons of pollutant per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VK vertical kilns
VCS voluntary consensus standards

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?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of our analyses of unregulated
pollutants and how did we set MACT standards?
B. What performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting are we proposing?
C. What other actions are we proposing?
D. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
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 analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
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. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

[[Page 808]]

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

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
Section112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (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 (69 FR 394,
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, 3314, 327125.
Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous</a>. 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. 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?

On July 24, 2020, the EPA took final action on the risk and
technology review required by Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6)
and (f)(2) for the NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing Plants (2020 RTR).\1\
The EPA is proposing in this action to amend the NESHAP to ensure that
all emissions of HAP from sources in the source category are regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 85 FR 44960 July 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In setting standards for major source categories under CAA 112(d),
EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 112(b).\2\
In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision
issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an obligation to
address unregulated emissions from a major source category when the
Agency conducts the 8-year technology review. This proposed rule
addresses currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime
manufacturing source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Desert Citizens against Pollution v EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of
Sec. 112(d) to require the regulation of all HAPs listed in Sec.
112(b)(1). See, e.g., Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34
(D.C. Cir. 2000), Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (C. Cir.
2007).'')]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions data collected for the 2020 RTR from the exhaust stack of
existing lime kilns in the source category indicated the following
unregulated pollutants were present: HCl, mercury, organic HAP (which
we are proposing to regulate using THC as a surrogate), and D/F.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing amendments establishing standards that
reflect maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for these four
pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?

The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5,
2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use
a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by calcination. The
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 35
facilities.
As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
regulates HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing
plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are
part of major sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at
pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the
NESHAP.\3\ Other lime manufacturing plants that are part of multiple
operations, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills and
magnesia production facilities, are subject to the NESHAP. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 69 FR 394, January 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source as each
lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone
handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes
all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process
stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the
process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone
storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying
system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems,

[[Page 809]]

screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors.
The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate
matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations
with stacks. The NESHAP also established opacity limits for kilns
equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF)
and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers.
Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP.
The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the
PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for HAP
metals.
The PM emission limit for existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds
PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution
control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have
installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004,
must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb/tsf. Kilns which meet the
criteria for the 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must continue to use a wet
scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet the
0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry
control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf emission limit,
regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The PM
emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As a
compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf
limit) may be 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/tsf. Kilns that are required to meet a 0.60 lb/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/
dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that
are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/dscm limit
but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH
operations are subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must
be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent
opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an
individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not
exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins
with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm
and 7 percent opacity. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP does not
allow averaging of PSH operations.
The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The RTR found
that the risk associated with air emissions from lime manufacturing was
acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. The EPA determined that there were no
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
would warrant revisions to the standards. In addition, the 2020
amendments addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM operations. Lastly, the
2020 amendments included provisions requiring electronic reporting.

C. What 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 to collect updated 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.
In this action, the EPA used the emissions data collected from the
2017 questionnaire to develop MACT standards for four unregulated
pollutants (HCl, mercury, THC, D/F). In addition, supplemental
information was provided by industry stakeholders on the mercury
content of the raw material feed to the lime kiln, the types of lime
kiln designs and their operations, and the types of lime produced. The
data collected and used in this action are provided in the docket. In
addition, the data collection and analysis of this action are described
in detail in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plant
Industry,'' located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making

A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?

While evaluating the lime manufacturing source category and
emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR, we identified
several HAP which are not currently regulated by the Lime Manufacturing
NESHAP. These HAP include HCl, mercury, and D/F. Additionally, multiple
HAP that are classified as ``organic HAP'' were identified. The EPA has
a ``clear statutory obligation to set emissions standards for each
listed HAP''.\4\ For these HAP, we are proposing emissions limits
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). The results and
proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) are presented in section IV of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Hydrochloric Acid
In response to the 2017 questionnaire, we received HCl emissions
data that EPA did not have when we developed the 2004 NESHAP.
Therefore, we are proposing a standard pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described further in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble.
2. Mercury
The 2004 NESHAP specified emissions limits for particulate metal
HAP (e.g., manganese, arsenic, nickel, chromium) in terms of a
particulate matter emissions limit (i.e., particulate matter is used as
a surrogate for metal HAP that are emitted in particulate form). There
is no explicit standard for mercury. The responses to the 2017
questionnaire indicated that mercury is emitted by the lime
manufacturing process. Therefore, we are proposing a standard
specifically for mercury pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3),
as described further in section IV.A.2 of this preamble.
3. Total Hydrocarbons
In response to the 2017 questionnaire, we received THC emissions
data that EPA did not have when we developed the 2004 NESHAP. The THC
data

[[Page 810]]

indicated the presence of pollutants defined as organic HAP. Therefore,
we are proposing a standard for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described further in
section IV.A.3 of this preamble. We are accepting comment on a
potential total organic HAP limit as an alternative. Comments should
include emissions data to support a total organic HAP limit.
4. Dioxin/Furans
Lastly, the 2017 questionnaire identified the potential for sources
in the lime manufacturing source category to emit congeners of D/F;
therefore, we are proposing a standard for D/F pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described in detail in section IV.A.4 of this
preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

