Friday,

December
20,
2002
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78046
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052;
FRL
 
7418
 
1]

RIN
2060
 
AG72
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
the
lime
manufacturing
source
category.
The
lime
manufacturing
emission
units
regulated
would
include
lime
kilns,
lime
coolers,
and
various
types
of
materials
processing
operations
(
MPO).
The
EPA
has
identified
the
lime
manufacturing
industry
as
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions
including,
but
not
limited
to,
hydrogen
chloride
(
HCl),
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
and
selenium.
Exposure
to
these
substances
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects
such
as
cancer;
irritation
of
the
lung,
skin,
and
mucus
membranes;
effects
on
the
central
nervous
system;
and
kidney
damage.
The
proposed
standards
would
require
all
major
sources
subject
to
the
rule
to
meet
HAP
emission
standards
reflecting
the
application
of
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
Implementation
of
the
standards
as
proposed
would
reduce
non­
volatile
metal
HAP
emissions
from
the
lime
manufacturing
industry
source
category
by
approximately
21
megagrams
per
year
(
Mg/
yr)
(
23
tons
per
year
(
tons/
yr))
and
would
reduce
emissions
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
by
14,000
Mg/
yr
(
16,000
tons/
yr).
DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
February
18,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
January
9,
2003,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
January
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
General
and
technical
information.
Joseph
P.
Wood,
P.
E.,
Minerals
and
Inorganic
Chemicals
Group,
Emissions
Standards
Division
(
C504
 
05),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
5446,
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
address
wood.
joe@
epa.
gov.
Methods,
sampling,
and
monitoring
information.
Michael
Toney,
Source
Measurement
Technology
Group,
Emission
Monitoring
and
Analysis
Division
(
D205
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
5247,
e­
mail
address
toney.
mike@
epa.
gov.
Economic
impacts
analysis.
Eric
Crump,
Innovative
Strategies
and
Economics
Group,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division
(
C339
 
01),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
4719,
e­
mail
address
crump.
eric@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include:

Category
NAICS
Examples
of
regulated
entities
32741
.......
Commercial
lime
manufacturing
plants.
33111
.......
Captive
lime
manufacturing
plants
at
iron
and
steel
mills.
3314
.........
Captive
lime
manufacturing
plants
at
nonferrous
metal
production
facilities.
327125
.....
Producers
of
dead­
burned
dolomite
(
Non­
clay
refractory
manufacturing).

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.7081
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
technical
contact
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
Air
Docket)
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
review
public
comments,
access
the
index
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
dockets.
Information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
this
document.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78047
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
Comments.
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
submitted
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
Comments
Submitted
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
this
document.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
Wordperfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Comments
Submitted
By
Mail.
Send
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
Lime
Manufacturing
NESHAP
Docket,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
Comments
Submitted
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket
Center's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
this
document.
Comments
Submitted
By
Facsimile.
Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566
 
1741,
Attention
Lime
Manufacturing
NESHAP
Docket,
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
CBI.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
109
TW
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709,
Attention
Joseph
Wood,
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0052.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Mr.
Joseph
Wood,
Minerals
and
Inorganic
Chemicals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C504
 
05),
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
5446,
at
least
2
days
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
call
Mr.
Joseph
Wood
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
emission
standards.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposal
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
this
action
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Introduction
A.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
the
Proposed
Rule?
B.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
C.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
D.
How
Was
the
Proposed
Rule
Developed?
E.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
of
the
HAP
Emitted
From
the
Lime
Manufacturing
Industry?
F.
What
Are
Some
Lime
Manufacturing
Industry
Characteristics?
G.
What
Are
the
Processes
and
Their
Emissions
at
a
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant?
II.
Summary
of
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants
Are
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?
B.
What
Emission
Units
at
a
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant
Are
Included
Under
the
Definition
of
Affected
Source?
C.
What
Pollutants
Are
Regulated
By
the
Proposed
Rule?
D.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limits
and
Operating
Limits?
E.
When
Must
I
Comply
With
the
Proposed
Rule?
F.
How
Do
I
Demonstrate
Initial
Compliance
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78048
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
G.
How
Do
I
Continuously
or
Periodically
Demonstrate
Compliance
with
the
Proposed
Rule?
H.
How
Do
I
Determine
if
My
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant
Is
a
Major
Source
and
Thus
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?
III.
Rationale
for
Proposed
Rule
A.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Source
Category
to
Regulate?
B.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Affected
Source?
C.
How
Did
We
Determine
Which
Pollutants
to
Regulate?
D.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
for
Emission
Units
at
Existing
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants?
E.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
For
Emission
Units
at
New
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants?
F.
What
Control
Options
Beyond
the
MACT
Floor
Did
We
Consider?
G.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Format
of
the
Proposed
Rule?
H.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Test
Methods
and
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Determining
Compliance
With
This
Proposed
Rule?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
How
Many
Facilities
Are
Subject
To
the
Proposed
Rule?
B.
What
Are
the
Air
Quality
Impacts?
C.
What
Are
the
Water
Impacts?
D.
What
Are
the
Solid
Waste
Impacts?

E.
What
Are
the
Energy
Impacts?
F.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?
G.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
V.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13084,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996,
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
I.
Introduction
A.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
purpose
of
the
proposed
rule
is
to
protect
the
public
health
by
reducing
emissions
of
HAP
from
lime
manufacturing
plants.

B.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
Lime
Manufacturing
category
of
major
sources
covered
by
today's
proposed
NESHAP
was
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
greater
than
10
tons/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tons/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.

C.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standard
is
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
better­
controlled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
bestcontrolled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
bestperforming
12
percent
of
existing
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory
(
or
the
best­
performing
5
sources
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources).
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
any
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.

D.
How
Was
the
Proposed
Rule
Developed?
We
used
several
resources
to
develop
the
proposed
rule,
including
questionnaire
responses
from
industry,
emissions
test
data,
site
surveys
of
lime
manufacturing
facilities,
operating
and
new
source
review
permits,
and
permit
applications.
We
researched
the
relevant
technical
literature
and
existing
State
and
Federal
regulations
and
consulted
and
met
with
representatives
of
the
lime
manufacturing
industry,
State
and
local
representatives
of
air
pollution
agencies,
Federal
agency
representatives
(
e.
g.,
United
States
Geological
Survey)
and
emission
control
and
emissions
measurement
device
vendors
in
developing
the
proposed
rule.
We
also
conducted
an
extensive
emissions
test
program.
Industry
representatives
provided
emissions
test
data,
arranged
site
surveys
of
lime
manufacturing
plants,
participated
in
the
emissions
test
program,
reviewed
draft
questionnaires,
provided
information
about
their
manufacturing
processes
and
air
pollution
control
technologies,
and
identified
technical
and
regulatory
issues.
State
representatives
provided
existing
emissions
test
data,
copies
of
permits
and
other
information.

E.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
of
the
HAP
Emitted
From
the
Lime
Manufacturing
Industry?

The
HAP
emitted
by
lime
manufacturing
facilities
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
HCl,
antimony,
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
and
selenium.
Exposure
to
these
compounds
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects
when
present
in
concentrations
higher
than
those
typically
found
in
ambient
air.
We
do
not
have
the
type
of
current
detailed
data
on
each
of
the
facilities
that
would
be
covered
by
the
proposed
NESHAP,
and
the
people
living
around
the
facilities,
that
would
be
necessary
to
conduct
an
analysis
to
determine
the
actual
population
exposures
to
the
HAP
emitted
from
these
facilities
and
the
potential
for
resultant
health
effects.
Therefore,
we
do
not
know
the
extent
to
which
the
adverse
health
effects
described
below
occur
in
the
populations
surrounding
these
facilities.
However,
to
the
extent
the
adverse
effects
do
occur,
the
proposed
rule
would
reduce
emissions
and
subsequent
exposures.
We
also
note
one
exception
to
this
statement,
namely
that
human
exposures
to
ambient
levels
of
HCl
resulting
from
lime
manufacturing
facilities'
emissions
were
estimated
by
industry
as
part
of
the
risk
assessment
they
conducted
for
purposes
of
demonstrating,
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA,
that
HCl
emissions
from
lime
kilns
are
below
the
threshold
level
of
adverse
effects,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
HAP
that
would
be
controlled
with
the
proposed
rule
are
associated
with
a
variety
of
adverse
health
effects,
including
chronic
health
disorders
(
e.
g.,
irritation
of
the
lung,
skin,
and
mucus
membranes;
effects
on
the
central
nervous
system;
cancer;
and
damage
to
the
kidneys),
and
acute
health
disorders
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78049
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
e.
g.,
lung
irritation
and
congestion,
alimentary
effects
such
as
nausea
and
vomiting,
and
effects
on
the
kidney
and
central
nervous
system).
We
have
classified
three
of
the
HAP
 
arsenic,
chromium,
and
nickel
 
as
human
carcinogens
and
three
others
 
beryllium,
cadmium,
and
lead
 
as
probable
human
carcinogens.

F.
What
Are
Some
Lime
Manufacturing
Industry
Characteristics?
There
are
approximately
70
commercial
and
40
captive
lime
manufacturing
plants
in
the
U.
S.,
not
including
captive
lime
manufacturing
operations
at
pulp
and
paper
production
facilities.
About
30
of
the
captive
plants
in
the
U.
S.
produce
lime
that
is
used
in
the
beet
sugar
manufacturing
process,
but
captive
lime
manufacturing
plants
are
also
found
at
steel,
other
metals,
and
magnesia
production
facilities.
Lime
is
produced
in
about
35
States
and
Puerto
Rico
by
about
47
companies,
which
include
commercial
and
captive
producers
(
except
for
lime
manufacturing
plants
at
pulp
and
paper
production
facilities),
and
those
plants
which
produce
lime
hydrate
only.

G.
What
Are
the
Processes
and
Their
Emissions
at
a
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant?
There
are
many
synonyms
for
lime,
the
main
ones
being
quicklime
and
its
chemical
name,
calcium
oxide.
High
calcium
lime
consists
primarily
of
calcium
oxide,
and
dolomitic
lime
consists
of
both
calcium
and
magnesium
oxides.
Lime
is
produced
via
the
calcination
of
high
calcium
limestone
(
calcium
carbonate)
or
other
highly
calcareous
materials
such
as
aragonite,
chalk,
coral,
marble,
and
shell;
or
the
calcination
of
dolomitic
limestone.
Calcination
occurs
in
a
high
temperature
furnace
called
a
kiln,
where
lime
is
produced
by
heating
the
limestone
to
about
2000
°
F,
driving
off
carbon
dioxide
in
the
process.
Deadburned
dolomite
is
a
type
of
dolomitic
lime
produced
to
obtain
refractory
characteristics
in
the
lime.
The
kiln
is
the
heart
of
the
lime
manufacturing
plant,
where
various
fossil
fuels
(
such
as
coal,
petroleum
coke,
natural
gas,
and
fuel
oil)
are
combusted
to
produce
the
heat
needed
for
calcination.
There
are
five
different
types
of
kilns:
rotary,
vertical,
doubleshaft
vertical,
rotary
hearth,
and
fluidized
bed.
The
most
popular
is
the
rotary
kiln,
but
the
double­
shaft
vertical
kiln
is
an
emerging
new
kiln
technology
gaining
in
acceptance
because
of
its
energy
efficiency.
Rotary
kilns
may
also
have
preheaters
associated
with
them
to
improve
energy
efficiency.
As
discussed
further
in
this
preamble,
additional
energy
efficiency
is
obtained
by
routing
exhaust
from
the
lime
cooler
to
the
kiln,
a
common
practice.
Emissions
from
lime
kilns
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
metallic
HAP,
HCl,
PM,
sulfur
dioxide,
nitrogen
oxides,
and
carbon
dioxide.
These
emissions
predominately
originate
from
compounds
in
the
limestone
feed
material
and
fuels
(
e.
g.,
metals,
sulfur,
chlorine)
and
are
formed
from
the
combustion
of
fuels
and
the
heating
of
feed
material
in
the
kiln.
All
types
of
kilns
use
external
equipment
to
cool
the
lime
product,
except
vertical
(
including
double­
shaft)
kilns,
where
the
cooling
zone
is
part
of
the
kiln.
Ambient
air
is
most
often
used
to
cool
the
lime
(
although
a
few
use
water
as
the
heat
transfer
medium),
and
typically
all
of
the
heated
air
stream
exiting
the
cooler
goes
to
the
kiln
to
be
used
as
combustion
air
for
the
kiln.
The
exception
to
this
is
the
grate
cooler,
where
more
airflow
is
generated
than
is
needed
for
kiln
combustion,
and
consequently
a
portion
(
about
40
percent)
of
the
grate
cooler
exhaust
is
vented
to
the
atmosphere.
We
estimate
that
there
are
about
five
to
ten
kilns
in
the
U.
S.
that
use
grate
coolers.
The
emissions
from
grate
coolers
include
the
lime
dust
(
PM)
and
the
trace
metallic
HAP
found
in
the
lime
dust.
Lime
manufacturing
plants
may
also
produce
hydrated
lime
(
also
called
calcium
hydroxide)
from
some
of
the
calcium
oxide
(
or
dolomitic
lime)
produced.
Hydrated
lime
is
produced
in
a
hydrator
via
the
chemical
reaction
of
calcium
oxide
(
or
magnesium
oxide)
and
water.
The
hydration
process
is
exothermic,
and
part
of
the
water
in
the
reaction
chamber
is
converted
to
steam.
A
wet
scrubber
is
integrated
with
the
hydrator
to
capture
the
lime
(
calcium
oxide
and
calcium
hydroxide)
particles
carried
in
the
gas
steam,
with
the
scrubber
water
recycled
back
to
the
hydration
chamber.
The
emissions
from
the
hydrator
are
the
PM
comprised
of
lime
and
hydrated
lime.
Operations
that
prepare
the
feed
materials
and
fuels
for
the
kiln
and
process
the
lime
product
for
shipment
or
further
on­
site
use
are
found
throughout
a
lime
manufacturing
plant.
The
equipment
includes
grinding
mills,
crushers,
storage
bins,
conveying
systems
(
such
as
bucket
elevator,
belt
conveyors),
bagging
systems,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
systems,
and
screening
operations.
The
emissions
from
these
operations
include
limestone
and
lime
dust
(
PM)
and
the
trace
metallic
HAP
found
in
the
dust.
II.
Summary
of
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants
Are
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
proposed
rule
would
regulate
HAP
emissions
from
all
new
and
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
are
major
sources,
co­
located
with
major
sources,
or
are
part
of
major
sources.
However,
lime
manufacturing
plants
located
at
pulp
and
paper
mills
or
at
beet
sugar
factories
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
Other
captive
lime
manufacturing
plants,
such
as
(
but
not
limited
to)
those
at
steel
mills
and
magnesia
production
facilities,
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
We
define
a
lime
manufacturing
plant
as
any
plant
which
uses
a
lime
kiln
to
produce
lime
product
from
limestone
or
other
calcareous
material
by
calcination.
Lime
product
means
the
product
of
the
lime
kiln
calcination
process
including
calcitic
lime,
dolomitic
lime,
and
deadburned
dolomite.

B.
What
Emission
Units
at
a
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant
Are
Included
Under
the
Definition
of
Affected
Source?
The
proposed
rule
would
include
the
following
emission
units
under
the
definition
of
affected
source:
Lime
kilns
and
coolers,
and
MPO
associated
with
limestone
feed
preparation
(
beginning
with
the
raw
material
storage
bin).
The
individual
types
of
MPO
that
would
be
included
under
the
definition
of
affected
source
are
grinding
mills,
raw
material
storage
bins,
conveying
system
transfer
points,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
systems,
screening
operations,
bucket
elevators,
and
belt
conveyors
 
if
they
follow
the
raw
material
storage
bin
in
the
sequence
of
MPO.
The
MPO
associated
with
lime
products
(
such
as
quicklime
and
hydrated
lime),
lime
kiln
dust
handling,
quarry
or
mining
operations,
and
fuels
would
not
be
subject
to
today's
proposed
rule.
The
MPO
are
further
distinguished
in
the
proposed
rule
as
follows:
(
1)
Whether
their
emissions
are
vented
through
a
stack,
(
2)
whether
their
emissions
are
fugitive
emissions,
(
3)
whether
their
emissions
are
vented
through
a
stack
with
some
fugitive
emissions
from
the
partial
enclosure,
and/
or
(
4)
whether
the
source
is
enclosed
in
a
building.
Finally,
lime
hydrators
would
not
be
included
under
the
definition
of
affected
source
under
the
proposed
NESHAP.

C.
What
Pollutants
Are
Regulated
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
proposed
rule
would
establish
PM
emission
limits
for
lime
kilns,
coolers,
and
MPO
with
stacks.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78050
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Particulate
matter
would
be
measured
solely
as
a
surrogate
for
the
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
metal
HAP.
(
Particulate
matter
of
course
is
not
itself
a
HAP,
but
is
a
typical
and
permissible
surrogate
for
HAP
metals.
See
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
625,
637
 
40
(
D.
C.
Cir.,
2000).)
The
proposed
rule
also
would
regulate
opacity
or
visible
emissions
from
most
of
the
MPO,
with
opacity
also
serving
as
a
surrogate
for
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
HAP
metals.

D.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limits
and
Operating
Limits?

1.
Emission
Limits
The
PM
emission
limit
for
all
of
the
kilns
and
coolers
at
an
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant
would
be
0.12
pounds
(
lb)
PM
per
ton
(
0.06
kilogram
(
kg)
per
Mg)
of
stone
feed.
The
PM
emission
limit
for
all
of
the
kilns
and
lime
coolers
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
would
be
0.10
lb/
ton
of
stone
feed.
These
emission
limits
would
apply
to
the
combined
emissions
of
all
the
kilns
and
coolers
(
assuming
the
cooler(
s)
has
a
separate
exhaust
vent
to
the
atmosphere)
at
the
lime
manufacturing
plant.
In
other
words,
the
sum
of
the
PM
emission
rates
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
coolers
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
production
rates
of
the
kilns
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant,
would
be
used
to
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
kilns
and
coolers
at
an
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant.
Similarly,
the
sum
of
the
PM
emission
rates
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
coolers,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
production
of
the
kilns
at
a
new
plant,
would
be
used
to
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant.
Emissions
from
MPO
that
are
vented
through
a
stack
would
be
subject
to
a
standard
of
0.05
grams
PM
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(
g/
dscm)
and
7
percent
opacity.
Stack
emissions
from
MPO
that
are
controlled
by
wet
scrubbers
would
be
subject
to
the
0.05
grams
PM
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
PM
limit
but
not
subject
to
the
opacity
limit.
Fugitive
emissions
from
MPO
would
be
subject
to
a
10
percent
opacity
limit.
We
are
proposing
that
for
each
building
enclosing
any
materials
processing
operation,
each
of
the
affected
MPO
in
the
building
would
have
to
comply
individually
with
the
applicable
PM
and
opacity
emission
limitations
discussed
above.
Otherwise,
we
propose
that
there
must
be
no
visible
emissions
from
the
building,
except
from
a
vent,
and
the
building's
vent
emissions
must
not
exceed
0.05
grams
PM
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
and
7
percent
opacity.
We
are
proposing
that
for
each
fabric
filter
(
FF)
that
controls
emissions
from
only
an
individual,
enclosed
storage
bin,
the
opacity
emissions
must
not
exceed
7
percent.
For
each
set
of
multiple
storage
bins
with
combined
stack
emissions,
emissions
must
not
exceed
0.05
grams
PM
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
and
7
percent
opacity.

2.
Operating
Limits
For
lime
kilns
that
use
a
wet
scrubber
PM
control
device,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
equal
to
or
above
the
levels
for
the
parameters
that
were
established
during
the
PM
performance
test.
For
lime
kilns
that
use
a
FF
PM
control
device,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
and
operate
the
FF
such
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
(
BLDS)
alarm
is
not
activated
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
in
each
6­
month
period.
The
BLDS
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
PM
emissions
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(
0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
For
lime
kilns
that
use
an
electrostatic
precipitator
(
ESP)
PM
control
device,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
equal
to
or
above
the
operating
limits
for
these
parameters
that
were
established
during
the
PM
performance
test.
In
lieu
of
complying
with
these
ESP
operating
parameters,
we
are
giving
sources
the
option
of
monitoring
PM
levels
with
a
PM
detector
in
a
manner
similar
to
the
procedures
for
monitoring
PM
from
a
FF
using
a
BLDS.
You
would
need
to
maintain
and
operate
the
ESP
such
that
the
PM
detector
alarm
is
not
activated,
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
in
each
6­
month
period.
In
lieu
of
using
a
bag
leak
detector,
PM
detector,
or
monitoring
ESP
operating
parameters
for
lime
kilns
with
a
FF
or
ESP
control
device,
we
are
providing
the
option
of
monitoring
opacity
(
as
an
operating
limit)
with
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS).
Sources
that
choose
to
use
a
COMS
would
be
required
to
install
and
operate
the
COMS
in
accordance
with
Performance
Specification
1
(
PS
 
1),
40
CFR
part
60,
Appendix
B,
and
maintain
the
opacity
level
of
the
lime
kiln
exhaust
at
or
below
15
percent
for
each
6­
minute
block
period.
For
MPO
subject
to
a
PM
emission
limit
and
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
the
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
during
the
PM
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
equal
to
or
above
the
levels
for
the
parameters
that
were
established
during
the
PM
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
prepare
a
written
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan
to
cover
all
affected
emission
units.
The
plan
would
include
procedures
for
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
each
emission
unit
and
its
air
pollution
control
device(
s);
procedures
for
monitoring
and
proper
operation
of
monitoring
systems
in
order
to
meet
the
emission
limits
and
operating
limits;
and
standard
procedures
for
the
use
of
a
BLDS
and
PM
detector,
and
any
corrective
actions
to
be
taken
when
operating
limits
are
deviated
from,
or
when
required
in
using
a
PM
detector
or
BLDS.

E.
When
Must
I
Comply
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

The
compliance
date
for
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
[
Date
3
years
from
the
date
a
final
rule
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register].
(
Three
years
may
be
needed
to
install
new,
or
retrofit
existing,
air
pollution
control
equipment.)
The
date
the
final
rule
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register
is
called
the
effective
date
of
the
rule.
We
are
proposing
that
emission
units
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
(
i.
e.,
emission
units
for
which
construction
or
reconstruction
commences
after
today's
date)
must
be
in
compliance
upon
initial
startup
or
the
effective
date
of
the
rule,
whichever
is
later.