The ``MACT floor'' for existing sources is calculated based on the
average performance of the best-performing units in each category or
subcategory and on a consideration of the variability of HAP emissions
from these units. The MACT floor for new sources is based on the single
best-performing source, with a similar consideration of variability.
The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent than the
emissions performance that is achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. To account for variability in the lime
manufacturing operations and resulting emissions, we calculated the
MACT floors using the 99 percent Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using
available stack test data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which
is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UPL approach addresses variability of emissions data from the
best-performing source or sources in setting MACT standards. The UPL
also accounts for uncertainty associated with emission values in a
dataset, which can be influenced by components such as the number of
samples available for developing MACT standards and the number of
samples that will be collected to assess compliance with the emission
limit. The UPL approach has been used in many environmental science
applications. As explained in more detail in the UPL Memo cited above,
the EPA uses the UPL approach to reasonably estimate the emissions
performance of the best-performing source or sources to establish MACT
floor standards.
In addition, the EPA must examine more stringent ``beyond-the-
floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor minimum
stringency requirements, the EPA must consider various impacts of the
more stringent regulatory options in determining whether MACT standards
are to reflect beyond-the-floor requirements. If the EPA concludes that
the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable impacts, the
EPA selects the MACT floor as MACT. However, if the EPA concludes that
impacts associated with beyond-the-floor levels of control are
reasonable in light of additional emissions reductions achieved, the
EPA selects those levels as MACT.
Data submitted to the EPA for the 2017 questionnaire included air
emissions test results from 32 of the 35 lime manufacturing facilities
in the source category. From the questionnaire responses, we also noted
the types of kilns in use and types of lime being produced at the time
of testing. The types of kilns used by the lime manufacturing industry
include straight rotary kilns (SR), preheater rotary kilns (PR),
vertical kilns (VK), and fluidized bed kilns (FB). The types of lime
produced include refractory dead burned dolomitic lime (DB), dolomitic
quick lime (DL), and high-calcium quick lime (QL).

A. What are the results of our analyses of unregulated pollutants and
how did we set MACT standards?

1. Hydrochloric Acid Emissions
The 2017 data included the results of stack testing 30 kiln exhaust
stacks for the presence of HCl, using EPA Methods 320 and 321. Data
collected using the test method ASTM D6735-01 ``Standard Test Method
for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method'' were found to be invalid,
based on the fact that the test method is no longer an active ASTM
method. The ASTM method was never revised to reflect the change in
probe and filter temperature as were included in EPA Method 26A.
Because of this, the ASTM method is run hot enough to evaporate amonium
chloride from the sample and bias the HCl results high. Additionally,
we evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which we had
data. From our discussions with industry representatives, and our
review of the HCl emissions data, we found that the configuration of
the different types of kilns (i.e., SR, PR, VK, FB) warranted
subcategorization by kiln configuration. In addition, the differences
in residence time of the raw materials within the heating zone of the
kiln during the production of the different types of lime also
warranted subcategorization by the three types of lime produced (i.e.,
DB, DL, QL).
To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the HCl
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. In some instances,
subcategorization resulted in limited datasets, and a single dataset
was used to calculate both existing and new source HCl MACT floor
limits. In these instances, the existing HCl MACT floor limit equals
the new source HCl MACT floor limit. The HCl MACT floor limits were
calculated based on concentration, in units of parts per million by
volume, dry, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (ppmvd @7 percent
O<INF>2</INF>). Using known and assumed production rates recorded at
the time of testing, we then converted the concentration-based limits
to units of pounds of pollutant per tons of lime produced at the kiln
(lb/ton lime produced). A summary of the proposed subcategories, and
the associated proposed HCl MACT floor limits in units of lb/ton of
lime produced for new and existing lime manufacturing sources is
included as Table 2.

Table 2--Proposed Hydrogen Chloride MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime Manufacturing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source Existing
MACT floor source MACT
Kiln type \1\ Lime produced \2\ limit (lb/ton floor limit
of lime (lb/ton of
produced) lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR............................................ DL, DB.......................... 1.6 2.2

[[Page 811]]

SR............................................ QL.............................. 0.021 0.58
PR............................................ DL, DB.......................... 0.39 0.39
PR............................................ QL.............................. 0.015 0.015
VK............................................ QL, DL, DB...................... 0.021 0.021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Straight rotary (SR), preheater rotary (PR), vertical (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