F.
How
Do
I
Demonstrate
Initial
Compliance
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

1.
Kiln
and
Coolers
For
the
kiln
and
cooler
PM
emission
limit,
we
are
proposing
that
you
must
conduct
a
PM
emissions
test
on
the
exhaust
of
each
kiln
at
the
lime
manufacturing
plant
and
measure
the
stone
feed
rate
to
each
kiln
during
the
test.
The
sum
of
the
emissions
from
all
the
kilns
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
average
stone
feed
rates
to
each
kiln
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant,
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limit
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78051
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
stone
feed;
similarly,
the
sum
of
the
emissions
from
all
the
kilns
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
average
stone
feed
rates
to
each
kiln
at
the
new
lime
manufacturing
plant,
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limit
of
0.10
lb
PM/
ton
stone
feed.
If
you
have
a
lime
cooler(
s)
that
has
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
PM
test
on
the
cooler's
exhaust
concurrently
with
the
kiln
PM
test.
Then
the
sum
of
the
emissions
from
all
the
kilns
and
coolers
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
average
stone
feed
rates
to
each
kiln
at
the
existing
plant,
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limit
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
stone
feed
(
or
0.10
lb/
ton
of
stone
feed
for
kilns/
coolers
at
new
lime
manufacturing
plants).
For
kilns
with
an
ESP
or
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
applicable
operating
parameters
during
the
PM
performance
test
and
then
establish
the
operating
limits
based
on
those
data.

2.
Materials
Processing
Operations
For
the
MPO
with
stacks
and
subject
to
PM
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
PM
emissions
test
on
each
stack
exhaust,
and
the
stack
emissions
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limit
of
0.05
g/
dscm.
For
the
MPO
with
stack
opacity
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
3­
hour
Method
9
test
on
the
exhaust,
and
each
of
the
30
consecutive,
6­
minute
opacity
averages
must
not
exceed
7
percent.
The
MPO
that
are
controlled
by
wet
scrubbers
would
not
have
an
opacity
limit,
but
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
wet
scrubber
operating
parameters
during
the
PM
performance
test
and
then
establish
the
applicable
operating
limits
based
on
those
data.
For
MPO
with
fugitive
emissions,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
Method
9
test,
and
each
of
the
consecutive
6­
minute
opacity
averages
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
opacity
limit.
These
Method
9
tests
are
for
3
hours,
but
the
test
duration
may
be
reduced
to
1
hour
if
certain
criteria
are
met.
Lastly,
Method
9
tests
or
visible
emissions
checks
may
be
performed
on
MPO
inside
of
buildings,
but
additional
lighting,
improved
access
to
equipment,
and
temporary
installation
of
contrasting
backgrounds
may
be
needed.
For
additional
guidance,
see
page
116
from
the
``
Regulatory
and
Inspection
Manual
for
Nonmetallic
Minerals
Processing
Plants,''
EPA
report
305
 
B
 
97
 
008,
November
1997.
G.
How
Do
I
Continuously
or
Periodically
Demonstrate
Compliance
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

1.
General
You
would
be
required
to
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
required
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
such
that
the
CPMS
completes
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
15­
minute
period.
The
CPMS
would
be
required
to
have
valid
data
from
at
least
three
of
four
equally
spaced
data
values
for
that
hour
from
a
CPMS
that
is
not
out
of
control
according
to
your
operation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan.
To
calculate
the
average
for
each
3­
hour
averaging
period,
you
must
have
at
least
two
of
three
of
the
hourly
averages
for
that
period
using
only
hourly
average
values
that
are
based
on
valid
data
(
i.
e.,
not
from
out­
of­
control
periods).
The
3­
hour
rolling
average
value
for
each
operating
parameter
would
be
calculated
as
the
average
of
each
set
of
three
successive
1­
hour
average
values.
The
3­
hour
rolling
average
would
be
updated
each
hour.
Thus
the
3­
hour
average
rolls
at
1­
hour
increments,
i.
e.,
once
a
1­
hour
average
has
been
determined
based
on
at
least
four
successive
available
15­
minute
averages,
a
new
1­
hour
average
would
be
determined
based
on
the
next
four
successive
available
15­
minute
averages.
You
would
be
required
to
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
SSMP)
according
to
the
general
provisions
in
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3).

2.
Kilns
and
Coolers
For
kilns
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
of
the
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
PM
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
also
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
of
the
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
performance
test.
For
kilns
controlled
by
an
ESP,
if
you
choose
to
monitor
ESP
operating
parameters
rather
than
use
a
PM
detector
or
a
COMS,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
field
of
the
ESP
established
during
the
most
recent
performance
test.
Sources
opting
to
monitor
PM
emissions
from
an
ESP
with
a
PM
detector
in
lieu
of
monitoring
ESP
parameters
or
opacity
would
be
required
to
maintain
and
operate
the
ESP
such
that
the
PM
detector
alarm
is
not
activated,
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
period.
Each
time
the
alarm
sounds
and
the
owner
or
operator
initiates
corrective
actions
(
per
the
operations
and
maintenance
plan)
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
1
hour
of
alarm
time
will
be
counted.
If
inspection
of
the
ESP
demonstrates
that
no
corrective
actions
are
necessary,
no
alarm
time
will
be
counted.
The
sensor
on
the
PM
detection
system
would
provide
an
output
of
relative
PM
emissions.
The
PM
detection
system
would
have
an
alarm
that
would
sound
automatically
when
it
detects
an
increase
in
relative
PM
emissions
greater
than
a
preset
level.
The
PM
detection
systems
would
be
required
to
be
installed,
operated,
adjusted,
and
maintained
so
that
they
follow
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
For
kilns
and
lime
coolers
(
if
the
cooler
has
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere)
controlled
by
a
FF
and
monitored
with
a
BLDS,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
and
operate
the
FF
such
that
the
BLDS
alarm
is
not
activated,
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
period.
Each
time
the
alarm
sounds
and
the
owner
or
operator
initiates
corrective
actions
(
per
the
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan)
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
1
hour
of
alarm
time
will
be
counted.
If
inspection
of
the
FF
demonstrates
that
no
corrective
actions
are
necessary,
no
alarm
time
will
be
counted.
The
sensor
on
the
BLDS
would
be
required
to
provide
an
output
of
relative
PM
emissions.
The
BLDS
would
be
required
to
have
an
alarm
that
will
sound
automatically
when
it
detects
an
increase
in
relative
PM
emissions
greater
than
a
preset
level.
The
BLDS
would
be
required
to
be
installed,
operated,
adjusted,
and
maintained
so
that
they
follow
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
Standard
operating
procedures
for
the
BLDS
and
PM
detection
systems
would
need
to
be
incorporated
into
the
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan.
We
recommend
that
for
electrodynamic
(
or
other
similar
technology)
BLDS,
the
standard
operating
procedures
include
concepts
from
EPA's
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance''
(
EPA
 
454/
R
 
98
 
015,
September
1997).
This
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78052
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
document
may
be
found
on
the
world
wide
web
at
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc.
For
kilns
and
lime
coolers
monitored
with
a
COMS,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
each
6­
minute
block
average
opacity
level
at
or
below
15
percent
opacity.
The
COMS
must
be
installed
and
operated
in
accordance
with
Performance
Specification
1
(
PS
 
1),
40
CFR
part
60,
Appendix
B.

3.
Materials
Processing
Operations
For
stack
emissions
from
MPO
which
are
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
PM
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
also
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
performance
test.
For
MPO
subject
to
opacity
limitations
and
which
do
not
use
a
wet
scrubber
control
device,
you
would
be
required
to
periodically
demonstrate
compliance
as
follows.
You
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
monthly
1­
minute
visible
emissions
check
of
each
emissions
unit
under
the
affected
source
definition.
If
no
visible
emissions
are
observed
in
six
consecutive
monthly
tests
for
any
emission
unit,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
testing
from
monthly
to
semiannually
for
that
emissions
unit.
If
visible
emissions
are
observed
during
any
semiannual
test,
you
would
be
required
to
resume
testing
of
that
emissions
unit
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
visible
emissions
are
observed
in
six
consecutive
monthly
tests.
If
no
visible
emissions
are
observed
during
the
semiannual
test
for
any
emissions
unit,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
testing
from
semiannually
to
annually
for
that
emissions
unit.
If
visible
emissions
are
observed
during
any
annual
test,
you
would
be
required
to
resume
visible
emissions
testing
of
that
emissions
unit
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
visible
emissions
are
observed
in
six
consecutive
monthly
tests.
If
visible
emissions
are
observed
during
any
visible
emissions
check,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
6­
minute
test
of
opacity
in
accordance
with
Method
9
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
Method
9
test
would
be
required
to
begin
within
1
hour
of
any
observation
of
visible
emissions,
and
the
6­
minute
opacity
reading
would
be
required
to
not
exceed
the
applicable
opacity
limit.
We
request
comment
on
using
more
frequent
visible
emissions
checks
for
MPO,
such
as
going
from
monthly
to
quarterly,
and
then
continuing
with
semiannual
checks.

H.
How
Do
I
Determine
if
My
Lime
Manufacturing
Plant
Is
a
Major
Source
and
Thus
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
are
major
sources,
co­
located
with
major
sources,
or
are
part
of
major
sources.
Each
lime
facility
owner/
operator
would
need
to
determine
whether
its
plant
is
a
major
or
area
source,
since
this
determines
whether
the
lime
manufacturing
plant
would
be
an
affected
source
under
the
proposed
rule.
Section
112
of
the
CAA
defines
a
major
source
as
a
``
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
considering
controls,
in
the
aggregate,
10
tons/
yr
or
more
of
any
HAP
or
25
tons/
yr
or
more
of
any
combination
of
HAP.''
This
definition
may
be
interpreted
to
imply
that
the
CAA
requires
an
estimate
of
the
facility's
potential
to
emit
all
HAP
from
all
emission
sources
in
making
a
determination
of
whether
the
source
is
major
or
area.
However,
based
on
our
data
analysis,
HCl
is
most
likely
the
HAP
that
would
account
for
the
largest
quantity
of
HAP
emissions
from
a
lime
manufacturing
plant.
Although
lime
manufacturing
plants
emit
HAP
metals
from
most
of
the
emission
units
at
the
plant
site
and
organic
HAP
from
the
kiln,
our
analysis
indicates
that
most
likely
the
metal
and
organic
HAP
emissions
would
each
be
below
the
10/
25
tons/
yr
criteria.
One
potential
approach
to
estimating
HAP
metals
emissions
from
a
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
to
require
measurement
of
the
PM
emissions
from
all
of
the
emission
units
at
the
plant
and
then
allow
the
use
of
a
ratio
(
which
we
would
specify
in
the
final
rule)
of
HAP
metals
to
PM
to
calculate
the
metals
emissions.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach
to
estimating
HAP
metals
emissions.
And
although
we
are
not
proposing
to
require
sources
to
test
for
all
HAP
to
make
a
determination
of
whether
the
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
a
major
or
area
source,
we
do
request
comment
on
whether
emissions
testing
of
metal
and/
or
organic
HAP
should
be
required
for
an
owner
or
operator
to
claim
that
its
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
an
area
source.
We
are
proposing,
however,
to
require
that
a
source
measure
HCl
emissions
from
the
kiln(
s)
in
order
for
it
to
claim
it
is
an
area
source
(
provided
HCl
is
emitted
at
less
than
10
tons/
yr).
Due
to
the
known
problems
with
EPA
Method
26
(
which
may
have
positive
biases
attributable
to
chloride
salts
rather
than
to
HCl,
and
negative
biases
due
to
condensation
and
removal
of
HCl
on
the
filter
and/
or
in
the
sampling
probe),
we
have
decided
that
Methods
26
and
26A
may
not
be
used
to
measure
HCl
in
the
determination
whether
the
source
is
an
area
source.
We,
in
fact,
adopted
this
same
approach
in
the
final
NESHAP
for
the
portland
cement
industry.
See
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
LLL,
and
64
FR
31907
and
31920
(
June
14,
1998).
In
addition,
we
worked
with
the
American
Society
of
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM),
in
conjunction
with
the
National
Lime
Association
(
NLA),
to
develop
an
impinger­
based
method
for
the
measurement
of
HCl
based
on
Method
26
but
which
includes
changes
to
the
method
to
overcome
the
aforementioned
biases.
This
ASTM
HCl
impinger­
based
method
has
been
demonstrated
on
lime
kilns
and
has
been
designated
as
ASTM
Test
Method
D
6735
 
01.
We
approve
of
this
method,
and
we
propose
to
allow
owners/
operators
to
use
it
to
measure
HCl
from
lime
kilns
to
determine
whether
their
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
a
major
or
area
source.
But
because
it
is
very
important
to
obtain
an
accurate
measurement
of
HCl
emissions,
we
are
proposing
to
require
the
paired­
train
option
under
section
11.2.6
of
the
method,
and
we
are
also
proposing
to
require
the
post­
test
analyte
spike
option
under
section
11.2.7
of
the
method.
Although
we
believe
these
additional
quality
assurance
procedures
are
critical
to
obtain
an
accurate
measurement
of
HCl,
we
seek
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
requiring
them.
We
attempted
to
utilize
proposed
EPA
Method
322
(
based
on
gas
filter
correlation
infrared
spectroscopy)
to
gather
HCl
data
from
lime
kilns
and
encountered
technical
problems.
These
problems
included
inadequate
data
availability,
spike
recovery,
and
response
time,
which
led
to
our
decision
in
the
promulgation
of
the
NESHAP
for
the
portland
cement
industry
to
not
finalize
EPA
Method
322.
Today,
we
are
affirming
that
decision
and
propose
that
Method
322
may
not
be
used
to
measure
HCl
in
the
determination
whether
a
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
an
area
source.
Based
on
the
aforementioned
difficulties
with
Method
26
and
proposed
Method
322,
we
propose
that
the
test
methods
based
on
fourier
transform
infrared
(
FTIR)
spectroscopy,
EPA
Methods
320
and
321,
will
be
acceptable
for
measuring
HCl
from
lime
kilns
if
the
owner/
operator
wishes
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78053
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
claim
its
lime
manufacturing
facility
is
not
a
major
source.
These
FTIR
methods
were
finalized
along
with
the
portland
cement
industry
NESHAP,
and
this
requirement
would
be
consistent
with
those
NESHAP.
(
As
mentioned
above,
we
are
also
proposing
to
allow
sources
to
use
ASTM
Test
Method
D
6735
 
01
for
the
measurement
of
HCl
to
determine
whether
their
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
a
major
or
area
source.)
However,
we
acknowledge
the
NLA's
concerns
about
the
use
of
FTIR
during
the
lime
kiln
test
program.
In
letters
the
NLA
sent
to
us,
they
suggested
that
in
light
of
the
alleged
problems
experienced
by
our
test
contractors
in
using
FTIR,
we
should
allow
the
use
of
Method
26
for
measurement
of
HCl
emissions
from
lime
kilns.
However,
we
do
not
completely
agree
with
their
assessment
of
the
asserted
difficulties
we
experienced
with
FTIR.
Our
response
to
NLA's
concerns
about
FTIR
may
be
found
in
the
docket
to
the
proposed
rule.
And
despite
any
alleged
problems
with
FTIR,
we
do
not
consider
them
to
justify
the
use
of
Method
26
until
the
aforementioned
problems
with
Method
26
can
be
resolved.

III.
Rationale
for
Proposed
Rule
A.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Source
Category
To
Regulate?

Section
112(
c)
of
the
CAA
directs
the
Agency
to
list
each
category
of
major
sources
that
emits
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)
of
the
CAA.
We
published
an
initial
list
of
source
categories
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
``
Lime
Manufacturing''
is
one
of
the
174
categories
of
major
sources
on
the
initial
list.
As
defined
in
our
report,
``
Documentation
for
Developing
the
Initial
Source
Category
List''
(
EPA
 
450/
3
 
91
 
030,
July
1992),
the
lime
manufacturing
source
category
includes
any
facility
engaged
in
the
production
of
high
calcium
lime,
dolomitic
lime,
and
dead­
burned
dolomite.
These
are
the
same
applicable
lime
products
as
defined
in
the
new
source
performance
standard
(
NSPS)
for
lime
manufacturing
plants
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
HH)
and
in
the
proposed
rule.
According
to
the
background
document
for
the
initial
source
category
listing,
the
listing
of
lime
manufacturing
as
a
major
source
category
was
based
on
the
Administrator's
determination
that
some
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
major
sources
of
chlorine
and
metal
HAP
including,
but
not
limited
to,
compounds
of
arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
and
selenium.
In
addition,
the
results
of
emissions
testing
we
conducted
in
the
development
of
the
proposed
rule
indicate
that
many
lime
manufacturing
plants
may
be
major
sources
of
HCl.
Hydrogen
chloride
emissions
from
these
lime
kiln
tests
using
EPA
Method
320
ranged
from
0.007
to
2.0
lbs
HCl
per
ton
of
lime
produced.
Assuming
an
average
HCl
emission
factor
of
0.4
lb/
ton,
a
lime
manufacturing
plant
would
only
have
to
produce
50,000
tons
of
lime
per
year
(
which
is
a
small
lime
manufacturing
plant)
for
it
to
be
a
major
source
(
for
this
reason
alone).
The
proposed
rule
would
regulate
HAP
emissions
from
all
new
and
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
are
major
sources,
co­
located
with
major
sources,
or
are
part
of
major
sources
(
e.
g.,
steel
production
facilities).
One
exception
to
this
is
that
lime
manufacturing
operations
located
at
pulp
and
paper
mills
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
Lime
manufacturing
operations
at
pulp
and
paper
mills
would
be
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
combustion
sources
at
kraft,
soda,
and
sulfite
pulp
and
paper
mills.
See
66
FR
3180,
January
12,
2001.
Lime
manufacturing
operations
at
beet
sugar
processing
plants
would
also
not
be
subject
to
the
NESHAP.
Both
the
lime
product
and
carbon
dioxide
in
the
beet
sugar
lime
kiln
exhaust
are
used
in
the
beet
sugar
manufacturing
process.
Beet
sugar
lime
kiln
exhaust
is
typically
routed
through
a
series
of
gas
washers
to
clean
the
exhaust
gas
prior
to
process
use.
The
clean,
cooled
gas
is
then
added
to
one
or
more
carbonation
units
(
which
contain
a
mixture
of
beet
juice,
lime,
and
water)
to
provide
the
carbon
dioxide
necessary
for
carbonation
and
precipitation
of
lime,
which
purifies
the
beet
sugar
juice.
Although
the
carbonation
units
are
part
of
the
sugar
manufacturing
process,
they
would
provide
additional
cleaning
of
the
lime
kiln
exhaust.
Beet
sugar
plants
typically
operate
only
seasonally,
and
our
analysis
indicates
that
beet
sugar
plants
are
not
major
sources
of
HAP.

B.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Affected
Source?

The
proposed
rule
would
define
the
affected
source
as
the
lime
manufacturing
plant,
and
would
include
all
of
the
limestone
MPO
at
a
lime
manufacturing
plant,
beginning
with
the
raw
material
storage
bin,
and
all
of
the
lime
kilns
and
coolers
at
the
lime
manufacturing
plant.
This
definition
of
affected
source
conforms
with
the
General
Provisions
40
CFR
63.2
definition,
which
essentially
states
that
all
emission
units
at
a
plant
are
to
be
considered
as
one
affected
source.
A
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
defined
as
the
collection
of
any
limestone
MPO,
beginning
with
the
raw
material
storage
bin,
and
any
lime
kiln
or
cooler
for
which
construction
or
reconstruction
begins
after
December
20,
2002.
Thus,
it
is
possible
for
an
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant
and
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
to
be
located
at
the
same
site.
This
definition
of
new
affected
source
includes
the
same
emission
units
as
the
existing
affected
source,
except
that
the
new
affected
source
only
includes
those
emission
units
for
which
construction
or
reconstruction
begins
after
December
20,
2002.
The
definitions
are
different
because
the
MACT
PM
emission
limit
for
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
more
stringent
than
for
those
at
an
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant.
In
general,
the
emission
units
which
are
included
in
the
definition
of
new
or
existing
affected
source
were
selected
based
on
regulatory
history
(
e.
g.,
the
applicability
of
NSPS
and
the
information
included
in
the
initial
source
category
listing)
and
to
be
consistent
with
other
MACT
standards
(
e.
g.,
the
MACT
standards
for
the
portland
cement
industry).
Although
lime
coolers
were
not
among
the
list
of
emission
units
in
the
background
document
for
the
initial
source
category
listing
for
lime
manufacturing,
lime
coolers
would
be
an
emission
unit
under
the
definition
of
affected
source
in
the
proposed
rule.
All
lime
coolers
are
integrated
with
their
associated
kiln
such
that
most
coolers
vent
all
of
their
exhaust
(
if
there
is
an
exhaust
stream)
to
the
kiln,
although
a
few
lime
coolers
(
e.
g.,
grate
coolers)
also
vent
a
portion
of
their
exhaust
separately
to
the
atmosphere.
The
specific
MPO
which
are
included
in
the
affected
source
definition
include
the
following
emission
units:
all
of
the
grinding
mills,
raw
material
storage
bins,
conveying
system
transfer
points,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
systems,
screening
operations,
bucket
elevators,
and
belt
conveyors,
beginning
with
the
raw
material
storage
bin
and
up
to
the
kiln.
We
define
MPO
to
include
these
emission
units
under
the
proposed
subpart
because
these
units
are
also
subject
to
the
NSPS
for
Nonmetallic
Minerals
Processing
Plants
(
referred
to
in
this
preamble
as
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO).
We
specifically
solicit
comment
on
whether
raw
material
storage
piles
should
be
included
in
the
affected
source
definition.
In
today's
proposed
rule,
the
first
emission
unit
in
the
sequence
of
MPO
which
is
included
in
the
definition
of
affected
source
would
be
the
raw
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78054
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
material
storage
bin.
Furthermore,
the
first
conveyor
transfer
point
included
under
the
affected
source
definition
would
be
the
transfer
point
associated
with
the
conveyor
transferring
material
from
the
raw
material
storage
bin.
This
demarcation
in
the
sequence
of
MPO
which
defines
the
first
emission
unit
under
the
affected
source
definition
is
consistent
with
the
applicability
requirements
under
the
NESHAP
for
the
portland
cement
industry,
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
LLL.
The
MPO
emission
units
that
would
be
excluded
from
the
affected
source
definition
are
described
as
follows.
Any
MPO
which
precedes
the
raw
material
storage
bin,
such
as
those
in
quarry
or
mine
operations,
is
not
included
in
the
definition
of
affected
source.
Any
operations
that
process
only
lime
product,
lime
kiln
dust,
or
fuel
would
be
excluded
from
the
definition.
Truck
dumping
into
any
screening
operation,
feed
hopper,
or
crusher
would
not
be
included
among
the
emission
units
considered
under
the
affected
source
definition.
(
These
exclusions
are
consistent
with
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO).
Finally,
lime
hydrators
would
not
be
included
as
an
emission
unit
under
the
affected
source
definition
since
all
hydrators
are
controlled
by
integrated
wet
scrubbers,
which
capture
the
lime
PM
(
and
associated
trace
metallic
HAP)
and
recycle
the
scrubber
water.
Additionally,
this
is
consistent
with
the
NSPS
subpart
HH,
which
does
not
apply
to
lime
hydrators.