We did not have emissions data from fluidized bed kilns, and after
discussions with industry representatives, we understand that there are
no fluidized bed kilns located at any major source facilities subject
to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. There are fluidized bed kilns in use
at area sources, but area sources are not subject to the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP. In addition, the 2017 questionnaire provided
emissions data for vertical kilns producing high-calcium quick lime
only. We have set the new and existing HCl MACT floor limits for
vertical kilns producing dolomitic lime and dead burned dolomitic lime
equal to the MACT floor for high-calcium quick lime. Lastly, we have
set the MACT floor for preheater rotary kilns producing dead burned
dolomitic lime, equal to those preheater rotary kilns producing
dolomitic quick lime.
The EPA then compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR
to the HCl MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns in the
source category that would require additional air pollution control
devices (APCD) to meet the HCl MACT floor limit. We found that out of
96 existing kilns, 55 kilns would require additional controls to comply
with the proposed HCl MACT floor limit. From this information, we
evaluated the effectiveness of potential APCD for removal of HCl from
kiln exhaust gas streams and found that dry sorbent injection has an
estimated 98 percent removal efficiency for HCl.
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) removes HCl and other acid gases using
a powdered alkali sorbent injected into the exhaust gas ductwork where
it then reacts with the HCl in the exhaust stream. The sorbent solids
are then collected in either an ESP or baghouse. The most commonly used
sodium-based sorbent is Trona, typically used in situations where the
goal is to remove sulfur dioxide and/or acid gases from an exhaust gas.
Hydrated lime can be used in processes, such as lime manufacturing,
where the goal is to reduce acid gas emissions only.
Applying the removal efficiency of DSI controls using hydrated lime
to each of the 55 kilns identified would reduce HCl emissions from
these sources to below the HCl MACT floor limit. This would result in a
combined reduction of 1,163 tons of HCl per year from these sources.
The total capital investment to retrofit 55 existing kilns with DSI
controls are estimated to be $5,400,000 and the total annual costs are
estimated to be $5,200,000 per year. The cost per ton of HCl removed is
estimated to be $4,500 per ton of HCl removed.
We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, where we evaluated
whether existing kilns would be able to comply with the new source HCl
MACT floor limits. We found that of the 96 existing kilns in the source
category, 74 kilns would require a DSI as control in order to meet the
new source HCl MACT floor limit. The estimated reduction in HCl
emissions from a beyond-the-floor HCl limit is 1,754 tons of HCl per
year. The estimated incremental reduction, where we compare the
existing source beyond-the-floor limit to the existing source MACT
floor limit, is 591 tons of HCl per year. We estimate the total capital
investment to be $9,400,000 and total annual costs to be $7,500,000 per
year for beyond-the-floor limits. This results in a cost effectiveness
of approximately $4,300 per ton of HCl removal. We do not consider the
control costs to be reasonable and therefore are not proposing a
beyond-the-floor standard for HCl.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we typically identify
control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit
more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified that
would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source floors for the
HCl subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-
floor HCl limit for new sources in this proposed rule.
A detailed description of the analysis of HCl emissions, the
controls necessary to reduce HCl emissions, and the cost of these
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing
Plants Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015).
2. Mercury Emissions
The 2017 data included the results of stack testing 21 kiln exhaust
stacks for the presence of mercury, using EPA Methods 29 and 30B. As
with HCl, we evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which
we had data. From our discussions with industry representatives and our
review of the mercury emissions data, we found that the differences in
residence time of the raw materials within the heating zone of the kiln
during the production of the different types of lime produced warranted
subcategorization by the three types of lime produced (i.e., DB, DL,
QL).
To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the
mercury MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The mercury MACT
floor limits were calculated in units of pounds of pollutant per
million tons of lime produced (lb/MMton lime produced).
The EPA compared the mercury emission rates estimated in the 2020
RTR to the calculated MACT floor limits to determine the number of
kilns in the source category that would require additional APCD to meet
the mercury MACT floor limit. We found that out of 96 existing kilns,
75 kilns would require additional controls to comply with the
calculated mercury MACT floor limits. We evaluated the effectiveness of
potential APCD for removal of mercury from kiln exhaust gas streams and
found

[[Page 812]]

that activated carbon injection (ACI) has an estimated 90 percent
removal efficiency for mercury.
Similar to the discussion on the mechanism of DSI controls, ACI
removes gaseous mercury from an exhaust gas stream by injecting
activated carbon into the exhaust gas ductwork where it then adsorbs
the gaseous mercury. The mercury-laden carbon is then collected in
either an ESP or baghouse as particulate.
Applying the removal efficiency of ACI controls to each of the 75
kilns identified would reduce mercury emissions from these sources to
below the mercury MACT floor limits. This would result in a combined
reduction of approximately 488.5 pounds, or 0.24 tons of mercury per
year from these sources. The total capital investment to retrofit 75
existing kilns with ACI controls are estimated to be $7,300,000 and the
total annual costs are estimated to be $18,900,000 per year. To comply
with the mercury MACT floor limits, the cost per ton of mercury removed
is estimated to be $39,000 per pound of mercury removed. The use of ACI
controls also provides removal of THC and D/F, as discussed in sections
IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 of this preamble.
For existing sources in each of the mercury subcategories we found
it is cost-effective to set emissions limits that go beyond the
calculated MACT floor limits. In the case of the quick lime and
dolomitic lime subcategories, the new and existing MACT floor limits
were similar in value (24.94 lb/MMton for new sources, and 25.58 lb/
MMton for existing sources), such that with the suggested controls the
existing sources would be able to comply with the new source standard
with no additional costs. We therefore set the existing emission limit
equal to the new source emission limit. For the dead burned dolomitic
lime subcategory, we evaluated the use of APCD to control mercury from
these sources and estimate that the cost effectiveness ($/lb)
associated with the installation of ACI controls is $16,969 per pound
of mercury removed. This cost-effectiveness value is well within the
range that we have determined to be cost-effective for mercury in other
rules, and therefore for the dead burned dolomitic lime subcategory we
are proposing beyond-the-floor limits for new and existing sources
based on the use of these controls. A more detailed discussion of the
APCD selected to remove mercury, and the beyond-the-floor analysis is
provided below.
A summary of the proposed subcategories, and the associated
proposed mercury MACT floor limits in units of lb/MMton of lime
produced for new and existing lime manufacturing sources is included as
Table 3.

Table 3--Proposed Mercury Limits for New and Existing Lime Manufacturing
Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source limit Existing source
Lime produced \1\ (lb/MMton lime limit (lb/MMton
produced) lime produced)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL.......................... 24.9 (MACT Floor). 24.9 (BTF).\2\
DB.............................. 24.4 (BTF)........ 33.1 (BTF).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
dolomitic lime (DB).
\2\ Beyond the floor (BTF) MACT limits.

In addition to the pooled variability factor in the UPL
calculation, the EPA evaluated the possibility of considering the
variability in mercury content of the raw material feed over the life
of a quarry, consistent with the approach followed in other NESHAPs
including the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP (74 FR 21142), and
the Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP (79 FR 75634). The pooled
variability factor in the UPL accounts for short term variability in
air emissions, and an ``intra-quarry variability'' (IQV) factor would
account for variability in the mercury content of the raw material over
the long-term life of the quarry.
Industry stakeholders provided the EPA with data from two separate
lime manufacturing facilities, both of which were included in the
mercury MACT floor calculations. At the first facility, the mercury
content of the kiln feed was sampled, and the results tabulated. At the
second facility the quarry was sampled, as well as the kiln feed, and
the results tabulated. The EPA believes that from the kiln feed data
provided, and the quarry sample data provided, the kiln feed data is
more representative of the variability. This is based primarily on the
fact that the mined quarry stone is first stored in open storage piles,
where it can then mix with stone collected from the quarry over time.
Therefore, the kiln feed represents a more homogenized sample of the
storage pile and is more representative of the raw material fed to the
lime kiln. The EPA considered the mercury content data of the kiln feed
material of the two facilities and determined that we did not have
enough data to establish an IQV factor. Additionally, from the data
that was provided, the calculated IQV had little effect on the mercury
MACT floor limits. A detailed description of this analysis is provided
in the docket.
In the beyond-the-floor analysis for the quick lime and dolomitic
lime subcategory, we evaluated whether existing kilns would be able to
comply with the new source mercury MACT floor limit. Because facilities
will require ACI controls to reduce mercury emissions in order to
comply with the proposed limits, existing sources would be able to also
meet the new source limit without any additional costs. Therefore, we
are proposing to set the existing source limit equal to the new source
limit for the quick lime and dolomitic lime subcategory. For the dead
burned dolomitic lime subcategory, we performed a beyond-the-floor
analysis where we analyzed the effects of ACI controls versus the costs
associated with installation and maintenance of ACI controls. We
determined that the cost for new and existing sources in the dead
burned dolomitic lime subcategory to install and operate ACI controls
to reduce their mercury emissions beyond the calculated MACT floor were
reasonable. As part of this analysis, we considered the use of ACI to
control THC emissions (discussed in section IV.A.3 of this preamble).
Because facilities will incur costs associated with controlling THC
emissions, we did not double-count those costs when assessing the dead
burned dolomitic lime subcategory, where ACI controls are used to
reduce their mercury emissions beyond the calculated MACT floor. The
total annual costs for the dead burned dolomitic lime subcategory to go
beyond the MACT floor by installing ACI controls is, therefore, zero,
due to these sources already installing ACI controls to comply with the
THC MACT floor limits.
No control techniques were identified that would achieve mercury
reductions

[[Page 813]]

greater than the new source mercury MACT floors for the dolomitic lime
and quick lime subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a
beyond-the-floor mercury limit for new source dolomitic lime and quick
lime subcategories in this proposed rule.
A detailed description of the analysis of mercury emissions, the
controls necessary to reduce mercury emissions, and the cost of these
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing
Plant Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
3. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
The 2017 data included the results of testing 34 kiln exhaust
stacks for the presence of THC, using EPA Method 25A. In addition,
industry stakeholders provided emissions testing data that identified
nine non-dioxin organic HAP. These included the pollutants
formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, o-, m-, and p-xylenes,
acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. The EPA evaluated the organic HAP data
and compared the list of nine pollutants with the THC test data which
identified the nine, but also identified additional organic HAP
pollutants in the analyses including the pollutants acrolein, carbon
disulfide, ethyl benzene, and vinyl chloride. Based on the EPA's
assessment of the available test data, the EPA concludes that
compliance with a THC emissions standard would, therefore, limit and
control emissions of total organic HAP being emitted from the lime
manufacturing process. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to establish
standards for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. We also evaluated the
types of kilns and lime produced for which we had data and determined
that subcategorization by kiln type or lime produced was not warranted.
To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the THC
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The THC MACT floor
limits were calculated based on concentration as propane, in units of
ppmvd, corrected to 7 percent O<INF>2</INF>. The new and existing
source THC MACT floor limits are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4--Proposed THC MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime
Manufacturing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing
New source source MACT
Lime produced \1\ MACT floor floor limit
limit (ppmvd (ppmvd @7% O2)
@7% O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL, DB.............................. \2\ 1.86 3.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
dolomitic lime (DB).
\2\ The MACT floor limit was set based on the 3xRDL value of the test
method.