C.
How
Did
We
Determine
Which
Pollutants
To
Regulate?
The
proposed
rule
would
reduce
emissions
of
non­
volatile
and
semivolatile
metal
HAP
by
limiting
emissions
of
PM
from
the
kiln
and
cooler,
and
certain
MPO
emission
units.
Particulate
matter
is
a
surrogate
for
the
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
metal
HAP
that
are
always
a
subset
of
PM.
Controlling
PM
emissions
will
control
the
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
metal
HAP,
since
these
compounds
are
associated
with
the
PM,
i.
e.,
they
are
by
definition
in
the
particulate
phase
(
as
opposed
to
the
gaseous
form).
The
available
air
pollution
controls
for
the
particulate
HAP
metals
at
lime
manufacturing
plants
are
the
PM
controls
used
at
lime
manufacturing
plants,
i.
e.,
FF,
ESP,
and
wet
scrubbers.
These
at­
the­
stack
controls
capture
nonvolatile
and
semi­
volatile
HAP
metals
non­
preferentially
along
with
other
PM,
thus
showing
why
PM
is
a
permissible
indicator
for
these
HAP
metals.
See
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
at
639.
Also,
using
PM
as
a
surrogate
for
the
HAP
metals
would
reduce
the
cost
of
emissions
testing
and
monitoring
that
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
otherwise
numerous
standards
that
would
apply
to
individual
HAP
metals.
In
addition,
several
other
NESHAP
have
been
promulgated
which
use
PM
as
a
surrogate
for
non­
volatile
and
semivolatile
HAP
metals
for
the
same
reason
 
it
is
a
technically
sound
surrogate
since
HAP
metals
are
necessarily
contained
in
PM,
are
controlled
by
PM
control
devices
to
roughly
the
same
efficiency,
and
there
are
significant
associated
cost
savings
due
to
monitoring
for
one
parameter
instead
of
many.
The
proposed
rule
would
limit
opacity
or
visible
emissions
from
certain
MPO
emission
units.
Opacity
serves
as
a
surrogate
for
the
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
HAP
metals.
Opacity
is
indicative
of
PM
emission
levels
and,
thus,
for
the
same
reasons
that
PM
is
a
surrogate
for
the
particulate
HAP
metals,
opacity
would
also
be
a
surrogate
for
the
PM
HAP
metals.
Further,
opacity
levels
are
reduced
by
reducing
PM
emissions,
which
would
also
reduce
the
metal
HAP
in
the
particulate
phase,
i.
e.,
the
non­
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
HAP.
We
are
proposing
not
to
regulate
HCl
emissions
from
lime
kilns.
Under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA,
we
have
determined
that
no
further
control
is
necessary
because
HCl
is
a
``
health
threshold
pollutant,''
and
HCl
levels
emitted
from
lime
kilns
are
below
the
threshold
value
within
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
following
explains
the
statutory
basis
for
considering
health
thresholds
when
establishing
standards,
and
the
basis
for
today's
proposed
decision,
including
a
discussion
of
the
risk
assessment
conducted
to
support
the
ample
margin
of
safety
decision.
Section
112
of
the
CAA
includes
exceptions
to
the
general
statutory
requirement
to
establish
emission
standards
based
on
MACT.
Of
relevance
here,
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
us
to
develop
risk­
based
standards
for
HAP
``
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established''
provided
that
the
standards
achieve
an
``
ample
margin
of
safety.''
Therefore,
we
believe
we
have
the
discretion
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
develop
standards
which
may
be
less
stringent
than
the
corresponding
floorbased
MACT
standards
for
some
categories
emitting
threshold
pollutants.
In
deciding
standards
for
this
source
category,
we
seek
to
assure
that
emissions
from
every
source
in
the
category
result
in
exposures
less
than
the
threshold
level
even
for
an
individual
exposed
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution.
The
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
calculated
using
the
``
high
end
exposure
estimate,''
defined
as
a
plausible
estimate
of
individual
exposure
for
those
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution,
conceptually
above
the
90th
percentile,
but
not
higher
than
the
individual
in
the
population
who
has
the
highest
exposure.
We
believe
that
assuring
protection
to
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
consistent
with
the
``
ample
margin
of
safety''
requirement
in
section
112(
d)(
4).
We
emphasize
that
the
use
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
is
wholly
discretionary.
As
the
legislative
history
indicates,
cases
may
arise
in
which
other
considerations
dictate
that
we
should
not
invoke
this
authority
to
establish
less
stringent
standards,
despite
the
existence
of
a
health
effects
threshold
that
is
not
jeopardized.
For
instance,
we
do
not
anticipate
that
we
would
set
less
stringent
standards
where
evidence
indicates
a
threat
of
significant
or
widespread
environmental
effects
taking
into
consideration
cost,
energy
safety
and
other
relevant
factors,
although
it
may
be
shown
that
emissions
from
a
particular
source
category
do
not
approach
or
exceed
a
level
requisite
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
We
may
also
elect
not
to
set
less
stringent
standards
where
the
estimated
health
threshold
for
a
contaminant
is
subject
to
large
uncertainty.
Thus,
in
considering
appropriate
uses
of
our
discretionary
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4),
we
consider
other
factors
in
addition
to
health
thresholds,
including
uncertainty
and
potential
``
adverse
environmental
effects,''
as
that
phrase
is
defined
in
section
112(
a)(
7)
of
the
CAA.
We
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
not
to
develop
standards
for
HCl
from
lime
kilns.
This
decision
is
based
on
the
following.
First,
we
consider
HCl
to
be
a
threshold
pollutant.
Second,
we
have
defined
threshold
values
in
the
form
of
an
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)
and
acute
exposure
guideline
level
(
AEGL).
Third,
HCl
is
emitted
from
lime
kilns
in
quantities
that
result
in
human
exposure
in
the
ambient
air
at
levels
well
below
the
threshold
values
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Finally,
there
are
no
adverse
environmental
effects
associated
with
HCl.
The
bases
and
supporting
rationale
for
these
conclusions
are
as
follows.
For
the
purposes
of
section
112(
d)(
4),
several
factors
are
considered
in
our
decision
on
whether
a
pollutant
should
be
categorized
as
a
health
threshold
pollutant.
These
factors
include
evidence
and
classification
of
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78055
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
carcinogenic
risk
and
evidence
of
noncarcinogenic
effects.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
factors
that
we
consider
in
deciding
whether
a
pollutant
should
be
categorized
as
a
health
threshold
pollutant,
please
see
the
April
15,
1998
Federal
Register
document
(
63
FR
18766).
In
the
April
15,
1998
action
cited
above,
we
determined
that
HCl,
a
Group
D
pollutant,
is
a
health
threshold
pollutant
for
the
purpose
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA
(
63
FR
18753).
The
NLA
conducted
a
risk
assessment
to
determine
whether
the
emissions
of
HCl
from
lime
kilns
at
the
current
baseline
levels
resulted
in
exposures
below
the
threshold
values
for
HCl.
We
reviewed
the
risk
assessment
report
prepared
by
the
NLA
and
believe
that
it
uses
a
reasonable
and
conservative
methodology,
is
consistent
with
EPA
methodology
and
practice,
and
reaches
a
reasonable
conclusion
that
current
levels
of
HCl
emissions
from
lime
kilns
would
be
well
under
the
threshold
level
of
concern
for
human
receptors.
The
summary
of
the
NLA's
assessment
is
organized
as
follows:
(
1)
Hazard
identification
and
dose­
response
assessment,
(
2)
emissions
and
release
information,
and
(
3)
exposure
assessment.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
risk
assessment
methodology
applied
here
by
NLA
should
not
be
interpreted
as
a
standardized
approach
that
sets
a
precedent
for
how
EPA
will
analyze
application
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
in
other
cases.
The
approach
presented
here,
including
assumptions
and
models,
was
selected
to
meet
the
unique
needs
of
this
particular
case,
to
provide
the
appropriate
level
of
detail
and
margin
of
safety
given
the
data
availability,
chemicals,
and
emissions
particular
to
this
category.
The
RfC
is
a
``
long­
term''
threshold,
defined
as
an
estimate
of
a
daily
inhalation
exposure
that,
over
a
lifetime,
would
not
likely
result
in
the
occurrence
of
significant
noncancer
health
effects
in
humans.
We
have
determined
that
the
RfC
for
HCl
of
20
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
(
µ
g/
m3)
is
an
appropriate
threshold
value
for
assessing
risk
to
humans
associated
with
exposure
to
HCl
through
inhalation
(
63
FR
18766,
April
15,
1998).
Therefore,
the
NLA
used
this
RfC
as
the
threshold
value
in
their
exposure
assessment
for
HCl
emitted
from
lime
kilns.
In
addition
to
the
effects
of
long­
term
inhalation
of
HCl,
the
NLA,
at
our
request,
also
considered
thresholds
for
short­
term
exposure
to
HCl
in
this
assessment.
The
AEGL
toxicity
values
are
estimates
of
adverse
health
effects
due
to
a
single
exposure
lasting
8
hours
or
less.
The
confidence
in
the
AEGL
(
a
qualitative
rating
or
either
low,
medium,
or
high)
is
based
on
the
number
of
studies
available
and
the
quality
of
the
data.
Consensus
toxicity
values
for
effects
of
acute
exposures
have
been
developed
by
several
different
organizations,
and
we
are
beginning
to
develop
such
values.
A
national
advisory
committee
organized
by
the
EPA
has
developed
AEGL
for
priority
chemicals
for
30­
minute,
1­
hour,
4­
hour,
and
8­
hour
airborne
exposures.
They
have
also
determined
the
levels
of
these
chemicals
at
each
exposure
duration
that
will
protect
against
discomfort
(
AEGL1),
serious
effects
(
AEGL2),
and
life­
threatening
effects
or
death
(
AEGL3).
The
NLA
used
the
AEGL1
value
as
the
threshold
value
for
assessing
the
inhalation
health
effects
of
short­
term
exposures
to
HCl.
The
NLA
conducted
dispersion
modeling
for
71
lime
plants
and
nearly
200
lime
kilns,
representing
all
operating
captive
and
commercial
lime
plants
in
the
U.
S.
that
would
potentially
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
analyses
performed
assumed
worst
case
operating
scenarios,
such
as
maximum
production
rate
and
24
hours
per
day,
365
days
per
year
operation.
Hydrogen
chloride
emission
rates
were
based
on
either
measured
data
or
default
HCl
stack
concentrations.
For
plants
having
HCl
measurement
data,
only
HCl
data
collected
using
FTIR
were
used.
For
plants
where
no
emissions
data
were
available,
the
following
HCl
emission
levels
were
assumed
for
the
analyses:
10
parts
per
million
by
volume
(
ppmv)
for
kilns
with
either
scrubbers
or
preheaters,
18
ppmv
for
kilns
at
Riverton
Corporation,
26
ppmv
for
gasfired
kilns,
and
85
ppmv
for
all
other
kilns.
(
The
Riverton
emission
level
was
derived
by
multiplying
its
stack
test
results
obtained
using
EPA
Method
26
by
a
sampling
method
bias
factor
of
25.
Method
26
may
understate
actual
HCl
emissions
by
a
factor
of
between
2
and
25.)
The
HCl
emission
levels
were
converted
to
stack
emission
rates
using
the
stack
gas
volumetric
flow
rate.
The
release
characteristics
used
for
the
dispersion
model
included
stack
height,
stack
diameter,
exit
temperature,
and
exit
velocity.
Using
its
own
questionnaire,
the
NLA
collected
the
necessary
release
information
from
all
71
plants.
The
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
for
HCl
emissions
from
all
lime
plants
in
the
source
category.
As
discussed
above,
the
emissions
data
and
release
characteristics
were
used
as
inputs
to
the
assessment.
The
approach
taken
by
NLA
was
found
to
be
consistent
with
the
EPA's
tiered
methodology.
(
See
the
U.
S.
EPA
report
``
Screening
Procedures
for
Estimating
the
Air
Quality
Impact
of
Stationary
Sources
(
revised)'',
report
number
EPA
 
454/
R
 
92
 
019
(
1992).)
The
approach
for
each
of
the
facilities
involved
four
steps:
Step
1
was
the
modeling
of
HCl
concentrations
at
the
point
of
maximum
concentration,
whether
occurring
onsite
or
off­
site,
using
SCREEN3,
a
screening­
level
air
dispersion
model.
Step
2
was
the
same
as
Step
1,
but
modeling
was
performed
at
or
beyond
the
fence
line.
Step
3
was
the
same
as
Step
1,
but
modeling
was
performed
at
the
nearest
off­
site
residence
or
business
location.
Step
4
was
the
modeling
of
HCl
concentrations
at
the
nearest
residence
or
business
location
using
the
ISC
 
PRIME
model.
(
ISC
 
PRIME
is
a
steady­
state
Gaussian
plume
model
based
on
the
ISC3
dispersion
model,
with
the
Plume
RIse
Model
Enhancements
(
PRIME)
algorithm
added
for
improved
treatment
of
building
downwash.
The
model
can
account
for
settling
and
dry
deposition;
building
downwash;
area,
line,
and
volume
sources;
plume
rise
as
a
function
of
downwind
distance;
building
dimensions
and
stack
placement
relative
to
a
building;
separation
of
point
sources;
and
limited
terrain
adjustment.)
Note
that
each
succeeding
step
involves
more
refined
site­
specific
data
and
less
conservative
assumptions.
The
analyses
performed
under
each
of
the
above
steps
assumed
worst
case
operating
scenarios,
such
as
maximum
production
rate,
and
in
Steps
1
through
3
worst
case
meteorology.
Local
terrain
and
building
downwash
effects
were
also
considered,
and
meteorological
data
were
taken
from
the
nearest
National
Weather
Service
meteorological
station.
Maximum
one
hour
averages
were
converted
to
annual
averages
using
a
conversion
factor
of
0.08,
consistent
with
EPA
recommendations.
The
NLA
generated
estimates
of
both
chronic
(
annual
average)
and
acute
(
onehour
concentrations
for
comparison
to
the
relevant
health
reference
values
or
threshold
levels.
Acute
and
chronic
exposures
were
compared
to
the
AEGL1
of
2,700
µ
g/
m3
for
one­
hour
exposures
and
the
RfC
of
20
µ
g/
m3
for
long­
term
continuous
exposure,
respectively.
Noncancer
risk
assessments
typically
use
a
metric
called
the
Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
to
assess
risks
of
exposures
to
noncarcinogens.
The
HQ
is
the
ratio
of
exposure
(
or
modeled
concentration)
to
the
health
reference
value
or
threshold
level
(
i.
e.,
RfC
or
AEGL).
HQ
values
less
than
``
1''
indicate
that
exposures
are
below
the
health
reference
value
or
threshold
level
and
are
likely
to
be
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78056
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
effects
in
the
exposed
population.
HQ
values
above
``
1''
do
not
necessarily
imply
that
adverse
effects
will
occur,
but
that
the
potential
for
risk
of
such
effects
increases
as
HQ
values
exceed
``
1.''
In
addition,
when
information
on
background
levels
of
pollutants
is
not
available,
EPA
has
in
some
cases
considered
a
HQ
of
0.2
or
below
to
be
acceptable.
For
the
NLA
assessment,
if
the
HQ
was
found
to
be
less
than
0.5
for
any
of
the
first
three
steps
using
conservative
defaults
and
modeling
assumptions,
the
analysis
concluded
with
that
step.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
HQ
exceeded
0.5,
work
proceeded
to
subsequent
steps.
There
were
no
facilities
where
Step
4
(
i.
e.,
the
most
refined
step)
yielded
an
HQ
above
0.5.
(
Steps
1,
2,
and
3
are
considered
``
Tier
2''
analyses
under
EPA's
tiered
modeling
approach,
whereas
Step
4
is
considered
a
``
Tier
3''
analysis.)
To
help
confirm
that
NLA's
approach
was
reasonable,
we
decided
to
reproduce
several
of
NLA's
modeling
analyses
by
performing
our
own
analyses
for
selected
facilities
having
the
highest
potential
for
health
risk
to
the
surrounding
community.
Generally,
these
were
facilities
having
the
highest
emission
rates
or
facilities
where
Tier
3
modeling
was
performed
for
actual
offsite
receptor
locations.
Fourteen
kilns
with
emission
rates
greater
than
5.0
grams/
second
were
evaluated
using
the
SCREEN3
air
dispersion
model.
For
the
analyses,
plant­
specific
parameters
were
used
for
source
type,
emission
rate,
stack
height,
stack
inner
diameter
exit
velocity,
gas
exit
temperature,
and
location
(
urban
versus
rural).
Assumptions
about
flat
terrain,
meteorology,
and
building
dimensions
were
made,
as
appropriate.
For
plants
with
multiple
stacks,
emissions
were
considered
to
emanate
from
one
colocated
emission
point.
Then,
in
order
to
maintain
a
conservative
approach,
the
lowest
effective
stack
height
parameters
were
utilized
for
all
emissions.
The
model
was
run,
and
maximum
concentrations
for
distances
ranging
from
100
to
5,000
meters
were
obtained.
To
evaluate
acute
exposure,
the
HQ
was
determined
by
comparing
the
maximum
concentrations
to
the
HCl
acute
threshold
level
of
2,700
µ
g/
m3.
Maximum
concentrations
were
then
converted
into
annual
concentrations,
and
the
HQ
was
determined
by
comparing
these
concentrations
to
the
HCl
chronic
health
reference
value
of
20
µ
g/
m3.
We
then
used
the
Human
Exposure
Model
(
HEM)
to
examine
seven
of
the
kilns
that
were
modeled
by
the
NLA
using
ISC
 