The EPA compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR to
the proposed THC MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns in
the source category that would require additional APCD to meet the THC
MACT floor limit. We found that out of 96 existing kilns, 78 kilns
would require additional controls to comply with the proposed THC MACT
floor limit. From this information, we evaluated the potential
effectiveness of APCD for removal of THC from kiln exhaust gas streams
and found that an ACI has an estimated 60 percent THC removal
efficiency. Of the 78 sources in the category, we determined that 74
sources could comply with the THC MACT floor limit using ACI, but four
sources would be required to operate additional or alternative APCD to
comply with the THC MACT floor limit. We therefore evaluated the use of
a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), which has a 99 percent THC
removal efficiency. Based on our evaluation, the four sources would be
required to install an RTO instead of ACI controls in order to comply
with the proposed THC MACT floor limit.
As previously discussed, and similar to the control of mercury, ACI
systems control THC emissions by injecting activated carbon into the
exhaust gas stream. The activated carbon reacts with the organic HAP to
form a reactant which can then be removed by an ESP or baghouse as
particulate.
An RTO uses a high-density media to preheat the exhaust gas stream
and to start the oxidation process. The gas then enters a combustion
chamber, where high temperatures complete the oxidation process. Heat
from the combustion chamber is then routed back to the high-density
media chamber and provides the heat to preheat the incoming gas stream.
Applying the removal efficiency of ACI controls, and in four cases
the removal efficiency of an RTO, to each of the 78 kilns previously
identified, would reduce THC emissions from these sources to below the
proposed THC MACT floor limit. This would result in a combined
reduction of approximately 570 tons of THC per year from these sources.
When calculating the capital investment and annual costs associated
with controlling THC emissions, we also considered those facilities
that would have to install ACI to control mercury emissions, as
previously discussed in this preamble. The total capital investment to
retrofit 78 existing kilns with the appropriate THC controls is
estimated to be $14,600,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to
be $7,800,000 per year. The cost per ton of THC removed is estimated to
be $13,800 per ton of THC removed.
We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis where we evaluated
whether existing kilns would be able to comply with the new source THC
MACT floor limits. We found that of the 96 existing kilns in the source
category, 36 kilns would require ACI as control and 47 would require an
RTO as control, in order to meet the new source THC MACT floor limit.
The estimated reduction in THC emissions from a beyond-the-floor THC
limit is approximately 780 tons of THC per year. The incremental
reduction, where we compare the existing source beyond-the-floor limit
to the existing source MACT floor limit, is estimated to be
approximately 210 tons of THC per year. We estimate the total capital
investment to be $160,000,000 and total annual costs $52,000,000 per
year for beyond-the-floor limits. This results in a cost effectiveness
of $67,000 per ton of THC reduction.

[[Page 814]]

We also assessed the costs associated with the use of RTO to
control THC beyond the MACT floor limit. As previously stated, of the
96 existing kilns in the source category, 4 kilns will be required to
install an RTO to comply with the THC MACT floor limit. The total
capital investment for the remaining 92 existing kilns to install an
RTO to go beyond-the-floor for THC would be $300,000,000, and the total
annual cost is estimated as $99,000,000. We did not consider the costs
of either of these beyond-the-floor options to be reasonable and
therefore are not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for THC.
A detailed description of the analysis of THC emissions, the
controls necessary to reduce THC emissions, and the cost of these
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing
Plant Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
4. Dioxin/Furan Emissions
The 2017 data included the results of testing seven kiln exhaust
stacks for the presence of D/F congeners using EPA Method 23. After
review of the test reports, the EPA determined that five of the seven
reports were not valid because each report only performed a 1-run test,
which cannot be used to set a MACT floor limit. Two of the seven
reports included valid 3-run tests. To account for variability in the
lime manufacturing operations and resulting D/F emissions, the data
were used to calculate the D/F MACT floor based on the 99 percent UPL.
The 2017 D/F data included some congeners reported as below detection
level (BDL). Because of this we followed the guidance of the June 5,
2014, memorandum from Steffan Johnson titled, ``Determination of
`non[hyphen]detect' from EPA Method 29 (multi[hyphen]metals) and EPA
Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT
floors versus establishing work practice standards'' (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), which provides guidance on using detection
limits as an indicator of the measurable presence of a given pollutant,
specifically where multi-component samples, such as with D/F congeners,
are the pollutants of concern. Additionally, we reviewed the December
13, 2011, memorandum from Peter Westlin and Ray Merrill titled ``Data
and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing
various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions
limits'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), which describes the
procedure for handling below detection level (BDL) data and developing
representative detection level (RDL) data when setting MACT emission
limits. In accordance with these guidance documents, the new and
existing UPL for D/F were compared to the emission limit value
determined to be equivalent to 3 times the RDL (3xRDL) \6\ of the test
method, and the 3xRDL value (0.028 ng/dscm TEQ @7 percent
O<INF>2</INF>) was greater than the UPL (0.019 ng/dscm TEQ @7 percent
O<INF>2</INF>). Therefore, the MACT floor limit for D/F was set based
on the 3xRDL value of the test method. The D/F MACT floor limits for
new and existing sources are summarized in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The factor of three used in the 3xRDL calculation is based
on a scientifically accepted definition of level of quantitation--
simply stated, the level where a test method performs with
acceptable precision. The level of quantitation has been defined as
ten times the standard deviation of seven replicate analyses of a
sample at a concentration level close to the MDL units of the
emission standard is then compared to the MACT floor value to ensure
that the resulting emission limit is in a range that can be measured
with reasonable precision. In other words, if the 3xRDL value were
less than the calculated floor (e.g., calculated from the UPL), we
would conclude that measurement variability has been adequately
addressed; if it were greater than the calculated floor, we would
adjust the emissions limit to comport with the 3xRDL value to
address measurement variability.