PRIME.
Concentrations
were
predicted
at
geographically­
weighted
centers
of
census
blocks.
Emissions
were
assumed
to
originate
from
a
single
stack
using
the
lowest
effective
stack
height
reported
at
each
facility.
Six
of
the
kilns
modeled
showed
values
well
below
the
RfC,
the
highest
having
an
HQ
=
0.11.
The
seventh
indicated
an
HQ
of
0.96.
The
seventh
kiln
was
re­
simulated
using
site­
specific
emissions
and
stack
data,
resulting
in
an
HQ
=
0.21.
Overall,
we
believe
that
the
NLA
has
taken
a
reasonably
conservative
approach
in
estimating
risk
due
to
HCl
exposure.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
methodology
and
assumptions
EPA
would
have
used
if
the
study
had
been
done
in­
house,
and
in
several
instances
NLA's
approach
is
even
more
conservative.
Furthermore,
EPA
conducted
a
parallel
confirmatory
analysis
and
found
results
consistent
with
those
of
the
NLA
assessment.
At
this
point,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
potential
for
effects
depends
on
an
individual's
total
exposure
to
that
chemical.
As
a
result,
exposure
from
all
sources,
not
just
the
one
in
question,
must
be
evaluated.
Where
possible,
other
exposures
must
be
accounted
for,
either
explicitly
through
monitoring
or
modeling,
or
by
apportioning
a
portion
of
the
health
threshold
level
available
to
any
individual
source.
To
estimate
the
potential
exposure
from
other
sources,
the
NLA
reviewed
the
ambient
HCl
concentration
estimates
derived
by
the
air
component
of
EPA's
Cumulative
Exposure
Project
(
CEP).
They
found
that
the
mean
national
HCl
concentration
corresponded
to
an
HQ
of
0.06
and
the
95th
percentile
national
HCl
concentration
corresponded
to
an
HQ
of
0.2,
and
they
concluded
that
background
HCl
exposures
were
unlikely
to
exceed
an
HQ
of
0.2.
(
These
HQ
helped
confirm
that
the
total
HQ
for
a
facility,
including
contributions
from
other
sources
(``
background''),
would
not
be
expected
to
exceed
``
1.''
However,
these
background
HQ
were
not
actually
added
into
a
facility's
final
HQ
estimate.
Thus,
we
are
comfortable
with
NLA's
calculations
and
feel
confident
that
exposures
to
HCl
emissions
from
the
facilities
in
question
are
unlikely
to
ever
exceed
an
HQ
of
0.2.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
predicted
exposures
from
these
facilities
should
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
ensure
that
total
exposures
for
nearby
residents
should
not
exceed
the
short­
term
or
long­
term
health
based
threshold
levels
or
health
reference
values,
even
when
considering
the
possible
contributions
of
other
sources
of
HCl
or
similar
respiratory
irritants.
The
standards
for
emissions
must
also
protect
against
significant
and
widespread
adverse
environmental
effects
to
wildlife,
aquatic
life,
and
other
natural
resources.
The
NLA
did
not
conduct
a
formal
ecological
risk
assessment.
However,
we
have
reviewed
publications
in
the
literature
to
determine
if
there
would
be
reasonable
expectation
for
serious
or
widespread
adverse
effects
to
natural
resources.
We
consider
the
following
aspects
of
pollutant
exposure
and
effects:
Toxicity
effects
from
acute
and
chronic
exposures
to
expected
concentrations
around
the
source
(
as
measured
or
modeled),
persistence
in
the
environment,
local
and
long­
range
transport,
and
tendency
for
biomagnification
with
toxic
effects
manifest
at
higher
trophic
levels.
No
research
has
been
identified
for
effects
on
terrestrial
animal
species
beyond
that
cited
in
the
development
of
the
HCl
RfC.
Modeling
calculations
indicate
that
there
is
little
likelihood
of
chronic
or
widespread
exposure
to
HCl
at
concentrations
above
the
threshold
around
lime
manufacturing
plants.
Based
on
these
considerations,
we
believe
that
the
RfC
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
protect
against
widespread
adverse
effects
in
other
animal
species
as
well.
Plants
also
respond
to
airborne
HCl
levels.
Chronic
exposure
to
about
600
µ
g/
m3
can
be
expected
to
result
in
discernible
effects,
depending
on
the
plant
species.
Plants
respond
differently
to
HCl
as
an
anhydrous
gas
than
to
HCl
aerosols.
Relative
humidity
is
important
in
plant
response;
there
appears
to
be
a
threshold
of
relative
humidity
above
which
plants
will
incur
twice
as
much
damage
at
a
given
dose.
Effects
include
leaf
injury
and
decrease
in
chlorophyll
levels
in
various
species
given
acute,
20­
minute
exposures
of
6,500
to
27,000
µ
g/
m3.
A
field
study
reports
different
sensitivity
to
damage
of
foliage
in
50
species
growing
in
the
vicinity
of
an
anhydrous
aluminum
chloride
manufacturer.
American
elm,
bur
oak,
eastern
white
pine,
basswood,
red
ash
and
several
bean
species
were
observed
to
be
most
sensitive.
Concentrations
of
HCl
in
the
air
were
not
reported.
Chloride
ion
in
whole
leaves
was
0.2
to
0.5
percent
of
dry
weight;
sensitive
species
showed
damage
at
the
lower
value,
but
tolerant
species
displayed
no
injury
at
the
higher
value.
Injury
declined
with
distance
from
the
source
with
no
effects
observed
beyond
300
meters.
Maximum
modeled
long­
term
HCl
concentrations
(
less
than
10
µ
g/
m3)
are
well
below
the
600
µ
g/
m3
chronic
threshold,
and
the
maximum
short­
term
HCl
concentration
(
540
µ
g/
m3)
is
far
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78057
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
below
the
6,500
µ
g/
m3
acute
exposure
threshold.
Therefore,
no
adverse
exposure
effects
are
anticipated.
Prevailing
meteorology
strongly
determines
the
fate
of
HCl
in
the
atmosphere.
However,
HCl
is
not
considered
a
strongly
persistent
pollutant,
or
one
where
long
range
transport
is
important
in
predicting
its
ecological
effects.
In
the
atmosphere,
HCl
can
be
expected
to
be
absorbed
into
aqueous
aerosols,
due
to
its
great
affinity
for
water,
and
removed
from
the
troposphere
by
rainfall.
In
addition,
HCl
will
react
with
hydroxy
ions
to
yield
water
plus
chloride
ions.
However,
the
concentration
of
hydroxy
ions
in
the
troposphere
is
low,
so
HCl
may
have
a
relatively
long
residence
time
in
areas
of
low
humidity.
No
studies
are
reported
of
HCl
levels
in
ponds
or
other
small
water
bodies
or
soils
near
major
sources
of
HCl
emissions.
Toxic
effects
of
HCl
to
aquatic
organisms
would
likely
be
due
to
the
hydronium
ion,
or
acidity.
Aquatic
organisms
in
their
natural
environments
often
exhibit
a
broad
range
of
pH
tolerance.
Effects
of
HCl
deposition
to
small
water
bodies
and
to
soils
will
primarily
depend
on
the
extent
of
neutralizing
by
carbonates
or
other
buffering
compounds.
Chloride
ions
are
essentially
ubiquitous
in
natural
waters
and
soils
so
minor
increases
due
to
deposition
of
dissolved
HCl
will
have
much
less
effect
than
the
deposited
hydronium
ions.
Deleterious
effects
of
HCl
on
ponds
and
soils,
where
such
effects
might
be
found
near
a
major
source
emitting
to
the
atmosphere,
likely
will
be
local
rather
than
widespread,
as
observed
in
plant
foliage.
Effects
of
HCl
on
tissues
are
generally
restricted
to
those
immediately
affected
and
are
essentially
acidic
effects.
The
rapid
solubility
of
HCl
in
aqueous
media
releases
hydronium
ions,
which
can
be
corrosive
to
tissue
when
above
a
threshold
concentration.
The
chloride
ions
may
be
concentrated
in
some
plant
tissues,
but
may
be
distributed
throughout
the
organism,
as
most
organisms
have
chloride
ions
in
their
fluids.
Leaves
or
other
tissues
exposed
to
HCl
may
show
some
concentration
above
that
of
their
immediate
environment;
that
is,
some
degree
of
bioconcentration
can
occur.
However,
long­
term
storage
in
specific
organs
and
biomagnification
of
concentrations
of
HCl
in
trophic
levels
of
a
food
chain
would
not
be
expected.
Thus,
the
chemical
nature
of
HCl
results
in
deleterious
effects,
that
when
present,
are
local
rather
than
widespread.
In
conclusion,
acute
and
chronic
exposures
to
expected
HCl
concentrations
around
the
source
are
not
expected
to
result
in
adverse
toxicity
effects.
Hydrogen
chloride
is
not
persistent
in
the
environment.
Effects
of
HCl
on
ponds
and
soils
are
likely
to
be
local
rather
than
widespread.
Finally,
HCl
is
not
believed
to
result
in
biomagnification
or
bioaccumulation
in
the
environment.
Therefore,
we
do
not
anticipate
any
adverse
ecological
effects
from
HCl.
The
results
of
the
exposure
assessment
showed
that
exposure
levels
to
baseline
HCl
emissions
from
lime
production
facilities
are
well
below
the
health
threshold
value.
Additionally,
the
threshold
values,
for
which
the
RfC
and
AEGL
values
were
determined
to
be
appropriate
values,
were
not
exceeded
when
considering
conservative
estimates
of
exposure
resulting
from
lime
kiln
emissions
as
well
as
considering
background
exposures
to
HCl
and
therefore,
represent
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Furthermore,
no
significant
or
widespread
adverse
environmental
effects
from
HCl
is
anticipated.
Therefore,
under
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4),
we
have
determined
that
further
control
of
HCl
emissions
from
lime
manufacturing
plants
is
not
necessary.
We
considered
establishing
a
limit
for
mercury
emissions
from
lime
kilns,
but
there
is
no
MACT
floor
for
mercury
 
that
is,
we
know
of
no
way
to
establish
an
achievable
floor
standard
for
mercury
beyond
selecting
an
arbitrarily
high
emission
limit
that
any
source
could
achieve
under
any
circumstance
since
no
source
controls
mercury
emissions
using
a
means
of
control
that
can
be
duplicated
by
other
sources.
We
also
have
initially
determined
that
an
emission
limit
for
mercury
based
on
a
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
option
is
not
considered
cost
effective
at
this
time;
nor
is
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
justified
for
mercury
after
otherwise
taking
into
account
cost,
non­
air
quality
environmental
and
health
impacts,
and
energy
considerations.

D.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
for
Emission
Units
at
Existing
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants?

1.
PM
From
the
Kiln
and
Cooler
In
establishing
the
MACT
floor,
section
112(
d)(
3)(
A)
of
the
CAA
directs
us
to
set
standards
for
existing
sources
that
are
no
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
(
for
which
there
are
emissions
data)
where
there
are
more
than
30
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory.
Among
the
possible
meanings
for
the
word
``
average''
as
the
term
is
used
in
the
CAA,
we
considered
two
of
the
most
common.
First,
``
average''
could
be
interpreted
as
the
arithmetic
mean.
The
arithmetic
mean
of
a
set
of
measurements
is
the
sum
of
the
measurements
divided
by
the
number
of
measurements
in
the
set.
The
word
``
average''
could
also
be
interpreted
as
the
median
of
the
emission
limitation
values.
The
median
is
the
value
in
a
set
of
measurements
below
and
above
which
there
are
an
equal
number
of
values
(
when
the
measurements
are
arranged
in
order
of
magnitude).
This
approach
identifies
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
those
sources
within
the
top
12
percent,
arranges
those
emissions
limitations
achieved
in
order
of
magnitude,
and
the
control
level
achieved
by,
and
achievable
by,
the
median
source
is
selected.
Either
of
these
two
approaches
could
be
used
in
developing
MACT
standards
for
different
source
categories.
We
obtained
PM
data
for
47
lime
kilns
over
the
course
of
developing
the
proposed
rule.
The
most
comprehensive
body
of
data,
and
we
believe
the
one
that
most
accurately
approximates
the
performance
achieved
by,
and
achievable
by,
the
average
of
the
best
12
percent
of
existing
sources
for
which
the
Agency
has
emission
data,
are
PM
limitations
contained
in
State
and
local
agency
permits
for
these
sources.
We
used
the
permit
limitations
for
the
kilns
(
along
with
the
supporting
PM
emissions
data)
in
our
MACT
floor
analysis
because
the
permit
limitations
were
indicative
of
the
variability
in
the
long­
term
performance
of
the
emission
controls.
We
examined
multiple
sets
of
PM
emissions
data
obtained
from
the
individual
kilns
during
compliance
testing
to
assure
that
the
permit
limitations
do
not
underestimate
the
pollution
control
capabilities
of
these
sources
(
i.
e.,
that
actual
performance
is
not
superior
to
the
permit
limits,
in
which
case
the
MACT
floor
would
need
to
be
based
on
that
superior
performance;
see
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
167
F.
3d
658,
661
 
62
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999)).
Simply
taking
the
average
or
mean
of
the
lowest
12
percent
of
the
emissions
data
(
without
considering
permit
limitations,
i.
e.,
achievability
of
the
technology
over
the
long­
term)
would
not
account
for
the
inherent
variability
of
performance
of
well­
designed
and
operated
emission
controls,
since
individual
emissions
tests
are
based
on
short
durations
of
sampling,
typically
3
hour
tests
(
because
of
the
absence
of
PM
continuous
emissions
monitors)
and,
thus,
we
would
be
required
to
extrapolate
these
``
snapshot''
data
to
ascertain
long­
term
achievable
performance.
Additionally,
we
obtained
multiple
compliance
test
data
for
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78058
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
top
performing
kilns
(
where
available);
some
of
the
kilns'
data
vary
over
two
orders
of
magnitude
and
vary
up
to
their
permit
limit.
Further,
these
multiple
data
sets
indicate
that
some
of
these
top
performing
kilns
would
not
be
able
to
meet
an
emission
limit
based
on
a
strictly
arithmetic
average
of
the
top
performing
kilns'
emissions
data
(
the
result
being
a
standard
not
achieved
by
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources,
and
hence
impermissible).
We
arrayed
the
data
by
permit
limitation,
from
lowest
to
highest,
in
units
of
lbs
PM/
ton
of
limestone
feed,
along
with
the
associated
PM
emissions
test
data.
The
best
performing
12
percent
of
the
47
kilns
are
the
best
performing
six
kilns,
with
the
third
and
fourth
best
performing
kilns
being
the
median.
The
six
best
performing
kilns'
permit
limits
for
PM
are
0.10,
0.12,
0.12,
0.12,
0.21,
and
0.21
lb/
ton
limestone
feed
and
are
equipped
with
either
a
FF
or
ESP.
The
emission
test
data
associated
with
these
kilns
indicate
that
these
kilns
have
indeed
achieved
the
limits
in
their
State
permits.
The
test
data
for
the
kilns
permitted
at
or
below
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone
vary
from
0.0091
to
0.0925
lb
PM/
ton
limestone.
We
do
not
believe
that
these
kilns
could
consistently
achieve
standards
which
are
lower
than
the
permit
limitation
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone
level,
due
to
the
probable
long­
term
variability.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
a
MACT
floor
PM
emission
limit
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone
for
lime
kilns
at
existing
lime
plants,
using
the
median
approach
of
the
permit
limits,
which
the
associated
emissions
data
show
to
be
achievable
and
show
as
well
to
be
a
reasonable
approximation
of
the
achievable
performance
of
the
average
of
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
kilns
for
which
we
have
emissions
data,
taking
into
consideration
long­
term
variability
in
performance.
Most
lime
coolers
(
approximately
96
percent)
in
the
lime
manufacturing
industry
use
ambient
air
for
cooling
and
are
integrated
with
the
kiln
such
that
all
the
cooler
exhaust
goes
directly
to
the
kiln
for
use
as
combustion
air,
or
else
the
cooling
of
the
lime
takes
place
within
the
kiln
itself
(
e.
g.,
in
vertical
kilns).
Thus,
for
96
percent
of
the
lime
kilns,
their
emissions
are
actually
the
kiln
and
cooler
emissions
combined.
The
kiln
PM
emission
limit
of
0.12
lb/
ton
limestone
is
based
on
kiln
permit
limits
and
associated
emissions
data
where
the
kiln
and
cooler
emissions
are
combined.
That
is,
based
on
our
review
of
the
questionnaire
responses,
discussions
with
plant
personnel,
and
State
permit
information,
none
of
the
best
performing
kilns
has
a
lime
cooler
with
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere.
Thus,
the
kiln
PM
emission
limit
applies
to
the
emissions
from
both
the
kiln
and
cooler.
For
the
96
percent
of
the
kilns
with
no
separate
cooler
exhaust,
this
would
have
no
effect;
that
is,
the
coolers'
emissions
are
already
combined
with
the
kiln
prior
to
venting
to
the
atmosphere.
For
the
few
kilns
with
grate
coolers
that
separately
vent
a
portion
of
the
cooler
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
the
sum
of
the
emissions
from
the
kiln(
s)
and
the
grate
cooler
exhaust(
s)
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant
would
be
subject
to
the
kiln
and
cooler
emission
limit
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone
feed.
With
this
approach,
the
emissions
from
the
kiln
and
cooler
are
subject
to
one
emission
limit,
regardless
of
whether
the
kiln
and
cooler
emissions
are
combined
prior
to
release
to
the
atmosphere.
This
reflects
the
performance
achieved
by,
and
achievable
by
(
taking
operating
variability
into
account),
the
median
of
the
12
percent
best
performing
kilns
for
which
the
Agency
has
emissions
data.
Further,
since
we
have
defined
the
affected
source
to
include
all
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
lime
manufacturing
plant,
the
kiln
and
cooler
PM
emission
limit
applies
to
the
combined
emissions
of
PM
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
coolers
at
the
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant.
During
the
review
of
a
draft
of
this
proposal
by
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
(
SBAR)
Panel,
an
issue
was
raised
about
the
potential
for
increases
in
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
and
HCl
emissions
that
may
occur
if
sources
opt
to
remove
existing
PM
wet
scrubbers
and
replace
them
with
dry
PM
control
devices
(
such
as
FF
or
ESP)
in
order
to
meet
the
proposed
kiln
PM
standard.
About
20
percent
of
the
lime
produced
in
the
U.
S.
is
from
kilns
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers,
and
about
90
percent
of
the
wet
scrubbers
on
lime
kilns
at
major
source
lime
plants
would
not
meet
the
proposed
PM
limit.
And
although
the
proposed
rule
would
not
dictate
how
the
lime
kiln
PM
standard
would
have
to
be
met,
and
our
limited
information
indicates
that
one
or
two
lime
kilns
with
wet
scrubbers
may
already
meet
the
proposed
PM
standard
(
this
may
be
because
they
burn
natural
gas
as
their
primary
fuel
source),
some
sources
may
elect
to
upgrade
their
existing
wet
scrubber
with
a
new
venturi
wet
scrubber
to
meet
the
PM
standard,
while
other
existing
sources
that
would
not
meet
the
proposed
PM
emission
limit
with
a
wet
scrubber
may
opt
to
replace
the
wet
scrubber
with
a
FF.
But
because
wet
scrubbers
are
more
effective
than
a
FF
or
ESP
at
removing
SO2
(
and
HCl),
the
SBAR
Panel
was
concerned
that
the
latter
approach
would
result
in
increases
in
SO2
emissions
from
these
kilns.
Therefore,
we
request
comment
on
establishing
a
subcategory
because
of
the
potential
increase
in
SO2
and
HCl
emissions
and
other
negative
environmental
impacts
(
discussed
further
below)
that
may
result
in
complying
with
the
proposed
PM
standard.
We
note,
however,
that
the
risk
analysis
showed
that
HCl
levels
emitted
from
lime
kilns
(
including
the
increased
HCl
levels
from
kilns
with
wet
scrubbers
that
are
replaced
with
FF)
are
below
the
threshold
value
within
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Although
subcategorization
normally
is
based
on
differences
in
manufacturing
process,
emission
characteristics,
or
technical
feasibility,
and
is
not
justified
by
the
sole
fact
that
a
different
type
of
air
pollution
control
equipment
is
utilized,
EPA
solicits
comment
on
the
possibility
of
establishing
a
subcategory
for
existing
lime
kilns
using
wet
scrubbers
in
order
to
avoid
potentially
environmentally
counterproductive
effects
due
to
increased
emissions
of
acid
gases
and
increased
water
and
energy
use.
(
Such
a
subcategory
would
also
significantly
reduce
the
cost
impact
on
industry.)
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
what
the
MACT
floor
PM
limit
would
be
for
this
possible
subcategory.
If
we
based
the
MACT
floor
for
this
possible
subcategory
on
an
inspection
of
the
permit
limit
information
available
to
us,
we
would
initially
conclude
that
a
PM
emission
limit
of
0.6
lb
PM/
ton
limestone
feed
may
be
appropriate.
We
note,
however,
that
in
order
to
use
permit
limits
as
a
basis
for
a
MACT
floor
determination,
those
permit
limits
must
accurately
reflect
the
actual
performance
of
the
sources
used
as
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor
determination
(
considering
both
emission
levels
and
operating
variability
when
designed
and
operated
properly).
We,
therefore,
solicit
information
both
on
PM
permit
limits
for
wet
scrubber
equipped
kilns
and
on
the
actual
emissions
from
those
kilns.
Lastly,
at
the
recommendation
of
the
SBAR
Panel,
we
specifically
request
comment
on
any
operational,
process,
product,
or
other
technical
and/
or
spatial
constraints
that
would
preclude
installation
of
a
FF
or
ESP
at
an
existing
lime
manufacturing
plant.
We
note,
however,
that
following
the
SBAR
panel,
the
NLA
brought
to
our
attention
the
fact
that
if
sources
replace
their
wet
scrubbers
with
FF
to
comply
with
the
kiln
PM
standard,
they
would
most
likely
also
need
to
take
steps
to
cool
the
exhaust
gas
stream
entering
the
FF,
since
the
operating
temperature
of
a
FF
may
be
400
°
less
than
a
wet
scrubber.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78059
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Cooling
the
gas
stream
as
such
may
be
done
using
various
techniques,
all
with
varying
environmental
and
cost
impacts.
In
light
of
this
new
information
presented
by
NLA,
we
analyzed
the
costs
of
three
PM
control
options
available
to
sources
with
wet
scrubbers
that
do
not
currently
meet
the
proposed
PM
limit.
Sources
could
elect
to
replace
the
existing
wet
scrubber
with
a
new
FF
and
cool
the
entering
exhaust
gas
stream
using
either
a
water
spray
system
or
alternatively
a
kiln
preheater.
Or
sources
may
elect
to
replace
the
existing
wet
scrubber
with
a
new
venturi
wet
scrubber
and
thereby
avoid
the
need
for
gas
stream
cooling.
Based
on
our
review
of
the
technical
performance
of
venturi
scrubbers,
we
believe
that
a
new,
high
efficiency
venturi
wet
scrubber
with
a
gas
stream
pressure
drop
of
35
inches
water
guage
or
more
could
meet
the
proposed
lime
kiln
PM
emission
limit.
After
reviewing
the
cost
impacts
of
these
control
options,
we
chose
the
venturi
wet
scrubber
as
the
basis
for
estimating
the
proposed
rule's
impacts
(
for
kilns
with
wet
scrubbers
not
meeting
the
proposed
PM
limit)
because,
in
general,
this
option
was
the
least
expensive
in
terms
of
capital
cost
and,
in
some
cases,
annual
cost
as
well.
We
request
comment
on
our
cost
analyses
of
these
control
options
(
the
details
of
which
may
be
found
in
the
docket)
and
on
our
determination
to
base
the
impacts
estimates
of
the
proposed
rule
on
this
venturi
scrubber
control
option.
We
also
acknowledge
that
the
NLA's
cost
estimates
lead
them
to
conclude
that
it
may
be
less
expensive
for
sources
to
install
a
FF
with
gas
stream
cooling
rather
than
install
new
venturi
wet
scrubbers.
In
addition,
there
would
be
different
emission
and
environmental
impacts
depending
on
the
control
option
selected
by
sources
with
existing
wet
scrubbers
not
meeting
the
proposed
PM
limit.
For
the
control
option
of
a
wet
scrubber
being
replaced
with
a
new
FF,
we
estimate
that
national
HCl
emissions
would
increase
by
about
1,000
tons/
yr,
and
national
SO2
emissions
would
increase
by
about
15,000
tons/
yr.
The
NLA
commented
during
the
SBAR
Panel
that
the
resulting
SO2
increases
under
this
option
could
cause
a
lime
plant
to
become
subject
to
new
source
review
(
NSR)
rule
requirements,
and
the
source
would,
thus,
incur
additional
costs
associated
with
this
review.
Sources
utilizing
this
control
option
may
or
may
not
be
excluded
from
NSR
if
it
is
a
pollution
control
project.
Under
the
current
NSR
rules
and
guidance,
a
net
emissions
increase
of
40
tons/
yr
SO2
would
trigger
NSR
even
if
this
increase
was
due
to
a
pollution
control
project,
unless
the
control
project
qualified
for
a
Pollution
Control
Project
Exclusion.
The
EPA
is
currently
revising
the
NSR
rules.
Finally,
no
change
in
SO2
or
HCl
emissions
would
be
expected
for
sources
that
replace
existing
wet
scrubbers
with
new
venturi
wet
scrubbers.
With
no
resultant
SO2
emissions
increases,
it
would
be
unlikely
that
sources
would
seek
an
NSR
exclusion.
We
also
acknowledge
there
would
be
additional
negative
environmental
impacts
if
all
kilns
with
wet
scrubbers
not
meeting
the
proposed
PM
limit
are
replaced
with
new
venturi
wet
scrubbers.
These
impacts
would
include
an
increase
in
national
water
consumption
by
about
4.2
billion
gallons
per
year
from
current
levels,
and
an
increase
in
electricity
consumption
by
about
7.2
million
kilowatt­
hours/
yr.
(
Industry
estimates
that
along
with
this
additional
electricity
consumption,
an
additional
8,000
tons/
yr
of
carbon
dioxide
would
be
emitted
from
fossil
fuel
fired
electrical
power
generating
stations.)
These
increases
result
from
the
new
venturi
wet
scrubbers
requiring
a
higher
water
flow
rate
and
larger
fans
to
handle
the
increased
gas
pressure
drop.
We
note,
however,
that
with
a
higher
PM
limit
for
a
possible
wet
scrubber
subcategory,
national
PM
emissions
from
lime
kilns
would
be
approximately
1,000
tons/
yr
greater
than
if
there
were
no
subcategory.