Table 5--Proposed D/F MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime
Manufacturing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source Existing
MACT floor source MACT
Lime produced \1\ limit (ng/dscm floor limit
TEQ @7% O2) (ng/dsc TEQ
@7% O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL, DB.............................. 0.028 0.028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
dolomitic lime (DB).

The EPA recognizes that these proposed limits are based on a
limited D/F emissions dataset. The EPA will accept any additional D/F
test data relevant to lime manufacturing operations during the public
comment period.
The EPA then compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR
to the proposed D/F MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns
in the source category that would require additional APCD to meet the
MACT floor limit. We found that 1 of the 96 kilns in the source
category would require additional controls in order to be able to
comply with the proposed D/F MACT floor limit. From this information,
we evaluated the potential effectiveness of APCD for removal of D/F
from kiln exhaust gas streams and found that an ACI has an estimated 85
percent D/F removal efficiency. The total capital investment for the
use of ACI as control of D/F is estimated to be $98,000, and the total
annual cost is estimated to be $251,000.
We did not perform a beyond-the-floor analysis for D/F. The
proposed limit is based on the detection limit of the method and
represents the lowest concentration of D/F that can be measured;
therefore, no further emissions reduction can be achieved that is
measurable.
A detailed description of the analysis of D/F emissions, the
comparison with the 3xRDL value, the controls necessary to reduce D/F
emissions, and the cost of these controls are included in the document,
``Proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis
for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry'', located in the docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
5. Summary of Proposed New and Existing Source Limits for Lime Kilns
The proposed emission limits for new and existing sources in the
Lime Manufacturing NESHAP are summarized in Table 6.

[[Page 815]]

Table 6--Summary of Proposed New and Existing Source Limits for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source Existing
Pollutant \1\ Kiln type \2\ Lime produced \3\ limit Unit of measure source limit Unit of measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl......................... SR.................. DL, DB.............. 1.6 lb/ton lime produced.. 2.2 lb/ton lime produced.
SR.................. QL.................. 0.021 lb/ton lime produced.. 0.58 lb/ton lime produced.
PR.................. DL, DB.............. 0.39 lb/ton lime produced.. 0.39 lb/ton lime produced.
PR.................. QL.................. 0.015 lb/ton lime produced.. 0.015 lb/ton lime produced.
VK.................. All................. 0.021 lb/ton lime produced.. 0.021 lb/ton lime produced.
Mercury..................... All................. QL, DL.............. 24.9 lb/MMton lime produced 24.9 lb/MMton lime
produced.
All................. DB.................. 24.4 lb/MMton lime produced 33.1 lb/MMton lime
produced.
THC......................... All................. All................. 1.86 ppmvd as propane @7% 3.21 ppmvd as propane @7%
O2. O2.
D/F......................... All................. All................. 0.028 ng/dscm (TEQ) @7% O2.. 0.028 ng/dscm (TEQ) @7% O2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC), dioxin/furans (D/F).
\2\ Straight rotary (SR), preheater rotary (PR), vertical (VK).
\3\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

B. What performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting are we proposing?

1. Performance Testing
We are proposing, based on the new and existing source limits for
lime kilns, that new sources demonstrate initial compliance within 180
days after start-up, and existing sources demonstrate initial
compliance within 3 years after the promulgation of the final rule. We
are proposing that the initial performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the MACT standards of Table 6 of this preamble are
conducted using the methods identified in Table 7.

Table 7--Summary of Proposed Test Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant EPA method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 320 or 321.
Mercury............................. 29 or 30B.
THC................................. 25A.
D/F................................. 23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, consistent with the existing performance testing
requirements of the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63.7111),
subsequent performance testing will be required every 5 years, using
the methods identified in Table 7.
2. Parameter Monitoring
Under this proposal, continuous compliance with the emission limits
would be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring
coupled with periodic emissions testing described above.
In addition to the parametric monitoring currently specified in the
rule for wet scrubbers and baghouses (40 CFR 63.7113), we are proposing
to add to Table 3 of the NESHAP the following parameter monitoring
requirements for the types of APCDs that we expect would be used to
comply with the standards:
<bullet> For DSI, monitor and record the sorbent injection flow
rate, and gas flow rate.
<bullet> For ACI, monitor and record the activated carbon injection
rate, and the gas flow rate.
<bullet> For RTO, monitor and record the combustion chamber
temperature.
The operating limits for these parameters are set consistent with
the existing provisions of 40 CFR 63.7112(j), as the average of the
three test run averages during the performance test. In addition,
consistent with NESHAP general provisions, a source owner will be
required to operate and maintain the source, its air pollution control
equipment, and its monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions, to include operating and maintaining equipment in accordance
with manufacturer's recommendations. Owners will be required to prepare
and keep records of calibration and accuracy checks of the continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to document proper operation and
maintenance of the monitoring system.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Under this proposal, and consistent with existing requirements in
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, a source owner will be required to
submit semi-annual compliance summary reports which document both
compliance with the requirements of the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP and
any deviations from compliance with any of those requirements.
Owners and operators would be required to maintain the records
specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in addition, would be required to
maintain records of all inspection and monitoring data, in accordance
with the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63.7132).