2.
Mercury
From
the
Kiln
Mercury
emitted
from
lime
kilns
originates
from
the
raw
materials
and
fuels
fed
to
the
kiln.
In
considering
a
potential
floor
for
mercury
from
these
emission
units,
we
considered
both
atthe
stack
controls
and
substitution
of
feed
and
fuels
as
a
potential
basis
for
a
standard.
Since
no
sources
are
controlling
the
mercury
emissions
from
their
lime
kilns
using
at­
the­
stack
controls,
such
control
cannot
be
the
basis
for
a
floor
standard.
Switching
of
raw
material
feed
or
fuel
is
also
not
a
basis
for
establishing
a
floor
standard
because
these
means
of
control
are
not
available,
leading
to
unachievable
standards.
Nor
is
there
any
indication
that
feed
or
fuel
substitution
would
control
mercury
emissions
from
these
sources.
The
reasons
for
these
conclusions
are
set
out
below.
Substitution
of
raw
materials,
i.
e.,
feedstock
substitution,
is
not
an
available
means
of
control.
First,
raw
materials
are
proprietary.
No
kiln
can
use
another's
raw
materials.
Thus,
a
standard
based
on
feed
control
is
not
achievable
because
it
is
not
even
available.
No
second
kiln
could
duplicate
a
``
low
mercury''
source's
performance,
even
assuming
there
was
a
low
mercury
source
of
feed
material.
In
addition,
we
are
aware
of
no
data
or
information
indicating
that
a
certain
type
of
limestone
or
source
of
limestone
has
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury,
and
although
such
deposits
may
exist,
we
do
not
believe
such
deposits
of
limestone
exist
sufficiently
throughout
the
U.
S.
to
supply
the
industry.
Further,
assuming
there
was
a
widespread
source
of
limestone
with
a
lower
level
of
mercury
(
which
is
highly
unlikely),
it
is
unclear
that
this
would
lead
to
lower
mercury
emissions
(
or
what
the
reductions
of
mercury
emissions
would
be),
since
mercury
emissions
from
lime
kilns
also
originate
from
the
fuel.
A
floor
standard
based
on
substitution
of
so­
called
clean
mercury
fossil
fuels
is
likewise
not
achievable
due
to
unavailability
of
this
means
of
control.
The
floor
for
existing
sources
would
have
to
be
based
on
either
coal
or
natural
gas
substitution
since
there
are
enough
sources
using
coal
or
natural
gas
to
constitute
a
MACT
floor
for
existing
kilns.
However,
there
are
simply
inadequate
amounts
of
``
low
mercury''
coal
and
natural
gas
available
to
power
this
industry.
Thus,
we
see
no
feasible
way
for
the
lime
industry
to
function
if
it
can
only
use
the
6
percent
``
cleanest''
fuels
to
make
its
product.
See
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
101
 
490,
101st
Cong.
2d
sess.
328
(``
MACT
is
not
intended
*
*
*
to
drive
sources
to
the
brink
of
shutdown'').
Nor
do
we
see
any
evidence
that
``
low
mercury''
coal
exists.
Our
analysis
shows
that
the
average
mercury
levels
for
the
various
coal
types
 
bituminous,
subbituminous,
and
lignite
coals
 
are
nearly
the
same
at
around
0.1
part
per
million
by
weight.
These
data
show
that
there
is
not
a
certain
type
of
coal
that
has
a
lower
mercury
level.
Also,
based
on
the
data
in
the
EPA
Utility
Study
and
Report
to
Congress,
emissions
of
other
HAP
metals
would
or
could
increase
if
coal
or
oil
were
to
be
substituted
to
try
and
achieve
lower
mercury
emissions.
These
data
indicate
that
levels
of
HAP
metals
in
coal
are
so
variable
that
decreases
in
emissions
of
one
HAP
metal
are
offset
by
increases
in
others
when
different
coals
are
used
as
fuel.
These
data
also
show
that
if
fuel
oil
is
substituted
for
coal,
nickel
emissions
will
increase
because
fuel
oil
typically
contains
more
nickel
than
coal.
Thus,
based
on
these
data,
we
believe
that
fuel
switching
among
coal
and
oil
is
not
an
effective
means
of
controlling
HAP
metal
emissions
(
including
mercury),
even
if
this
were
an
available
means
of
control.
For
new
as
well
as
existing
kilns,
we
considered
basing
the
floor
for
mercury
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78060
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
on
the
use
of
natural
gas,
although
the
few
mercury
emissions
data
we
have
cannot
allow
us
to
definitively
state
what
effect
fuel
type
has
on
emissions.
However,
we
do
not
regard
natural
gas
fuel
substitution
as
an
available
technology
for
new
sources.
Natural
gas
is
not
readily
available
throughout
the
U.
S.,
i.
e.,
the
infrastructure
for
its
delivery
(
pipelines,
pumping
stations,
etc.)
is
not
available
for
all
locations
where
lime
manufacturing
plants
exist
and
is
not
expected
to
be
economically
available
to
build
such
infrastructure
throughout
the
U.
S.
Although
U.
S.
natural
gas
reserves
may
be
considered
plentiful,
the
gas
still
needs
to
be
extracted
through
drilling
and
the
construction
of
wells.
Thus,
for
plants
located
far
from
a
natural
gas
pipeline,
natural
gas
is
not
a
reasonable
alternative.
Additionally,
although
the
infrastructure
(
pipelines,
wells,
storage
facilities)
can
be
built,
the
delivery
capacity
will
likely
not
be
available
to
accommodate
a
fuel
switch
to
natural
gas
within
the
time
frame
by
which
new
kilns
would
have
to
comply.
We
note
further
that
the
amounts
of
mercury
emitted
by
these
kilns
is
small,
roughly
one
pound
per
plant
per
year.
Although
the
floor
provisions
of
the
CAA
do
not
provide
a
de
minimis
exception
to
establishing
floors,
see
National
Lime
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
at
640,
the
small
amounts
of
mercury
emitted
reinforce
the
Agency's
technical
determinations
that
control
via
substitutions
of
feed
or
fuel
are
neither
feasible
nor
likely
to
be
effective
since
random
variability
in
these
feed
and
fuels
will
likely
result
in
equal
amounts
of
mercury
being
emitted
in
any
case.
Indeed,
it
is
the
Agency's
view
that
not
even
a
single
source
could
reliably
duplicate
its
own
performance
for
mercury
due
to
the
small
amounts
emitted
and
the
random
variability
of
fuels
and
feed.

3.
PM
and
Opacity
From
MPO
There
are
numerous
types
of
MPO
such
as
grinding
mills,
storage
bins,
conveying
systems
(
such
as
bucket
elevators
and
belt
conveyors),
transfer
points,
and
screening
operations
at
each
lime
manufacturing
plant.
We
investigated
whether
there
were
any
MPO
subject
to
standards
more
stringent
than
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
or
otherwise
performing
with
consistently
lower
emissions
than
required
by
the
NSPS
(
i.
e.,
performing
at
a
lower
level
without
being
subject
to
a
regulatory
limit),
that
would
serve
as
a
basis
for
a
MACT
floor.
To
this
end,
we
reviewed
the
applicable
requirements
for
lime
manufacturing
plants
located
in
nonattainment
areas
for
PM10
(
particulate
matter
with
an
aerodynamic
diameter
less
than
or
equal
to
10
microns),
since
presumably
these
areas
of
the
U.
S.
would
be
the
most
likely
to
have
more
stringent
PM
emission
limitations.
We
found
seven
lime
manufacturing
plants
located
in
PM10
nonattainment
areas.
The
information
available
to
us
on
these
plants
indicated
that
no
MPO
were
subject
to
standards
more
stringent
than
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
or
otherwise
performing
better.
We
believe
that
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
standards
reasonably
reflect
the
level
of
performance
achieved
by,
and
achievable
by,
the
average
of
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
sources.
The
basis
for
the
MACT
floor
for
these
emission
units
is
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
as
it
has
been
applied
to
lime
manufacturing
plants,
which
serves
as
a
reasonable
measure
of
the
performance
of
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources.
The
NSPS
subpart
OOO
sets
PM,
opacity,
and
visible
emission
limits
for
limestone
MPO
that
were
constructed,
reconstructed,
or
modified
after
August
31,
1983.
We
investigated
whether
enough
of
these
MPO
are
located
at
lime
manufacturing
plants
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
to
make
a
MACT
floor
determination.
Using
the
median
approach
to
determining
MACT
floors,
at
least
6
percent
would
need
to
be
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO.
In
one
approach
to
estimating
the
number
of
MPO
at
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
are
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
we
estimate
that
there
are
104
lime
manufacturing
plants
in
the
U.
S.,
and
that
at
least
seven
of
these
were
built
after
August
31,
1983.
All
of
the
MPO
associated
with
these
new,
greenfield
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
were
built
after
August
31,
1983,
would
be
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO.
Therefore,
at
least
6.7
percent
(
7/
104)
of
the
MPO
are
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
enough
for
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
to
serve
as
a
basis
for
the
MACT
floor.
In
another
approach
to
estimating
the
percentage
of
lime
manufacturing
plant
MPO
that
are
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
our
information
shows
that
at
least
31
lime
kilns
were
constructed
after
August
31,
1983,
out
of
a
total
of
about
257
lime
kilns
in
the
U.
S.
Assuming
that
the
MPO
associated
with
these
new
lime
kilns
are
also
new,
we
estimate
that
12.1
percent
(
31/
257)
of
the
MPO
are
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO.
Thus,
with
either
approach
to
estimating
the
number
of
MPO
at
lime
manufacturing
plants
that
are
subject
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
there
are
enough
to
support
a
MACT
floor
determination.
Therefore,
the
MACT
floor
for
MPO
is
equivalent
to
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO.

E.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
for
Emission
Units
at
New
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants?
The
CAA
requires
the
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
to
be
based
on
the
degree
of
emissions
reductions
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
source.
For
HAP
metals
emissions
from
MPO
at
new
lime
manufacturing
plants,
the
floor
is
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
(
the
same
as
for
MPO
at
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants).
As
discussed
previously,
we
investigated
whether
there
were
any
MPO
subject
to
standards
more
stringent
than
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
or
were
emitting
at
lower
rates
without
being
subject
to
some
type
of
regulatory
standards,
that
would
serve
as
a
basis
for
MACT
for
new
sources.
The
information
available
to
us
indicates
that
no
MPO
are
subject
to
standards
more
stringent
than
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO
or
otherwise
performing
better.
Therefore,
the
floor
is
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO.
For
HAP
metals
emissions
from
kilns
and
coolers,
the
floor
for
those
at
new
lime
manufacturing
plants
is
defined
by
the
permit
limits
and
emissions
data
for
PM,
where
PM
is
a
surrogate
for
nonmercury
HAP
metals.
As
previously
described
in
this
preamble,
the
MACT
floor
PM
emission
limit
for
lime
kilns
and
coolers
at
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone.
This
determination
was
based
on
the
median
approach,
i.
e.,
on
the
third
best
kiln
permit
limit
of
0.12
lb
PM/
ton
limestone.
For
kilns
at
new
lime
manufacturing
plants,
MACT
is
based
on
the
best
controlled
similar
source,
which
is
the
kiln
permitted
at
the
lowest
emission
limit
(
i.
e.,
0.10
lb
PM/
ton
limestone).
Test
data
for
this
kiln
indicated
that
the
emission
level
was
0.0925
lb
PM/
ton,
demonstrating
that
this
permit
limit
is
indeed
achievable,
and
that
the
permit
level
reasonably
approximates
the
level
of
performance
that
is
consistently
achievable
by
this
kiln
(
so
that
a
lower
floor
level
would
not
be
technically
justified).
Therefore,
the
emission
limit
for
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant
is
0.10
lb/
ton
stone
feed.
As
with
the
existing
sources,
this
emission
limit
applies
to
the
combined
emissions
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
lime
manufacturing
plant.
As
previously
described
and
for
the
same
reasons
that
there
is
no
MACT
floor
for
mercury
for
kilns
at
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants,
and
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78061
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
options
considered
for
kilns
at
existing
lime
manufacturing
plants
are
not
justified,
there
is
no
MACT
for
mercury
for
kilns
at
new
sources.

F.
What
Control
Options
Beyond
the
MACT
Floor
Did
We
Consider?
Raw
material
feed
or
fuel
switching
may
be
considered
potential
beyondthe
floor
options
for
mercury,
but
as
previously
stated,
no
data
or
information
is
available
indicating
that
a
certain
type
of
limestone
or
source
of
limestone
has
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury
or
is
generally
available
throughout
the
country.
In
addition,
even
if
deposits
of
limestone
with
low
levels
of
mercury
were
to
be
found,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
limestone
would
be
in
close
proximity
to
the
majority
of
lime
manufacturing
plants
in
the
U.
S.
and,
thus,
the
cost
of
transporting
the
limestone
to
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
prohibitively
expensive.
(
There
would
also
be
increased
energy
use
associated
with
this
option
in
the
form
of
increased
fuel
use
to
transport
raw
materials.)
Most,
if
not
all,
lime
manufacturing
plants
are
sited
and
located
adjacent
to
or
in
close
proximity
to
their
source
of
limestone
(
usually
a
quarry
or
mine)
to
avoid
the
high
cost
of
transporting
the
material.
Regarding
fuel
switching
as
a
possible
mercury
MACT
floor
or
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
option
for
existing
or
new
kilns,
using
a
fuel
with
a
lower
level
of
mercury,
such
as
natural
gas
(
instead
of
coal),
may
result
in
lower
lime
kiln
mercury
emissions.
However,
there
are
no
data
available
to
quantify
what
the
emissions
reductions
would
be
since
our
analysis
indicates
that
most
mercury
emissions
originate
from
the
limestone
feed
material
(
compared
with
coal),
and
so
the
emissions
reductions
that
would
be
achieved
via
switching
from
coal
to
natural
gas
are
uncertain.
Further,
as
explained
above,
natural
gas
is
not
readily
available
throughout
the
U.
S.
(
i.
e.,
the
infrastructure
for
its
delivery
(
pipelines,
pumping
stations,
etc.)),
is
not
available
for
all
locations
where
lime
manufacturing
plants
exist,
and
is
not
expected
to
be
economically
available
to
build
such
infrastructure
throughout
the
U.
S.
We
considered
another
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
option
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
 
a
mercury
control
technology
currently
used
on
various
types
of
waste
combustors.
However,
based
on
the
already
relatively
low
levels
of
mercury
emissions
from
lime
kilns,
we
expect
that
relatively
low
emissions
reductions
would
be
achieved
from
this
technology.
(
Use
of
activated
carbon
injection
also
generates
a
mercury­
bearing
waste
stream
to
be
disposed
of.)
The
few
mercury
emissions
data
available
(
four
data
points)
range
from
0.7
to
2.5
micrograms/
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(
referenced
to
7
percent
oxygen).
These
uncontrolled
levels
are
10
to
100
times
lower
than
the
mercury
emission
standards
established
for
various
types
of
waste
combustors
and
translate
to
an
average
annual
emission
rate
of
approximately
1
lb/
year
per
lime
kiln.
Thus,
this
beyond­
the­
floor­
control
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
because
of
the
low
emissions
reductions
expected
and
the
high
cost
of
control.
Further,
use
of
activated
carbon
generates
an
additional
waste
to
be
disposed
of,
and
there
are
increases
in
energy
use
associated
with
the
technology.
After
considering
cost,
energy,
and
non­
air
human
health
and
environmental
impacts,
our
initial
conclusion
is
that
basing
beyond­
thefloor
standards
for
mercury
on
use
of
activated
carbon
is
not
warranted.
For
HAP
metal
(
PM)
emissions
from
the
kiln
and
MPO,
no
technologies
were
identified
that
would
perform
better
than
the
technologies
representative
of
the
MACT
floors
that
were
determined.
Raw
material
feed
or
fuel
switching
is
not
a
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
option
for
PM
control
from
lime
kilns,
for
reasons
similar
as
to
why
it
is
not
an
option
for
mercury
control.
Regarding
feed
material
switching,
no
data
or
information
is
available
indicating
that
using
a
certain
type
or
source
of
limestone
would
have
a
lower
HAP
metals
content
or
would
lead
to
reduced
PM
emissions.
We
do
not
believe
that
such
deposits
of
limestone
exist
or
that
use
of
a
certain
type
of
limestone
would
consistently
result
in
lower
PM
or
metals
emissions.
Further,
assuming
there
was
a
widespread
source
of
limestone
with
a
lower
HAP
metals
content
(
which
is
highly
unlikely),
it
is
unclear
that
this
would
lead
to
lower
HAP
metals
emissions
(
or
what
the
reductions
of
the
HAP
metals
emissions
would
be)
since
HAP
metals
emissions
from
lime
kilns
would
also
originate
from
the
fuel.
In
addition,
even
if
deposits
of
limestone
with
low
levels
of
HAP
metals
or
a
lower
PM­
producing
limestone
were
to
be
found,
the
cost
of
transporting
the
limestone
to
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
prohibitively
expensive.
In
addition,
as
noted
earlier,
there
would
be
increased
energy
usage
associated
with
the
transport
of
large
amounts
of
raw
materials.
Regarding
fuel
switching
as
a
possible
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
option
for
HAP
metals,
using
a
fuel
with
a
lower
level
of
metals,
such
a
natural
gas
(
compared
to
coal),
may
result
in
lower
lime
kiln
metals
emissions.
However,
there
are
insufficient
data
available
to
quantify
what
the
emissions
reductions
would
be,
since
as
we
described
above,
lime
kiln
metals
emissions
also
originate
from
the
limestone
feed
material.
Further,
natural
gas
is
not
readily
available
throughout
the
U.
S.
(
i.
e.,
the
infrastructure
for
its
delivery
(
pipelines,
pumping
stations,
etc.))
and
may
not
be
available
for
all
locations
where
lime
manufacturing
plants
exist.
Further,
the
cost
of
using
natural
gas
may
be
prohibitively
expensive
as
the
cost
of
natural
gas
continues
to
rise
as
the
growing
demand
for
it
rises
as
well.
We
do
not
regard
this
as
an
available
means
of
control
for
this
source
category.
See
also
the
discussion
above
as
to
why
the
use
of
natural
gas
is
not
a
viable
control
option
for
mercury;
this
rationale
also
applies
to
the
use
of
natural
gas
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
option
for
PM
and
non­
mercury
HAP
metals.
Consequently,
we
are
not
proposing
any
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
HAP
metal
control
based
on
requiring
the
use
of
natural
gas
rather
than
other
fossil
fuels.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
proposing
that
the
floor
standard
for
mercury
reflect
no
existing
reduction
and
after
considering
the
factors
set
out
in
CAA
section
112
(
d)(
2),
that
no
beyond­
thefloor
alternatives
are
achievable.

G.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Format
of
the
Proposed
Rule?

The
formats
selected
for
the
proposed
emission
limits
vary
according
to
the
emission
source,
pollutant,
and
the
MACT
basis
for
the
limits.
The
formats
selected
include
a
production­
based
emission
limit,
pollutant
concentration
limits,
and
opacity
limits.
For
the
kiln
PM
standard,
the
``
lb
PM/
ton
limestone''
format
was
selected
to
be
consistent
with
the
NSPS
for
lime
manufacturing
plants,
40
CFR
60,
subpart
HH.
This
format
also
encourages
kiln
energy
efficiency.
A
more
energy
efficient
kiln
emits
less
exhaust
gas
per
ton
of
limestone
processed,
which
results
in
a
higher
gas
concentration
of
PM
compared
to
a
less
energy
efficient
kiln
for
the
same
amount
of
lime
produced
and
PM
emitted.
A
concentration
format
(
e.
g.,
grains
PM/
dry
standard
cubic
foot)
would
penalize
more
energy
efficient
kilns.
For
the
PM
and
opacity
standards
for
MPO,
a
concentration
format
for
PM
and
the
opacity
limit
requirements
were
selected
to
be
consistent
with
the
NSPS
for
nonmetallic
minerals
processing,
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
OOO.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78062
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
H.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Test
Methods
and
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Determining
Compliance
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

1.
PM
From
the
Kiln
and
Cooler
Today's
proposed
rule
would
require
you
to
conduct
a
PM
performance
test
and
concurrently
measure
the
stone
feed
rate
to
the
kiln
during
the
test.
If
you
operate
a
lime
cooler
associated
with
the
kiln
being
tested
that
has
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
Method
5
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
 
3)
test
on
the
cooler's
exhaust
concurrently
with
the
kiln
Method
5
test.
Method
5
is
the
long­
standing
EPA
method
for
measuring
PM
emissions
from
stationary
sources.
For
each
kiln
with
an
ESP,
if
you
choose
to
monitor
ESP
operating
parameters
in
lieu
of
using
a
PM
detector
or
a
COMS,
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
input
voltage
and
current
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
during
the
PM
performance
test,
and
then
determine
the
3­
hour
operating
limit
for
each
parameter
for
each
electrical
field
based
on
these
data.
We
expect
that
most
lime
manufacturing
plants
with
ESP
already
monitor
the
electrical
current
and
voltage,
which
provides
an
indication
of
the
ESP
performance
and
consequently
PM
emissions
as
well.
For
continuous
compliance
demonstrations,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
field
of
the
ESP
as
established
during
the
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
collect
and
reduce
the
data
as
previously
described.
A
3­
hour
rolling
average
was
selected
to
be
consistent
with
the
usual
3­
hour
time
required
for
the
PM
test
(
three
test
runs
of
at
least
1
hour).
You
would
also
have
the
option
of
monitoring
PM
emissions
from
an
ESP
with
a
PM
detector,
in
lieu
of
monitoring
ESP
parameters.
Sources
may
determine
that
this
would
allow
them
greater
operational
flexibility.
These
devices
would
be
similar
to
the
BLDS
for
FF,
which
are
discussed
below,
but
they
are
based
on
light
scattering
technology
(
and
not
the
triboelectric
technology).
For
each
kiln
with
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
the
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
during
the
PM
performance
test,
and
then
establish
the
3­
hour
operating
limit
for
each
of
these
parameters
based
on
the
data.
Pressure
drop
and
flow
rate
are
the
scrubber
operating
parameters
most
often
monitored
and
provide
an
indication
of
the
scrubber's
performance
and
consequently
PM
emissions
as
well.
For
continuous
compliance
demonstrations,
you
would
be
required
to
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
pressure
drop
and
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
operating
limit
established
for
these
parameters
during
the
performance
test.
You
would
be
required
to
collect
and
reduce
the
data
as
previously
described.
For
kilns
and
lime
coolers
(
if
the
cooler
has
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere)
controlled
by
a
FF,
if
you
choose
not
to
use
a
COMS,
you
would
be
required
to
install
a
BLDS.
These
systems
are
usually
based
on
either
triboelectric,
electrodynamic,
or
light
scattering
technology
and
provide
an
indication
of
relative
changes
in
particle
mass
loading.
Leaks
in
filter
bags
or
similar
failures
can
be
detected
early
enough
to
warn
if
additional
inspection
and
preventative
maintenance
are
needed
to
avoid
major
FF
failures
and
excessive
emissions.
When
the
system
detects
an
increase
in
relative
PM
emissions
greater
than
a
preset
level,
an
alarm
sounds
automatically.
The
FF
would
be
required
to
then
be
inspected
to
determine
if
corrective
action
is
necessary.
We
believe
that
the
monitoring
of
PM
via
BLDS
is
more
appropriate,
i.
e.,
a
better
technique,
than
monitoring
FF
operating
parameters
such
as
pressure
drop.
Some
other
MACT
standards
require
the
use
of
these
types
of
monitors.
It
should
be
noted
that
BLDS
would
also
be
required
on
positive
pressure
FF,
which
typically
have
multiple
stacks.
We
specifically
seek
comment
on
the
feasibility,
practicality,
and
cost
of
using
BLDS
for
these
types
of
FF;
and
on
alternative
monitoring
options
for
positive
pressure
FF
that
will
provide
a
continuous
indication
of
a
kiln
or
cooler's
compliance
status
with
regard
to
PM.
We
also
seek
comment
on
whether
EPA
Method
9,
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
 
4
(
manual
observation
of
opacity)
should
be
allowed
in
lieu
of
BLDS
for
positive
pressure
FF.
We
are
soliciting
comment
on
requiring
the
application
of
PM
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS)
as
a
method
to
assure
continuous
compliance
with
the
proposed
PM
emission
limits
for
lime
kilns
and
coolers.
Specifically,
we
are
soliciting
comment
on
the
cost
of
PM
CEMS,
and
the
relation
of
a
PM
CEMS
requirement
to
the
PM
emission
limits
that
are
proposed
today.
This
includes
the
level
and
averaging
time
of
a
CEMSbased
PM
emission
limit,
the
methodology
for
deriving
the
limit
from
the
available
data
for
lime
kilns,
and
any
additional
emissions
reductions
that
could
be
expected
as
a
result
of
using
a
PM
CEMS.
We
have
continued
to
learn
about
the
capabilities
and
performance
of
PM
CEMS
through
performing
and
witnessing
field
evaluations
and
through
discussions
with
our
European
counterparts.
We
believe
there
is
sound
evidence
that
PM
CEMS
should
work
on
lime
kilns.
See
the
revisions
we
made
to
the
performance
specification
for
PM
CEMS
(
Performance
Specification
11
(
PS
 
11),
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B,
and
Procedure
2,
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
F)
at
66
FR
64176,
December
12,
2001.
During
the
review
of
a
draft
of
the
proposed
rule
by
the
SBAR
Panel,
small
entity
representatives
and
some
Panel
members
requested
that
we
consider
allowing
COMS
in
lieu
of
requiring
BLDS
and
other
monitoring
requirements
for
PM.
The
proposed
rule
would
allow
the
use
of
COMS
as
an
alternative
to
BLDS,
PM
detectors,
or
the
monitoring
of
ESP
operating
parameters.
However,
we
request
summary
data
on
lime
kiln
opacity
levels
measured
with
a
COMS,
and
we
request
information
on
the
applicability,
advantages,
and
disadvantages
of
using
COMS
and
BLDS
(
such
as
each
method's
sensitivity
or
lack
of
sensitivity,
availability
and
quality
of
promulgated
or
approved
specifications
and
procedures
to
verify
initial
performance,
potential
interferences
or
other
quality
assurance
problems,
inapplicability
to
certain
APCD
designs
or
configurations,
cost,
and
precision
and
accuracy
relative
to
the
operating
system
to
be
monitored
and
the
standards
to
be
proposed).
The
proposed
rule
would
allow
sources
with
FF
or
ESP
to
comply
with
a
15
percent
opacity
operating
limit,
as
an
alternative
to
using
a
BLDS,
a
PM
detector,
or
the
use
of
ESP
operating
parameters.
We
request
comment
on
using
a
COMS
to
monitor
opacity
as
an
emission
limit
(
which
would
act
as
a
surrogate
for
HAP
metals
emissions),
rather
than
as
an
operating
limit,
and
what
an
appropriate
MACT
floor
opacity
limit
would
be.
The
range
of
opacity
levels
under
consideration
as
the
MACT
floor
opacity
limit
for
lime
kilns
would
be
between
10
and
15
percent.
Sensitivity
for
COMS
is
dependent
on
the
path
length
that
the
light
beam
measures;
the
longer
the
path
length,
the
more
sensitive
the
measurement.
Performance
Specification
1
(
PS
 
1),
40
CFR
part
60,
Appendix
B,
gives
the
performance
criteria
for
COMS
used
to
measure
opacity
for
opacity
limitation
standards
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78063
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
but
we
recognize
that
there
are
potential
measurement
errors
associated
with
monitoring
opacity
in
stacks,
especially
for
emission
units
subject
to
opacity
limits
less
than
10
percent.
The
uncertainties
in
measurement
accuracy
result
from
the
following:
(
1)
The
unavailability
of
calibration
attenuators
for
opacity
levels
below
6
percent;
(
2)
the
error
associated
with
the
calibration
error
allowances,
the
zero
and
upscale
drift
specifications,
the
mandatory
drift
adjustment
levels,
and
the
imprecision
associated
with
the
allowed
compensation
for
dirt
accumulation;
and
(
3)
the
minimum
full
scale
range
of
80
percent
required
of
COMS
in
PS
 
1.
Because
of
these
aforementioned
limitations,
COMS
are
generally
considered
good
``
catastrophic''
control
equipment
indicators
using
opacity
generally
above
levels
greater
than
10
percent
opacity.
A
15
percent
opacity
level
is
the
opacity
limit
under
the
NSPS
for
lime
kilns
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
HH)
and
based
on
a
preliminary
analysis,
may
also
be
the
median
opacity
permit
limit
for
the
six
top
performing
lime
kilns.
In
addition,
the
NLA
provided
information
indicating
that
the
opacity
level
of
one
of
the
top
performing
lime
kilns
(
in
terms
of
PM
emissions
and
permit
limit)
often
varies
between
10
and
15
percent.
Finally,
we
acknowledge
that
other
MACT
standards,
such
as
the
Petroleum
Refinery
MACT
(
67
FR
17761)
and
the
Secondary
Aluminum
MACT
(
65
FR
15690),
have
allowed
the
use
of
COMS.
In
the
Petroleum
Refinery
MACT,
the
rule
allows
sources
the
option
to
comply
with
the
NSPS
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
J)
emission
limitations
(
which
includes
various
opacity
limits
for
certain
emission
units)
in
order
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standard.
Another
approach
to
using
a
COMS
that
was
raised
by
some
SBAR
Panel
members
was
to
use
it
in
a
way
similar
to
how
a
BLDS
would
be
used
to
indicate
the
need
for
inspection
and
maintenance
of
the
PM
control
device.
Under
this
approach,
we
would
specify
a
time
period
over
which
a
significant
increase
in
opacity
level
would
trigger
inspection
of
the
PM
control
device
for
leaks
or
other
malfunctions
and
maintenance
(
if
needed).
We
recognize
that
the
COMS
currently
being
used
in
the
lime
manufacturing
industry
have
a
potential
for
error
at
opacities
below
10
percent,
and
that
the
relevant
range
of
opacities
for
the
aforementioned
application
would
be
below
10
percent.
If
COMS
were
allowed
under
the
final
rule,
we
would
prefer
to
set
an
opacity
limit
because
of
the
COMS'
ability
to
directly
measure
opacity,
instead
of
using
the
COMS
in
the
aforementioned
way
(
i.
e.,
similar
to
how
a
BLDS
would
be
used).
However,
we
solicit
comment
on
this
option,
specifically
including
comments
regarding
the
opacity
levels
expected
from
a
kiln
in
compliance
with
the
proposed
PM
limit
and
the
sensitivity
of
COMS
at
those
levels.
In
accordance
with
the
SBAR
Panel's
recommendations,
we
request
comment
on
whether
the
proposed
rule
should
specify
separate,
longer
averaging
time
periods
(
or
greater
frequencies
of
occurrence)
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
operating
parameter
limits,
or
other
alternative
approaches
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
operating
parameter
limits.
For
example,
the
Panel
recommended
that
we
request
comment
on
an
approach
for
demonstrating
compliance
involving
two
tiers
of
standards
for
monitoring
operating
parameters
whereby,
if
the
conditions
of
the
first
monitoring
tier
are
exceeded,
the
facility
operator
would
be
required
to
implement
corrective
actions
specified
in
an
established
plan
to
bring
the
operating
parameter
levels
back
to
established
levels
and,
if
the
conditions
of
the
second
tier
are
exceeded,
the
exceedance
would
constitute
a
violation
of
the
standard
in
question.
The
SBAR
Panel
recommended
that
we
take
comment
about
the
suitability
of
other
PM
control
device
operating
parameters
that
could
be
monitored
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limits
in
lieu
of
or
in
addition
to
the
parameters
proposed
in
today's
rule.
For
example,
small
entity
representatives
suggested
that
for
scrubber­
equipped
kilns,
we
should
consider
allowing
the
monitoring
of
parameters
such
as
wet
scrubber
water
pump
amperage
and
wet
scrubber
exhaust
gas
outlet
temperature
in
lieu
of
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate.
In
addition,
sources
may
request
approval
of
alternative
monitoring
methods
according
to
section
40
CFR
63.8(
f).

2.
PM
From
MPO
Since
the
MACT
basis
for
these
emission
units
is
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
the
performance
test
requirements
for
PM,
opacity,
and
visible
emissions
are
based
in
part
on
those
in
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
with
additional
requirements
as
well.
Further,
as
is
required
under
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
the
performance
test
measurement
of
opacity
from
certain
MPO,
including
fugitive
emission
units,
using
EPA
Method
9,
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
We
request
comment
on
the
suitability
of
using
Method
9
for
fugitive
emission
units,
and
whether
other
visual
opacity
measurement
methods
or
techniques
may
be
more
suitable,
such
as
provisions
from
proposed
EPA
Methods
203A,
203B,
and/
or
203C,
58
FR
61640,
January
6,
1994.
For
MPO
subject
to
a
PM
emission
limit
and
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
be
required
to
collect
and
record
the
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
the
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
during
the
PM
performance
test
and
then
establish
the
3­
hour
operating
limit
for
each
of
these
parameters
based
on
the
data.
Pressure
drop
and
flow
rate
provide
an
indication
of
the
scrubber's
performance
and
consequently
PM
emissions
as
well.
For
MPO
subject
to
opacity
limitations
which
do
not
use
a
wet
scrubber
control
device,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
1­
minute
visible
emissions
check
of
each
emission
unit
similar
to
the
requirements
under
Method
22,
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A7.
The
frequency
of
these
checks
is
monthly
but
diminishes
for
the
emission
unit
if
no
visible
emissions
are
observed.
If
visible
emissions
are
observed
during
any
visible
emissions
check,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
6­
minute
test
of
opacity
in
accordance
with
Method
9
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
Method
9
test
would
be
required
to
begin
within
1
hour
of
any
observation
of
visible
emissions
and
the
6­
minute
opacity
reading
would
be
required
to
not
exceed
the
applicable
opacity
limit.
Due
to
the
many
MPO
at
each
lime
manufacturing
plant,
this
type
of
periodic
monitoring
for
opacity
was
selected.
This
periodic
approach
to
monitoring
rewards
sources
that
have
no
visible
emissions
by
allowing
the
frequency
of
testing
to
be
reduced.
Finally,
this
monitoring
approach
(
visual
observations
of
opacity
instead
of
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems)
is
similar
to
the
monitoring
regime
used
in
the
NSPS
subpart
OOO,
which
is
the
basis
for
MACT.
Although
we
are
not
compelled
to
use
identical
monitoring
regimes,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
do
so
here
because
it
will
``
reasonably
ensure
compliance
with
the
standard.''
See
National
Lime,
233
F.
3d
at
635.

3.
Other
General
Requirements
The
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan
would
be
required
to
ensure
effective
performance
of
the
air
pollution
control
devices,
monitoring
equipment
(
including
bag
leak
and
PM
detection
equipment),
and
to
minimize
malfunctions.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78064
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
How
Many
Facilities
Are
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?

There
are
approximately
110
lime
manufacturing
plants
in
the
U.
S.,
not
including
lime
production
facilities
at
pulp
and
paper
mills.
About
30
of
these
110
plants
are
located
at
beet
sugar
manufacturing
facilities
which
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
We
estimate
that
70
percent
of
the
remaining
80
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
major
sources,
co­
located
with
major
sources,
or
part
of
major
sources,
and,
thus,
56
lime
manufacturing
plants
would
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
B.
What
Are
the
Air
Quality
Impacts?

We
estimate
that
all
sources
(
not
including
lime
manufacturing
plants
at
beet
sugar
factories)
in
the
lime
manufacturing
source
category
collectively
emit
approximately
9,700
Mg/
yr
(
10,700
tons/
yr)
of
HAP.
These
HAP
estimates
include
emissions
of
HCl
and
HAP
metals
from
existing
sources
and
projected
new
sources
over
the
next
5
years.
We
estimate
that
the
proposed
standards
would
reduce
HAP
metals
emissions
from
the
lime
manufacturing
source
category
by
about
21
Mg/
yr
(
23
tons/
yr),
and
would
reduce
HCl
emissions
by
about
213
Mg/
yr
(
235
tons/
yr).
In
addition,
we
estimate
that
the
proposed
standards
would
reduce
PM
emissions
by
about
14,000
Mg/
yr
(
16,000
tons/
yr)
from
a
baseline
level
of
29,000
Mg/
yr
(
32,000
tons/
yr),
and
the
proposed
standards
would
reduce
SO2
emissions
by
about
3,400
Mg/
yr
(
3,700
tons/
yr)
from
a
baseline
of
128,000
Mg/
yr
(
141,000
tons/
yr).
The
roughly
2
percent
decrease
in
HCl
and
SO2
emissions
is
the
projected
result
of
uncontrolled
sources
installing
baghouses
to
comply
with
the
proposed
PM
standards.
Tables
1
and
2
summarize
the
baseline
emissions
and
emissions
reductions
(
or
increases,
in
parentheses)
estimates,
in
English
and
Metric
units,
respectively.

TABLE
1.
 
TOTAL
NATIONAL
BASELINE
EMISSIONS
AND
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
FOR
BOTH
NEW
AND
EXISTING
LIME
MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
[
English
Units]

Emissions
PM
(
tons/
yr)
HAP
metals
(
tons/
yr)
HCl
(
tons/
yr)
SO2
(
tons/
yr)

Baseline
emissions
 
existing
sources
..........................................................................
24,352
31.5
8,541
112,198
Baseline
emissions
 
new
sources
................................................................................
7,508
10.1
2,161
28,779
Total
baseline
emissions
...............................................................................................
31,861
41.6
10,702
140,977
Emissions
reductions
 
existing
sources
......................................................................
12,407
17.7
235
3,700
Emissions
reductions
 
new
sources
.............................................................................
3,154
5.4
0
0
Total
emissions
reductions
............................................................................................
15,561
23
235
3,700
TABLE
2.
 
TOTAL
NATIONAL
BASELINE
EMISSIONS
AND
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
FOR
BOTH
NEW
AND
EXISTING
LIME
MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
[
Metric
Units]

Emissions
PM
(
Mg/
yr)
HAP
metals
(
Mg/
yr)
HCl
(
Mg/
yr)
SO2
(
Mg/
yr)

Baseline
emissions
 
existing
sources
..........................................................................
22,093
28.6
7,748
101,787
Baseline
emissions
 
new
sources
................................................................................
6,811
9.2
1,961
26,108
Total
baseline
emissions
...............................................................................................
28,904
38
9,709
127,895
Emissions
reductions
 
existing
sources
.......................................................................
11,256
16
213
3,356
Emissions
reductions
 
new
sources
.............................................................................
2,861
4.9
0
0
Total
emissions
reductions
............................................................................................
14,117
21
213
3,356
C.
What
Are
the
Water
Impacts?
We
expect
overall
water
consumption
for
existing
sources
to
increase
by
about
4,200
million
gallons
per
year
from
current
levels
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule.
This
estimate
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
sources
will
replace
existing
wet
scrubbers
with
new,
more
efficient
venturi
wet
scrubbers
(
that
require
more
water
flow
rate)
to
comply
with
the
PM
standards.
For
new
sources,
we
expect
no
additional
water
consumption
as
we
do
not
expect
new
sources
to
install
wet
scrubbers
for
PM
control.

D.
What
Are
the
Solid
Waste
Impacts?
As
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule,
solid
waste
would
be
generated
as
additional
PM
is
collected
in
complying
with
the
PM
standards.
We
estimate
that
about
16,000
tons/
yr
of
additional
solid
waste
would
be
generated
as
a
result
of
today's
proposed
rule.
This
estimate
does
not
include
consideration
that
some
of
this
would
most
likely
be
recycled
directly
to
the
lime
kiln
as
feedstock
or
sold
as
byproduct
material
(
agricultural
lime).

E.
What
Are
the
Energy
Impacts?

We
expect
electricity
demand
from
existing
sources
to
increase
by
about
7.2
million
kilowatt­
hours/
yr
(
kWh/
yr)
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule.
This
estimate
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
sources
will
replace
existing
wet
scrubbers
with
new,
more
efficient
venturi
wet
scrubbers
(
that
require
more
electricity).
For
new
sources,
we
expect
an
increase
in
electricity
usage
of
about
0.1
million
kWh/
yr
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule.
This
electricity
demand
is
associated
with
complying
with
the
PM
standards
for
new
sources.

F.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?

The
estimated
total
national
capital
cost
of
today's
proposed
rule
is
$
24.2
million
(
for
large
businesses)
plus
$
11.9
million
for
small
businesses
for
a
total
of
$
36.1
million.
This
capital
cost
applies
to
projected
new
and
existing
sources
and
includes
the
cost
to
purchase
and
install
emissions
control
equipment
(
e.
g.,
existing
PM
control
equipment
upgrades),
monitoring
equipment
(
the
cost
of
the
rule
is
estimated
assuming
bag
leak
and
PM
detectors
would
be
installed
on
all
lime
kilns
located
at
major
sources,
although
other
monitoring
options
are
available,
such
as
COMS),
the
costs
of
initial
performance
tests,
and
emissions
tests
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
06
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78065
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
to
measure
HCl
to
determine
whether
a
source
is
a
major
source
and
hence
subject
to
the
standards.
The
estimated
annualized
costs
of
the
proposed
standards
are
$
22.4
million.
The
annualized
costs
account
for
the
annualized
capital
costs
of
the
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
operation
and
maintenance
costs,
periodic
monitoring
of
materials
handling
operations,
and
annualized
costs
of
the
initial
emissions
testing.

G.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?

The
results
of
our
economic
impact
analysis
indicate
the
average
price
per
ton
for
lime
would
increase
by
2.1
percent
(
or
$
1.17
per
metric
ton)
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
standard
for
lime
manufacturers.
Overall
lime
production
is
projected
to
decrease
by
1.8
percent
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
standard.
Because
of
the
uncertainty
of
control
cost
information
for
large
firms,
we
accounted
for
these
firms
as
a
single
aggregate
firm
in
the
economic
model,
so
it
is
not
plausible
to
estimate
closures
for
large
firms.
However,
among
the
19
small
firms
in
this
industry,
we
project
that
two
firms
are
at
risk
for
closure.
Based
on
the
market
analysis,
we
project
the
annual
social
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
to
be
$
20.2
million.
As
a
result
of
higher
prices
and
lower
consumption
levels,
we
project
the
consumers
of
lime
(
both
domestic
and
foreign)
would
lose
$
19.7
million
annually,
while
domestic
producer
surplus
would
decline
by
$
0.8
million.
Foreign
producers
would
gain
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
regulation
with
profit
increasing
by
$
0.2
million.
For
more
information
regarding
the
economic
impacts,
consult
the
economic
impact
analysis
in
the
docket
for
this
rule.

V.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
would
be
required
to
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligation
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
notified
EPA
that
it
considers
this
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
within
the
meaning
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
EPA
has
submitted
the
action
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
docket
(
see
ADDRESSEES
section
of
this
preamble).