C. What other actions are we proposing?

We are proposing to update the electronic reporting requirements
found in 40 CFR 63.7131(g) and 40 CFR 63.7131(h)(3) to reflect new
procedures for reporting CBI. The update provides an email address that
source owners and operators can electronically mail CBI to the OAQPS
CBI Office when submitting compliance reports.

D. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

Amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP proposed in this
rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject
to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i).
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there shall be
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard'' subject to
certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\7\ In determining
what compliance period is as ``expeditious as practicable,'' we
consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and
change operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new
affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective
date of the final amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP or upon
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA projects that many existing sources would need to install
add-on controls to comply with the proposed limits. These sources would
require

[[Page 816]]

time to construct, conduct performance testing, and implement
monitoring to comply with the revised provisions. Therefore, we are
proposing to allow 3 years for existing source to become compliant with
the new emission standards.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10).
For all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before January 5, 2023, we are proposing that it
is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to
comply with the provisions of this action. For all affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 5, 2023, we
are proposing that owners and operators comply with the provisions by
the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is
later).
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, 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 provisions and the time
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to
the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

As previously indicated, there are currently 35 major sources
subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP that are operating in the
United States. An affected source under the NESHAP is the owner or
operator of a lime manufacturing plant that is a major source, or that
is located at, or is a part of, a major source of HAP emissions, unless
the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp
mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only
processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening
processes. A lime manufacturing plant is an establishment engaged in
the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with
magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone,
dolomite, shells, or other calcareous substances. A major source of HAP
is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP
at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year from all
emission sources at the plant site.
The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP applies to each existing or new lime
kiln and their associated cooler(s). In addition, the NESHAP applies to
each PSH operation located at the plant. This includes storage bins,
conveying systems and transfer points, bulk loading and unloading
operations, screening operations, surge bins, and bucket elevators.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

This action proposes first-time standards for HCl, mercury, THC,
and D/F that will limit emissions and require, in some cases, the
installation of additional controls at lime manufacturing plants at
major sources. We estimate that the lime manufacturing industry will
comply with the D/F standards without the addition of controls. For
HCl, mercury, and THC, installation of controls will result in a
combined reduction of total HAP of 1,730 tons of HAP per year (tpy).
Specifically, installation of controls will reduce HCl emissions by
1,163 tpy. The installation of controls will reduce mercury emissions
by 488 lbs per year (0.24 tpy). The installation of controls will
reduce THC emissions by 570 tpy. Finally, the installation of controls
will reduce D/F emissions by 9.5 x 10-\5\ lbs per year (4.7
x 10-\8\ tpy).
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. We find that the secondary impacts of this action are
minimal, consisting of the natural gas required to maintain the RTO.
Refer to the ``Lime Impacts Memorandum'' for a detailed discussion of
the analyses performed on potential secondary impacts. This memorandum
is located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

C. What are the cost impacts?

This action proposes emission limits for new and existing sources
in the lime manufacturing source category. Although the action contains
requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new sources being
constructed now or planned in the next year, and, consequently, we did
not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We estimate the total
annualized cost of the proposed rule to existing sources in the lime
manufacturing source category to be $32,000,000 per year. The annual
costs are expected to be based on operation and maintenance of the
added control systems. A memorandum titled ``Proposed Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry'' includes details of tour cost
assessment and is included in the docket for this action (Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

D. What are the economic impacts?

For the proposed rule, the EPA estimated the cost of installing
additional APCD in order to comply with the proposed emission limits.
This includes the capital costs of the initial installation, and
subsequent maintenance and operation of the controls. To assess the
potential economic impacts, the expected annual cost was compared to
the total sales revenue for the ultimate owners of affected facilities.
For this rule, the expected annual cost is $920,000 (on average) for
each facility, with an estimated nationwide annual cost of $32,000,000
per year. The 35 affected facilities are owned by 12 parent companies,
and the total costs associated with the proposed amendments are
expected to be less than one percent of annual sales revenue per
ultimate owner.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine if any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This
analysis is available in the Docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015). Because the total costs associated with the proposed
amendments are expected to be less than one percent of annual sales
revenue per owner in the lime manufacturing source category, there are,
therefore, no significant economic impacts from these proposed
amendments on the three affected facilities that are owned by small
entities.
Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the lime
manufacturing source category is available in the docket for this
proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

[[Page 817]]

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. Executive
Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who
are most likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms;
specifically, minority populations (i.e., people of color and/or
Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance
racial equity and support underserved communities through federal
government actions (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The EPA defines EJ
as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies''.\8\ The EPA further defines fair treatment
to mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden
of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies''. In recognizing that
people of color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with lime manufacturing facilities, we performed a demographic
analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of
the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the
national average for each of the demographic groups.
The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 8) indicate that
the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 5 km
of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding nationwide
percentages. The demographic percentage for populations residing within
5 km of facility operations is 18 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the Hispanic and Latino
population (37 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 19
percent nationwide), 16 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in
linguistic isolation (21 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared
to 5 percent nationwide), 14 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the
poverty level (27 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 13
percent nationwide), 10 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the minority population (50
percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 40 percent
nationwide), and 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding
nationwide percentage for the population 25 years old and older without
a high school diploma (17 percent within 5 km of the facilities
compared to 12 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic groups
within 5 km of facility operations are less than, or within one
percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.
In addition, the proximity results presented in Table 8 indicate
that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within
50 km of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding
nationwide percentages. The demographic percentage for populations
residing within 50 km of the facility operations is 5 percentage points
greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African
American population (17 percent within 50 km to the facilities compared
to 12 percent nationwide), 3 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the
poverty level (16 percent within 50 km of the facilities compared to 13
percent nationwide), and 2 percentage points greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in
linguistic isolation (7 percent within 50 km of the facilities compared
to 5 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic percentages within
50 km of the facilities are less than, or within one percentage point
of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.
A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the
major source lime manufacturing facilities is included as Table 8. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, available in this docket for
this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