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
we
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
we
consult
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
We
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
If
we
comply
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13132
requires
us
to
provide
to
OMB,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
federalism
summary
impact
statement
(
FSIS).
The
FSIS
would
be
required
to
include
a
description
of
the
extent
of
our
prior
consultation
with
State
and
local
officials,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns
and
the
agency's
position
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation,
and
a
statement
of
the
extent
to
which
the
concerns
of
State
and
local
officials
have
been
met.
Also,
when
we
transmit
a
draft
final
rule
with
federalism
implications
to
OMB
for
review
pursuant
to
Executive
Order
12866,
we
would
be
required
to
include
a
certification
from
the
Agency's
Federalism
Official
stating
that
we
have
met
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13132
in
a
meaningful
and
timely
manner.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
The
proposed
rule
would
not
impose
directly
enforceable
requirements
on
States,
nor
would
it
preempt
them
from
adopting
their
own
more
stringent
programs
to
control
emissions
from
lime
manufacturing
facilities.
Moreover,
States
are
not
required
under
the
CAA
to
take
delegation
of
federal
NESHAP
and
bear
their
implementation
costs,
although
States
are
encouraged
and
often
choose
to
do
so.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
Although
it
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
have
coordinated
with
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
the
proposed
rule
and
we
are
providing
them
an
opportunity
for
comment.
A
summary
of
the
concerns
raised
during
the
notice
and
comment
process
and
our
response
to
those
concerns
will
be
provided
in
the
final
rulemaking
notice.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
There
are
no
lime
manufacturing
plants
located
on
tribal
land.
Thus
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78066
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
would
be
required
to
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
us.
We
interpret
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.
Additionally,
the
proposed
rule
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
would
be
required
to
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least­
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
would
be
required
to
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
would
be
required
to
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
our
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
The
total
cost
to
the
private
sector
is
approximately
$
22.4
million
per
year.
The
proposed
rule
contains
no
mandates
affecting
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
it
contains
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996,
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as
(
1)
A
small
business
as
a
lime
manufacturing
company
with
less
than
500
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Despite
the
determination
that
the
proposed
rule
would
have
no
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
prepared
a
Small
Business
Flexibility
Analysis
that
has
all
the
components
of
an
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(
IRFA).
An
IRFA
examines
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
along
with
regulatory
alternatives
that
could
reduce
that
impact.
The
Small
Business
Flexibility
Analysis
(
which
is
included
in
the
economic
impact
analysis)
is
available
for
review
in
the
docket,
and
is
summarized
below.
Based
on
SBA's
size
definitions
for
the
affected
industries
and
reported
sales
and
employment
data,
EPA
identified
19
of
the
45
companies
owning
potentially
affected
facilities
as
small
businesses.
Eight
of
these
45
companies
manufacture
beet
sugar
(
which
would
not
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule),
three
of
which
are
small
firms.
Further,
an
additional
3
of
the
19
small
companies
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
because
they
do
not
manufacture
lime
in
a
kiln
(
e.
g.,
they
are
only
depot
or
hydration
facilities),
and/
or
we
do
not
expect
them
to
be
major
sources.
It
is
therefore
expected
that
13
small
businesses
would
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
Although
small
businesses
represent
40
percent
of
the
companies
within
the
source
category,
they
are
expected
to
incur
30
percent
of
the
total
industry
annual
compliance
costs
of
$
22.4
million.
The
economic
impact
analysis
we
prepared
for
this
proposed
rule
includes
an
estimate
of
the
changes
in
product
price
and
production
quantities
for
the
firms
that
this
proposed
rule
would
affect.
The
analysis
shows
that
of
the
facilities
owned
by
potentially
affected
small
firms,
two
may
shut
down
rather
than
incur
the
cost
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule.
Because
of
the
nature
of
their
production
processes
and
existing
controls,
we
expect
these
two
firms
will
incur
significantly
higher
compliance
costs
than
the
other
small
firms.
Although
any
facility
closure
is
cause
for
concern,
it
should
be
noted
that
in
general,
the
burden
on
most
small
firms
is
low
when
compared
to
that
of
large
firms.
The
average
annual
compliance
costs
for
all
small
firms
is
$
358,000,
compared
to
$
592,000
per
year
for
large
firms.
If
the
two
small
firms
expected
to
incur
significantly
higher
control
costs
are
excluded,
the
average
annual
compliance
cost
for
the
remaining
firms
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78067
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
would
be
$
205,000,
which
is
much
less
than
the
average
control
costs
for
large
firms.
The
EPA's
efforts
to
minimize
small
business
impacts
have
materially
improved
today's
proposal.
Economic
analysis
of
provisions
under
earlier
consideration
for
inclusion
in
this
proposed
rule
indicated
greater
impacts
on
small
businesses
than
those
proposed
today.
For
the
small
companies
expected
to
incur
compliance
costs,
the
average
total
annual
compliance
cost
would
have
been
roughly
$
567,000
per
small
company
(
compared
with
$
358,000
in
today's
proposal).
About
85
percent
(
11
firms)
of
those
small
businesses
expected
to
incur
compliance
costs
would
have
experienced
an
impact
greater
than
1
percent
of
sales
(
compared
with
69
percent
of
those
small
businesses
in
today's
proposal).
And
77
percent
(
10
firms)
of
those
small
businesses
expected
to
incur
compliance
costs
would
have
experienced
impacts
greater
than
3
percent
of
sales
(
compared
with
31
percent
of
those
small
businesses
in
today's
proposal).
Before
concluding
that
the
Agency
could
properly
certify
today's
rule
under
the
terms
of
the
RFA,
EPA
conducted
outreach
to
small
entities
and
convened
a
Panel
as
required
by
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA
to
obtain
the
advice
and
recommendations
from
representatives
of
the
small
entities
that
potentially
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
requirements.
The
Panel
convened
on
January
22,
2002,
and
was
comprised
of
representatives
from
OMB,
the
SBA
Office
of
Advocacy,
the
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair,
and
the
Emission
Standards
Division
of
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
of
EPA.
The
Panel
solicited
advice
from
eight
small
entity
representatives
(
SER),
including
the
NLA
and
member
companies
and
nonmember
companies
of
the
NLA.
On
January
30,
2002,
the
Panel
distributed
a
package
of
descriptive
and
technical
materials
explaining
the
rule­
in­
progress
to
the
SER.
On
February
19,
2002,
the
Panel
met
with
the
SER
to
hear
their
comments
on
preliminary
options
for
regulatory
flexibility
and
related
information.
The
Panel
also
received
written
comments
from
the
SER
in
response
to
both
the
outreach
materials
and
the
discussions
at
the
meeting.
Consistent
with
RFA/
SBREFA
requirements,
the
Panel
evaluated
the
assembled
materials
and
small­
entity
comments
on
issues
related
to
the
elements
of
the
initial
RFA.
A
copy
of
the
Panel
report
is
included
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
Panel
considered
numerous
regulatory
flexibility
options
in
response
to
concerns
raised
by
the
SER.
The
major
concerns
included
the
affordability
and
technical
feasibility
of
add­
on
controls.
These
are
the
Panel
recommendations
and
EPA's
responses:
 
Recommend
that
the
proposed
rule
should
not
include
the
HCl
work
practice
standard,
invoking
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
CAA.
Response:
The
proposal
does
not
include
an
emission
standard
for
HCl.
 
Recommend
that
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
MPO
in
the
quarry
should
not
be
considered
as
emission
units
under
the
definition
of
affected
source.
Response:
The
MPO
in
the
quarry
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
affected
source.
 
Recommend
that
the
proposed
rule
allow
for
the
``
bubbling''
of
PM
emissions
from
all
of
the
lime
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
lime
plant,
such
that
the
sum
of
all
kilns'
and
coolers'
PM
emissions
at
a
lime
plant
would
be
subject
to
the
PM
emission
limit,
rather
than
each
individual
kiln
and
cooler.
Response:
The
proposed
rule
defines
the
affected
source
as
including
all
kilns
and
coolers
(
among
other
listed
emission
units)
at
the
lime
manufacturing
plant.
This
would
allow
the
source
to
average
emissions
from
the
kilns
and
coolers
for
compliance
determination.
 
Recommend
that
we
request
comment
on
establishing
a
subcategory
because
of
the
potential
increase
in
SO2
and
HCl
emissions
that
may
result
in
complying
with
the
PM
standard.
Response:
We
are
requesting
comment
on
this
issue.
 
Recommend
that
we
undertake
an
analysis
of
the
costs
and
emissions
impacts
of
replacing
scrubbers
with
dry
APCD
and
present
the
results
of
that
analysis
in
the
preamble;
and
that
we
request
comment
on
any
operational,
process,
product,
or
other
technical
and/
or
spatial
constraints
that
would
preclude
installation
of
a
dry
APCD.
Response:
We
are
requesting
comment
on
these
issues
and
have
presented
said
analysis.
 
Recommend
that
the
proposed
rule
allow
a
source
to
use
the
ASTM
HCl
manual
method
for
the
measurement
of
HCl
for
area
source
determinations.
Response:
Today's
proposal
includes
this
provision.
 
Recommend
that
we
clarify
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
that
we
are
not
specifically
requiring
sources
to
test
for
all
HAP
to
make
a
determination
of
whether
the
lime
plant
is
a
major
or
area
source,
and
that
we
solicit
public
comment
on
related
issues.
Response:
Today's
preamble
includes
this
language.
 
Recommend
that
we
solicit
comment
on
providing
the
option
of
using
COMS
in
place
of
BLDS;
recommend
that
we
solicit
comment
on
various
approaches
to
using
COMS;
and
recommend
soliciting
comment
on
what
an
appropriate
opacity
limit
would
be.
Response:
The
preamble
solicits
comment
on
these
issues.
 
Recommend
that
EPA
take
comment
on
other
monitoring
options
or
approaches,
including
the
following:
using
longer
averaging
time
periods
(
or
greater
frequencies
of
occurrence)
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
parameter
limits;
demonstrating
compliance
with
operating
parameter
limits
using
a
two­
tier
approach;
and
the
suitability
of
other
PM
control
device
operating
parameters
that
can
be
monitored
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limits,
in
lieu
of
or
in
addition
to
the
parameters
currently
required
in
the
draft
rule.
Response:
Today's
preamble
solicits
comment
on
these
issues.
 
Recommend
that
the
incorporation
by
reference
of
Chapters
3
and
5
of
the
American
Conference
of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
(
ACGIH)
Industrial
Ventilation
manual
be
removed
from
the
proposed
rule.
Response:
Today's
proposed
rule
does
not
include
this
requirement.
 
Recommend
that
EPA
reevaluate
the
assumptions
used
in
modeling
the
economic
impacts
of
the
standards
and
conduct
a
sensitivity
analysis
using
different
price
and
supply
elasticities
reflective
of
the
industry's
claims
that
there
is
little
ability
to
pass
on
control
costs
to
their
customers,
and
there
is
considerable
opportunity
for
product
substitution
in
a
number
of
the
lime
industry's
markets.
Response:
The
EIA
does
include
the
aforementioned
considerations
and
analyses.
In
summary,
to
better
understand
the
implications
of
the
proposed
rule
from
the
industries'
perspective,
we
engaged
with
the
lime
manufacturing
companies
in
an
exchange
of
information,
including
small
entities,
during
the
overall
rule
development.
Prior
to
convening
the
Panel,
we
had
worked
aggressively
to
minimize
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
consistent
with
our
obligations
under
the
CAA,
and
these
pre­
Panel
efforts
have
been
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.
These
are
summarized
below.
1.
Lime
manufacturing
operations
at
beet
sugar
plants,
of
which
three
are
small
businesses,
would
not
be
affected
sources.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78068
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
2.
Lime
manufacturing
plants
that
produce
hydrated
lime
only
would
not
be
affected
sources
as
well.
3.
We
are
proposing
PM
emission
limits
which
allow
the
affected
source,
including
small
entities,
flexibility
in
choosing
how
they
will
meet
the
emission
limit.
And
in
general,
the
emission
limitations
selected
are
all
based
on
the
MACT
floor,
as
opposed
to
more
costly
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
options
that
we
considered.
An
emission
limit
for
mercury
was
rejected
since
it
would
have
been
based
on
a
beyond­
the­
MACT­
floor
control
option.
4.
We
are
proposing
that
compliance
demonstrations
for
MPO
be
conducted
monthly
rather
than
on
a
daily
basis.
We
believe
this
will
reduce
the
amount
of
records
needed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
rule
when
implemented.
5.
Furthermore,
we
are
proposing
the
minimum
performance
testing
frequency
(
every
5
years),
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
specified
in
the
general
provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
6.
Finally,
many
lime
manufacturing
plants
owned
by
small
businesses
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
standards
because
they
are
area
sources.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
We
have
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
(
2072.01),
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
You
may
also
download
a
copy
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
national
emission
standards.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
development
and
implementation
of
an
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
plan,
which
would
include
inspections
of
the
control
devices
but
would
not
require
any
notifications
or
reports
beyond
those
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
The
recordkeeping
requirements
require
only
the
specific
information
needed
to
determine
compliance.
The
annual
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule)
is
estimated
to
be
7,766
labor
hours
per
year,
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
621,673.
This
estimate
includes
notifications
that
facilities
are
subject
to
the
rule;
notifications
of
performance
tests;
notifications
of
compliance
status,
including
the
results
of
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations
that
do
not
include
performance
tests;
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
reports;
semiannual
compliance
reports;
and
recordkeeping.
Total
capital/
startup
costs
associated
with
the
testing,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR
are
estimated
to
be
$
1,000,000,
with
annualized
costs
of
$
377,933.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to:
(
1)
Review
instructions;
(
2)
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
(
3)
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
(
4)
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
(
5)
search
data
sources;
(
6)
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
(
7)
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
our
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501,
et
seq.,
the
EPA
must
consider
the
paperwork
burden
imposed
by
any
information
collection
request
in
a
proposed
or
final
rule.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington
DC
20460;
or
by
courier,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
6143,
Washington
DC
20460
((
202)
566
 
1700);
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
OMB,
725
17th
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
December
20,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
January
21,
2003.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
proposal.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Public
Law
No.
104
 
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
the
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
the
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
proposed
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
EPA
cites
the
following
standards
in
the
proposed
rule:
EPA
Methods
1,
1A,
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,
4,
5,
5D,
9,
17,
18,
22,
320,
321.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
EPA
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
1A,
2A,
2D,
2F,
2G,
5D,
9,
22,

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78069
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
and
321.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
are
placed
in
the
docket
(
A
 
95
 
41)
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
three
voluntary
consensus
standards
described
below
were
identified
as
acceptable
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981­
Part
10,
``
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses,''
is
cited
in
the
proposed
rule
for
its
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas.
This
part
of
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981­
Part
10
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
Method
3B.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determination
of
Gaseous
Organic
Compounds
by
Direct
Interface
Gas
Chromatography­
Mass
Spectrometry
(
GC/
MS),''
is
appropriate
in
the
cases
described
below
for
inclusion
in
the
proposed
rule
in
addition
to
EPA
Method
18
codified
at
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
for
the
measurement
of
organic
HAP
from
lime
kilns.
The
standard
ASTM
D6420
 
99
will
be
incorporated
by
reference
in
§
63.14.
Similar
to
EPA's
performance­
based
Method
18,
ASTM
D6420
 
99
is
also
a
performance­
based
method
for
measurement
of
gaseous
organic
compounds.
However,
ASTM
D6420
 
99
was
written
to
support
the
specific
use
of
highly
portable
and
automated
GC/
MS.
While
offering
advantages
over
the
traditional
Method
18,
the
ASTM
method
does
allow
some
less
stringent
criteria
for
accepting
GC/
MS
results
than
required
by
Method
18.
Therefore,
ASTM
D6420
 
99
is
a
suitable
alternative
to
Method
18
only
where
the
target
compound(
s)
are
those
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
and
the
target
concentration
is
between
150
parts
per
billion
by
volume
(
ppbv)
and
100
ppmv.
For
target
compound(
s)
not
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
but
potentially
detected
by
mass
spectrometry,
the
proposed
rule
specifies
that
the
additional
system
continuing
calibration
check
after
each
run,
as
detailed
in
Section
10.5.3
of
the
ASTM
method,
must
be
followed,
met,
documented,
and
submitted
with
the
data
report
even
if
there
is
no
moisture
condenser
used
or
the
compound
is
not
considered
water
soluble.
For
target
compound(
s)
not
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
and
not
amenable
to
detection
by
mass
spectrometry,
ASTM
D6420
 
99
does
not
apply.
As
a
result,
EPA
will
cite
ASTM
D6420
 
99
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
will
also
cite
Method
18
as
a
GC
option
in
addition
to
ASTM
D6420
 
99.
This
will
allow
the
continued
use
of
GC
configurations
other
than
GC/
MS.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASTM
D6735
 
01,
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Measurement
of
Gaseous
Chlorides
and
Fluorides
from
Mineral
Calcining
Exhaust
Sources
 
Impinger
Method,''
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
EPA
Method
320
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule
provided
that
the
additional
requirements
described
in
Section
63.7142
of
the
proposed
rule
are
also
addressed
in
the
methodology.
In
addition
to
the
voluntary
consensus
standards
EPA
uses
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
search
for
emissions
measurement
procedures
identified
15
other
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
EPA
determined
that
12
of
these
15
standards
identified
for
measuring
emissions
of
the
HAP
or
surrogates
subject
to
emission
standards
in
the
proposed
rule
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
this
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
adopt
these
standards
for
this
purpose.
The
reasons
for
this
determination
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rule.
Three
of
the
15
voluntary
consensus
standards
identified
in
this
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:
ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
``
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,''
for
EPA
Method
2
(
and
possibly
1);
ASME/
BSR
MFC
12M,
``
Flow
in
Closed
Conduits
Using
Multiport
Averaging
Pitot
Primary
Flowmeters,''
for
EPA
Method
2;
and
ASTM
D6348
 
98,
``
Determination
of
Gaseous
Compounds
by
Extractive
Direct
Interface
Fourier
Transform
(
FTIR)
Spectroscopy,''
for
EPA
Method
320.
The
standard
ASTM
D6348
 
98,
``
Determination
of
Gaseous
Compounds
by
Extractive
Direct
Interface
Fourier
Transform
(
FTIR)
Spectroscopy''
has
been
reviewed
by
the
EPA
and
comments
were
sent
to
ASTM.
Currently,
the
ASTM
Subcommittee
D22
 
03
is
now
undertaking
a
revision
of
ASTM
D6348
 
98.
Upon
successful
ASTM
balloting
and
demonstration
of
technical
equivalency
with
the
EPA
FTIR
methods,
the
revised
ASTM
standard
could
be
incorporated
by
reference
for
EPA
regulatory
applicability.
Section
63.7112
and
Table
4
to
proposed
subpart
AAAAA
list
the
EPA
testing
methods
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
Under
§
§
63.7(
f)
and
63.8(
f)
of
subpart
A
of
the
General
Provisions,
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
test
methods
or
alternative
monitoring
requirements
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
testing
methods,
performance
specifications,
or
procedures.

I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
The
proposed
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Although
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
could
possibly
lead
to
increased
electricity
consumption
as
sources
may
replace
existing
wet
scrubbers
with
venturi
wet
scrubbers
that
require
more
electricity,
the
proposed
rule
would
not
require
that
venturi
scrubbers
be
installed,
and
in
fact,
there
are
some
alternatives
that
may
decrease
electrical
demand.
Further,
the
proposed
rule
would
have
no
effect
on
the
supply
or
distribution
of
energy.
Although
we
considered
certain
fuels
as
potential
bases
for
MACT,
none
of
our
proposed
MACT
determinations
are
based
on
fuels.
Finally,
we
acknowledge
that
an
interpretation
limiting
fuel
use
to
the
top
6
percent
of
``
clean
HAP''
fuels
(
if
they
existed)
could
potentially
have
adverse
implications
on
energy
supply.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
substances,
Incorporation
by
reference,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Lime
manufacturing,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
the
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

Subpart
A
 
[
Amended]

2.
Section
63.14
is
amended
by
adding
paragraphs
(
b)(
27)
and
(
b)(
28)
to
read
as
follows:

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78070
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
63.14
Incorporation
by
reference.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
27)
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determination
of
Gaseous
Organic
Compounds
by
Direct
Interface
Gas
Chromatography
 
Mass
Spectrometry
(
GC/
MS),
IBR
approved
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
for
§
63.7142.
(
28)
ASTM
D6735
 
01,
Standard
Test
Method
for
Measurement
of
Gaseous
Chlorides
and
Fluorides
from
Mineral
Calcining
Exhaust
Sources
 
Impinger
Method,
IBR
approved
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
for
§
63.7142.
*
*
*
*
*
3.
Part
63
is
amended
by
adding
subpart
AAAAA
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
AAAAA
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Lime
Manufacturing
Plants
What
This
Subpart
Covers
Sec.
63.7080
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.7081
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.7082
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
63.7083
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limitations
63.7090
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?

General
Compliance
Requirements
63.7100
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
63.7110
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
63.7111
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
63.7112
What
performance
tests,
design
evaluations,
and
other
procedures
must
I
use?
63.7113
What
are
my
monitoring
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements?
63.7114
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
standard?

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
63.7120
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?
63.7121
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
standard?

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.7130
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7131
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7132
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.7133
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?
Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.7140
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
63.7141
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.7142
What
are
the
requirements
for
claiming
area
source
status?
63.7143
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Emission
Limits
Table
2
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Operating
Limits
Table
3
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Initial
Compliance
with
Emission
Limitations
Table
4
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Requirements
for
Performance
Tests
Table
5
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Continuous
Compliance
with
Operating
Limits
Table
6
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Periodic
Monitoring
for
Compliance
with
Opacity
and
Visible
Emissions
Limits
Table
7
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Requirements
for
Reports
Table
8
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
AAAAA
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.7080
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?

This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
lime
manufacturing
plants.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations.

§
63.7081
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?

(
a)
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
lime
manufacturing
plant
(
LMP)
that
is
a
major
source,
or
that
is
located
at,
or
is
part
of,
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions,
unless
the
LMP
is
located
at
a
kraft
pulp
mill,
soda
pulp
mill
or
beet
sugar
manufacturing
plant.
(
1)
An
LMP
is
an
establishment
engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
lime
product
(
calcium
oxide,
calcium
oxide
with
magnesium
oxide,
or
dead
burned
dolomite)
by
calcination
of
limestone,
dolomite,
shells
or
other
calcareous
substances.
(
2)
A
major
source
of
HAP
is
a
plant
site
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
9.07
megagrams
(
10
tons)
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
22.68
megagrams
(
25
tons)
or
more
per
year
from
all
emission
sources
at
the
plant
site.
(
b)
[
Reserved]
§
63.7082
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
each
existing,
reconstructed,
or
new
LMP
that
is
located
at
a
major
source.
(
b)
The
affected
source
is
the
collection
of
all
of
the
emission
units
listed
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
c)
Emission
units
are
lime
kilns,
lime
coolers
and
materials
processing
operations
(
MPO)
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
d)
Materials
processing
operations
are
raw
material
grinding
mills,
raw
material
storage
bins,
conveying
system
transfer
points,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
systems,
screening
operations,
bucket
elevators
and
belt
conveyors,
except
as
provided
by
paragraphs
(
e)
through
(
g)
of
this
section.
(
e)
Materials
processing
operations
that
process
only
lime
product
or
fuel
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
f)
Truck
dumping
into
any
screening
operation,
feed
hopper
or
crusher
is
not
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
g)
The
first
emission
unit
in
the
sequence
of
MPO
that
is
subject
to
this
subpart
is
the
raw
material
storage
bin.
Any
MPO
which
precedes
the
raw
material
storage
bin
is
not
subject
to
this
subpart.
Furthermore,
the
first
conveyor
transfer
point
subject
to
this
subpart
is
the
transfer
point
associated
with
the
conveyor
transferring
material
from
the
raw
material
storage
bin
to
the
next
emission
unit.
(
h)
Lime
hydrators
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
i)
[
Reserved]
(
j)
A
new
affected
source
is
the
collection
of
all
emission
units
listed
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
for
which
construction
begins
after
December
20,
2002,
if
you
met
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.7081
at
the
time
you
commenced
construction.
(
k)
An
affected
source
is
reconstructed
if
it
meets
the
criteria
for
reconstruction
defined
in
§
63.2.
(
l)
[
Reserved]
(
m)
An
affected
source
is
existing
if
it
is
not
new
or
reconstructed.

§
63.7083
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
If
you
start
up
your
affected
source
before
the
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
no
later
than
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
(
2)
If
you
start
up
your
affected
source
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78071
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
then
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
for
new
and
reconstructed
affected
sources
upon
startup
of
your
affected
source.
(
b)
If
you
have
an
existing
LMP,
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limitations
for
the
existing
affected
source,
and
you
must
have
completed
all
applicable
performance
tests
no
later
than
[
3
years
from
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
The
compliance
date
is
site­
specific
for
existing
LMP
and
is
the
day
following
completion
of
all
the
performance
tests
required
under
§
63.7110(
a).
(
c)
If
you
have
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP,
the
deadlines
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
apply.
(
1)
Any
portion
of
the
LMP
that
is
a
new
affected
source
or
a
reconstructed
affected
source
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
upon
startup.
(
2)
The
emission
units
of
the
existing
LMP
subject
to
emission
limitations
under
this
subpart
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
within
3
years
after
the
source
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP.
(
d)
You
must
meet
the
notification
requirements
in
§
63.7130
according
to
the
schedule
in
§
63.7130
and
in
subpart
A
of
this
part.
Some
of
the
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
you
are
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
this
subpart.