Table 8--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
within 50 km Population
Demographic group Nationwide of 35 within 5 km of
facilities 35 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 328,016,242 21,999,863 473,343
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 60% 60% 50%
African American................................................ 12% 17% 9%
Native American................................................. 0.7% 0.3% 0.9%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 19% 17% 37%
Other and Multiracial........................................... 8% 6% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 13% 16% 27%
Above Poverty Level............................................. 87% 84% 73%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 818]]

Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 12% 12% 17%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 88% 88% 83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 5% 7% 21%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
<bullet> The nationwide population count, and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
<bullet> Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
<bullet> To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
have also identified as in the Census.

The human health risk estimated for this source category for the
July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and
the standards were determined to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk
was 1-in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in-1 million for allowable
emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were
well below 1 (0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions).
The noncancer hazard quotient for acute exposure was 0.06, also below
1. The proposed changes to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will reduce
emissions by 1,730 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve
human health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public
health for populations exposed to emissions from lime manufacturing
facilities.

VI. Request for Comments

We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in
receiving any information regarding developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP emissions.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

The site-specific emissions data used in setting MACT standards for
HCl, mercury, THC, and D/F, as emitted from the lime manufacturing
source category, are provided in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
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.
For information on how to submit comments, including the submittal
of data corrections, refer to the instructions provided in the
introduction of this preamble.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.10. 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 by incorporating
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the new
and existing source MACT standards for HCl, mercury, THC, and D/F.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill,
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA)
Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately 35 existing major sources will be subject to these
standards. It is also estimated that no 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 the proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements is estimated to be 8.392 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $3,570,000 per year, of which $1,370,000 (first
year) is for this

[[Page 819]]

rule, and the rest is for other costs related to continued compliance
with the current NESHAP requirements including $1,005,000 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. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than March 6, 2023.

C. 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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. The
Agency has determined that 3 lime manufacturing parent companies out of
35 may experience an impact 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent of annual sales.
Details of this analysis are presented in ``Economic Impact and Small
Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing
Facilities'', located in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more 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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing
facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

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 proposes emission standards for four previously
unregulated pollutants; therefore, the rule should result in health
benefits to children by reducing the level of HAP emissions emitted
from the lime manufacturing process.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. In this proposed action, the EPA is
setting emission standards for previously unregulated pollutant. This
does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. During the EPA's VCS search, if
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for any
particular VCS.
Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test
methods for this proposed rule. The VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)''
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury
only) as a method for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 320 with certain conditions. Detailed information on the VCS
search and determination can be found in the memorandum, ``Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Technology Review,'' which
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015). The two VCS may be obtained from <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a> or
from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428-2959.
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320. ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined to be 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 the direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but
lacks the caveats placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. ASTM
D6348-12e1 is an extractive FTIR field test method used to quantify gas
phase concentrations of multiple analytes from stationary source
effluent and is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this
time with caveats requiring

[[Page 820]]

inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using
ASTM D6348-12e1, the following conditions must be met:
<bullet> The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
<bullet> In ASTM D6348-03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, percent
R must be 70 percent >= R <= 130 percent. If the percent R value does
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The percent R value for each compound must
be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated percent R value for that compound by
using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(percent R) x
100.

The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16),
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring elemental,
oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury concentrations ranging from
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test
method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory
analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784-16
allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical
procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784-
02 (Reapproved 2008).
Additionally, EPA is incorporating by reference ``Recommended
Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments
of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds''
(EPA/100/R-10/005 December 2010), which is the source of the toxicity
equivalent factors for dioxins and furans used in calculating the toxic
equivalence quotient of the proposed dioxin and furan standard.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous
peoples. The assessment of populations in close proximity of lime
manufacturing facilities shows the percentage of Hispanic or Latino,
below poverty level, and linguistically isolated groups are higher than
the national average (see section V.E. of the preamble). The higher
percentages are driven by 4 of the 35 facilities in the source
category.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations and/or Indigenous peoples. The EPA is proposing MACT
standards for HCl, mercury, THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, and D/
F. EPA expects that the four facilities would have to implement control
measures to reduce emissions to comply with the MACT standards and that
HAP exposures for the people of color and low-income individuals living
near these four facilities would decrease.
The EPA will additionally identify and address environmental
justice concerns by conducting outreach after signature of this
proposed rule. The EPA will reach out to tribes through a monthly
policy call and with consultation letters. Additionally, the EPA will
address this rule during the monthly Environmental Justice call for
communities burdened by disproportionate environmental impacts.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.E of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-27994 Filed 1-3-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 5, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.