Emission
Limitations
§
63.7090
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?
(
a)
You
must
meet
each
emission
limitation
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
You
must
meet
each
operating
limit
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7100
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
(
including
operating
limits)
in
this
subpart
at
all
times,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
b)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
opacity
and
visible
emission
limits
in
this
subpart
during
the
times
specified
in
§
63.6(
h)(
1).
(
c)
You
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i).
(
d)
You
must
prepare
and
implement
for
each
LMP,
a
written
operations,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
(
OM&
M)
plan.
You
must
submit
the
plan
to
the
applicable
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval
as
part
of
the
application
for
a
40
CFR
part
70
or
40
CFR
part
71
permit.
Any
subsequent
changes
to
the
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
applicable
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval.
Pending
approval
by
the
applicable
permitting
authority
of
an
initial
or
amended
plan,
you
must
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
submitted
plan.
Each
plan
must
contain
the
following
information:
(
1)
Process
and
control
device
parameters
to
be
monitored
to
determine
compliance,
along
with
established
operating
limits
or
ranges,
as
applicable,
for
each
emission
unit.
(
2)
A
monitoring
schedule
for
each
emission
unit.
(
3)
Procedures
for
the
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
each
emission
unit
and
each
air
pollution
control
device
used
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limitations
and
operating
limits
in
Tables
1
and
2
to
this
subpart,
respectively.
(
4)
Procedures
for
the
proper
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
monitoring
devices
or
systems
used
to
determine
compliance,
including:
(
i)
Calibration
and
certification
of
accuracy
of
each
monitoring
device;
(
ii)
Performance
and
equipment
specifications
for
the
sample
interface,
parametric
signal
analyzer,
and
the
data
collection
and
reduction
systems;
(
iii)
Ongoing
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.8(
c)(
1),
(
3),
and
(
4)(
ii);
and
(
iv)
Ongoing
data
quality
assurance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.8(
d).
(
5)
Procedures
for
monitoring
process
and
control
device
parameters.
(
6)
Corrective
actions
to
be
taken
when
process
or
operating
parameters
or
add­
on
control
device
parameters
deviate
from
the
operating
limits
specified
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart,
including:
(
i)
Procedures
to
determine
and
record
the
cause
of
a
deviation
or
excursion,
and
the
time
the
deviation
or
excursion
began
and
ended;
and
(
ii)
Procedures
for
recording
the
corrective
action
taken,
the
time
corrective
action
was
initiated,
and
the
time
and
date
the
corrective
action
was
completed.
(
7)
A
maintenance
schedule
for
each
emission
unit
and
control
device
that
is
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
instructions
and
recommendations
for
routine
and
long­
term
maintenance.
(
e)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
SSMP)
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).

Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7110
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?

(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
complete
all
applicable
performance
tests
within
3
years
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
§
63.7(
a)(
2)
and
63.7114.
(
b)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
an
LMP
between
December
20,
2002
and
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
either
the
proposed
emission
limitation
or
the
promulgated
emission
limitation
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
or
within
180
calendar
days
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix)
and
63.7114.
(
c)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
December
20,
2002
and
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
and
you
chose
to
comply
with
the
proposed
emission
limitation
when
demonstrating
initial
compliance,
you
must
conduct
a
demonstration
of
compliance
with
the
promulgated
emission
limitation
within
3
years
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register]
or
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix)
and
63.7114.
(
d)
For
each
emission
limitation
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
where
the
monitoring
averaging
period
is
3
hours,
the
3­
hour
period
for
demonstrating
continuous
compliance
for
emission
units
within
existing
affected
sources
at
LMP
begins
at
12:
01
a.
m.
on
the
compliance
date
for
existing
affected
sources,
that
is,
the
day
following
completion
of
the
initial
performance
test(
s),
and
ends
at
3:
01
a.
m.
on
the
same
day.
(
e)
For
each
emission
limitation
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
where
the
monitoring
averaging
period
is
3
hours,
the
3­
hour
period
for
demonstrating
continuous
compliance
for
emission
units
within
new
or
reconstructed
affected
sources
at
LMP
begins
at
12:
01
a.
m.
on
the
day
following
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
tests,
as
required
in
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78072
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
section,
and
ends
at
3:
01
a.
m.
on
the
same
day.

§
63.7111
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
You
must
conduct
a
performance
test
within
5
years
following
the
initial
performance
test
and
within
5
years
following
each
subsequent
performance
test
thereafter.

§
63.7112
What
performance
tests,
design
evaluations,
and
other
procedures
must
I
use?
(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
Each
performance
test
must
be
conducted
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
under
the
specific
conditions
specified
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart.
(
c)
You
may
not
conduct
performance
tests
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1).
(
d)
Except
for
opacity
and
visible
emission
observations,
you
must
conduct
three
separate
test
runs
for
each
performance
test
required
in
this
section,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
3).
Each
test
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour.
(
e)
The
emission
rate
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
from
the
lime
kiln
(
and
the
lime
cooler
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
lime
cooler)
must
be
computed
for
each
run
using
Equation
1
of
this
section:

E
CQ
CQ
PK
Eq
k
k
c
c
=
+
(
)/
(
.
1)

Where:
E
=
Emission
rate
of
PM,
kg/
Mg
(
lb/
ton)
of
stone
feed.
Ck
=
Concentration
of
PM
in
the
kiln
effluent,
g/
dscm
(
grain/
dscf).
Qk
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
kiln
effluent
gas,
dscm/
hr
(
dscf/
hr).
Cc
=
Concentration
of
PM
in
the
cooler
effluent,
g/
dscm
(
grain/
dscf).
This
value
is
zero
if
there
is
not
a
separate
cooler
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere.
Qc
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
cooler
effluent
gas,
dscm/
hr
(
dscf/
hr).
This
value
is
zero
if
there
is
not
a
separate
cooler
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere.
P
=
Stone
feed
rate,
Mg/
hr
(
ton/
hr).
K
=
Conversion
factor,
1000
g/
kg
(
7000
grains/
lb).
(
f)
The
combined
particulate
emission
rate
from
all
kilns
and
coolers
within
an
existing
affected
source
at
an
LMP
must
be
calculated
using
Equation
2
of
this
section:

E
EP
P
Eq
T
ii
i
i
n
i
n
=
=
=
 
 
/
(
.

1
1
2)
Where:
ET
=
Emission
rate
of
PM
from
all
kilns
and
coolers
at
an
existing
LMP,
kg/
Mg
(
lb/
ton)
of
stone
feed.
Ei
=
Emission
rate
of
PM
from
kiln
i,
or
from
kiln/
cooler
combination
i,
kg/
Mg
(
lb/
ton)
of
stone
feed.
Pi
=
Stone
feed
rate
to
kiln
i,
Mg/
hr
(
ton/
hr).
n
=
Number
of
existing
kilns
at
the
existing
affected
source.
(
g)
The
combined
particulate
emission
rate
from
all
new
or
reconstructed
kilns
and
coolers
must
be
calculated
using
Equation
3
of
this
section:

E
EP
P
Eq
TN
j
j
j
j
m
j
m
=
=
=
 
 
/
(
.
3)

1
1
Where:
ETN
=
Emission
rate
of
PM
from
all
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
or
reconstructed
LMP,
kg/
Mg
(
lb/
ton)
of
stone
feed.
Ej
=
Emission
rate
of
PM
from
kiln
j,
or
from
kiln/
cooler
combination
j,
kg/
Mg
(
lb/
ton)
of
stone
feed.
Pj
=
Stone
feed
rate
to
kiln
j,
Mg/
hr
(
ton/
hr).
m
=
Number
of
kilns
and
kiln/
cooler
combinations
within
the
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source.
(
h)
Performance
test
results
must
be
documented
in
complete
test
reports
that
contain
the
information
required
by
paragraphs
(
h)(
1)
through
(
10)
of
this
section,
as
well
as
all
other
relevant
information.
The
plan
to
be
followed
during
testing
must
be
made
available
to
the
Administrator
at
least
60
days
prior
to
testing,
if
requested.
(
1)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
and
the
air
pollution
control
system;
(
2)
Sampling
location
description(
s);
(
3)
A
description
of
sampling
and
analytical
procedures
and
any
modifications
to
standard
procedures;
(
4)
Test
results,
including
opacity;
(
5)
Quality
assurance
procedures
and
results;
(
6)
Records
of
operating
conditions
during
the
test,
preparation
of
standards,
and
calibration
procedures;
(
7)
Raw
data
sheets
for
field
sampling
and
field
and
laboratory
analyses;
(
8)
Documentation
of
calculations;
(
9)
All
data
recorded
and
used
to
establish
operating
limits;
and
(
10)
Any
other
information
required
by
the
test
method.
(
i)
[
Reserved]
(
j)
You
must
establish
any
applicable
3­
hour
rolling
average
operating
limit
indicated
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart
according
to
the
applicable
requirements
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
and
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Continuously
record
the
parameter
during
the
PM
performance
test
and
include
the
parameter
record(
s)
in
the
performance
test
report.
(
2)
Determine
the
average
parameter
value
for
each
15­
minute
period
of
each
test
run.
(
3)
Calculate
the
test
run
average
for
the
parameter
by
taking
the
average
of
all
the
15­
minute
parameter
values
for
the
run.
(
4)
Calculate
the
3­
hour
operating
limit
by
taking
the
average
of
the
three
test
run
averages.
(
k)
For
each
building
enclosing
any
MPO
that
is
subject
to
a
visible
emission
(
VE)
limit,
you
must
conduct
a
VE
check
according
to
item
18
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
and
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
k)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Conduct
visual
inspections
that
consist
of
a
visual
survey
of
the
building
over
the
test
period
to
identify
if
there
are
VE,
other
than
condensed
water
vapor.
(
2)
Select
a
position
at
least
15
but
not
more
than
1,320
feet
from
each
side
of
the
building
with
the
sun
or
other
light
source
generally
at
your
back.
(
3)
The
observer
conducting
the
VE
checks
need
not
be
certified
to
conduct
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
but
must
meet
the
training
requirements
as
described
in
Method
22
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.

§
63.7113
What
are
my
monitoring
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements?

(
a)
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
according
to
your
OM&
M
plan
required
by
§
63.7100(
d)
and
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section,
and
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
as
required
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
General
Provisions
and
according
to
PS
 
1
of
appendix
B
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
(
1)
The
CPMS
must
complete
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
15
minute
period.
(
2)
To
calculate
a
valid
hourly
value,
you
must
have
at
least
three
of
four
equally
spaced
data
values
for
that
hour
from
a
CPMS
that
is
not
out
of
control
according
to
your
OM&
M
plan.
(
3)
To
calculate
the
average
for
each
3­
hour
averaging
period,
you
must
have
at
least
two
of
three
of
the
hourly
averages
for
that
period
using
only
hourly
average
values
that
are
based
on
valid
data
(
i.
e.,
not
from
out­
of­
control
periods).
The
3­
hour
rolling
average
is
updated
each
hour.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
EP20DE02.000</
MATH>
EP20DE02.001</
MATH>
EP20DE02.002</
MATH>
78073
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
4)
You
must
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
CPMS
in
accordance
with
your
OM&
M
plan.
(
5)
You
must
operate
and
maintain
the
CPMS
in
continuous
operation
according
to
the
OM&
M
plan.
(
b)
For
each
flow
measurement
device,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
and
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Use
a
flow
sensor
with
a
minimum
tolerance
of
2
percent
of
the
flow
rate.
(
2)
Reduce
swirling
flow
or
abnormal
velocity
distributions
due
to
upstream
and
downstream
disturbances.
(
3)
Conduct
a
flow
sensor
calibration
check
at
least
semiannually.
(
4)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
c)
For
each
pressure
measurement
device,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
and
(
c)(
1)
through
(
7)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Locate
the
pressure
sensor(
s)
in
or
as
close
to
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
pressure.
(
2)
Minimize
or
eliminate
pulsating
pressure,
vibration,
and
internal
and
external
corrosion.
(
3)
Use
a
gauge
with
a
minimum
tolerance
of
0.5
inch
of
water
or
a
transducer
with
a
minimum
tolerance
of
1
percent
of
the
pressure
range.
(
4)
Check
pressure
tap
pluggage
daily.
(
5)
Using
a
manometer,
check
gauge
calibration
quarterly
and
transducer
calibration
monthly.
(
6)
Conduct
calibration
checks
any
time
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
pressure
range
or
install
a
new
pressure
sensor.
(
7)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
d)
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system,
you
must
meet
any
applicable
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
and
(
d)(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
PM
emissions
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(
0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
(
2)
The
sensor
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
must
provide
output
of
relative
PM
emissions.
(
3)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
have
an
alarm
that
will
sound
automatically
when
it
detects
an
increase
in
relative
PM
emissions
greater
than
a
preset
level.
(
4)
The
alarm
must
be
located
in
an
area
where
appropriate
plant
personnel
will
be
able
to
hear
it.
(
5)
For
a
positive­
pressure
fabric
filter,
each
compartment
or
cell
must
have
a
bag
leak
detector.
For
a
negativepressure
or
induced­
air
fabric
filter,
the
bag
leak
detector
must
be
installed
downstream
of
the
fabric
filter.
If
multiple
bag
leak
detectors
are
required
(
for
either
type
of
fabric
filter),
detectors
may
share
the
system
instrumentation
and
alarm.
(
6)
Bag
leak
detection
systems
must
be
installed,
operated,
adjusted,
and
maintained
so
that
they
follow
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
Standard
operating
procedures
must
be
incorporated
into
the
OM&
M
plan.
(
7)
At
a
minimum,
initial
adjustment
of
the
system
must
consist
of
establishing
the
baseline
output
in
both
of
the
following
ways:
(
i)
Adjust
the
range
and
the
averaging
period
of
the
device.
(
ii)
Establish
the
alarm
set
points
and
the
alarm
delay
time.
(
8)
After
initial
adjustment,
the
range,
averaging
period,
alarm
set
points,
or
alarm
delay
time
may
not
be
adjusted
except
as
specified
in
the
OM&
M
plan
required
by
§
63.7100(
d).
In
no
event
may
the
range
be
increased
by
more
than
100
percent
or
decreased
by
more
than
50
percent
over
a
365
day
period
unless
a
responsible
official,
as
defined
in
§
63.2,
certifies
in
writing
to
the
Administrator
that
the
fabric
filter
has
been
inspected
and
found
to
be
in
good
operating
condition.
(
e)
For
each
PM
detector,
you
must
meet
any
applicable
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
and
(
e)(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
PM
detector
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
PM
emissions
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(
0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
(
2)
The
sensor
on
the
PM
detector
must
provide
output
of
relative
PM
emissions.
(
3)
The
PM
detector
must
have
an
alarm
that
will
sound
automatically
when
it
detects
an
increase
in
relative
PM
emissions
greater
than
a
preset
level.
(
4)
The
alarm
must
be
located
in
an
area
where
appropriate
plant
personnel
will
be
able
to
hear
it.
(
5)
For
a
positive­
pressure
electrostatic
precipitator
(
ESP),
each
compartment
must
have
a
PM
detector.
For
a
negative­
pressure
or
induced­
air
ESP,
the
PM
detector
must
be
installed
downstream
of
the
ESP.
If
multiple
PM
detectors
are
required
(
for
either
type
of
ESP),
detectors
may
share
the
system
instrumentation
and
alarm.
(
6)
Particulate
matter
detectors
must
be
installed,
operated,
adjusted,
and
maintained
so
that
they
follow
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
Standard
operating
procedures
must
be
incorporated
into
the
OM&
M
plan.
(
7)
At
a
minimum,
initial
adjustment
of
the
system
must
consist
of
establishing
the
baseline
output
in
both
of
the
following
ways:
(
i)
Adjust
the
range
and
the
averaging
period
of
the
device.
(
ii)
Establish
the
alarm
set
points
and
the
alarm
delay
time.
(
8)
After
initial
adjustment,
the
range,
averaging
period,
alarm
set
points,
or
alarm
delay
time
may
not
be
adjusted
except
as
specified
in
the
OM&
M
plan
required
by
§
63.7100(
d).
In
no
event
may
the
range
be
increased
by
more
than
100
percent
or
decreased
by
more
than
50
percent
over
a
365­
day
period
unless
a
responsible
official
as
defined
in
§
63.2
certifies
in
writing
to
the
Administrator
that
the
ESP
has
been
inspected
and
found
to
be
in
good
operating
condition.
(
f)
For
each
emission
unit
equipped
with
an
add­
on
air
pollution
control
device,
you
must
inspect
each
capture/
collection
and
closed
vent
system
at
least
once
each
calendar
year
to
ensure
that
each
system
is
operating
in
accordance
with
the
operating
requirements
in
item
6
of
Table
2
to
this
subpart
and
record
the
results
of
each
inspection.
(
g)
For
each
COMS
used
to
monitor
an
add­
on
air
pollution
control
device,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
g)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Install
the
COMS
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device.
(
2)
Install,
maintain,
calibrate,
and
operate
the
COMS
as
required
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
General
Provisions
and
according
to
PS
 
1
of
appendix
B
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.

§
63.7114
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
standard?
(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
Table
3
to
this
subpart.
(
b)
You
must
establish
each
sitespecific
operating
limit
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7112(
j)
and
Table
4
to
this
subpart.
(
c)
You
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
containing
the
results
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7130(
e).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78074
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7120
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

(
a)
You
must
monitor
and
collect
data
according
to
this
section.
(
b)
Except
for
monitor
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
(
including,
as
applicable,
calibration
checks
and
required
zero
adjustments),
you
must
monitor
continuously
(
or
collect
data
at
all
required
intervals)
at
all
times
that
the
emission
unit
is
operating.
(
c)
You
may
not
use
data
recorded
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
in
data
averages
and
calculations
used
to
report
emission
or
operating
levels,
nor
may
such
data
be
used
in
fulfilling
a
minimum
data
availability
requirement,
if
applicable.
You
must
use
all
the
data
collected
during
all
other
periods
in
assessing
the
operation
of
the
control
device
and
associated
control
system.

§
63.7121
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
standard?

(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation
in
Tables
1
and
2
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
according
to
the
methods
specified
in
Tables
5
and
6
to
this
subpart.
(
b)
You
must
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE
limit
in
Tables
2
and
6
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
These
instances
are
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
in
this
subpart.
These
deviations
must
be
reported
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7131.
(
c)
During
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
you
must
operate
in
accordance
with
the
SSMP.
(
d)
Consistent
with
§
§
63.6(
e)
and
63.7(
e)(
1),
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
violations
if
you
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
accordance
with
the
SSMP.
The
Administrator
will
determine
whether
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
violations,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e).
(
e)
For
each
MPO
subject
to
an
opacity
limitation
as
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
and
any
vents
from
buildings
subject
to
an
opacity
limitation,
you
must
conduct
a
VE
check
according
to
item
1
in
Table
6
to
this
subpart,
and
as
follows:
(
1)
Conduct
visual
inspections
that
consist
of
a
visual
survey
of
each
stack
or
process
emission
point
over
the
test
period
to
identify
if
there
are
visible
emissions,
other
than
condensed
water
vapor.
(
2)
Select
a
position
at
least
15
but
not
more
1,320
feet
from
the
affected
emission
point
with
the
sun
or
other
light
source
generally
at
your
back.
(
3)
The
observer
conducting
the
VE
checks
need
not
be
certified
to
conduct
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
but
must
meet
the
training
requirements
as
described
in
Method
22
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.

Notification,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.7130
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?

(
a)
You
must
submit
all
of
the
notifications
in
§
§
63.6(
h)(
4)
and
(
5),
63.7(
b)
and
(
c),
63.8(
e),
(
f)(
4)
and
(
6),
and
63.9
(
a)
through
(
j)
that
apply
to
you
by
the
dates
specified.
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2),
if
you
start
up
your
affected
source
before
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
submit
an
Initial
Notification
not
later
than
120
calendar
days
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
(
c)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
3),
if
you
startup
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
on
or
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
submit
an
Initial
Notification
not
later
than
120
calendar
days
after
you
startup
your
affected
source.
(
d)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
required
in
§
63.7(
b)(
1).
(
e)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
design
evaluation,
opacity
observation,
VE
observation,
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration
as
specified
in
Table
3
or
4
to
this
subpart,
you
must
submit
a
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
according
to
§
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii).
(
1)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
required
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
that
does
not
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(
2)
For
each
compliance
demonstration
required
in
Table
5
to
this
subpart
that
includes
a
performance
test
conducted
according
to
the
requirements
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
you
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status,
including
the
performance
test
results,
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
2).

§
63.7131
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
(
a)
You
must
submit
each
report
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule
for
submission
of
reports
under
§
63.10(
a),
you
must
submit
each
report
by
the
date
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart
and
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section:
(
1)
The
first
compliance
report
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.7083
and
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
first
half
calendar
year
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
source
in
§
63.7083.
(
2)
The
first
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
follows
the
end
of
the
first
half
calendar
year
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.7083.
(
3)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
4)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
5)
For
each
affected
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
chapter,
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
c)
The
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78075
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
SSMP,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
(
5)
If
there
are
no
deviations
from
any
emission
limitations
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE
limit)
that
apply
to
you,
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
during
the
reporting
period.
(
6)
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
operating
parameter
monitoring
systems
was
out­
of­
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
the
which
the
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
d)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE
limit)
that
occurs
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
not
using
a
CMS
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
this
subpart,
the
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
4)
and
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
1)
The
total
operating
time
of
each
emission
unit
during
the
reporting
period.
(
2)
Information
on
the
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
deviations
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable),
as
applicable,
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
(
e)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE
limit)
occurring
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
using
a
CMS
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
you
must
include
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
4)
and
(
e)(
1)
through
(
12)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
1)
The
date
and
time
that
each
malfunction
started
and
stopped.
(
2)
The
date
and
time
that
each
CMS
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
lowlevel
and
high­
level
checks.
(
3)
The
date,
time
and
duration
that
each
CMS
was
out­
of­
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
4)
The
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
5)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviation
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
6)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
during
the
reporting
period
into
those
that
are
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
7)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
CMS
downtime
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
of
CMS
downtime
as
a
percent
of
the
total
emission
unit
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
8)
An
identification
of
each
HAP
that
was
monitored
at
the
affected
source.
(
9)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
units.
(
10)
A
brief
description
of
the
CMS.
(
11)
The
date
of
the
latest
CMS
certification
or
audit.
(
12)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
CMS,
processes,
or
controls
since
the
last
reporting
period.
(
f)
Each
facility
that
has
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
pursuant
to
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
chapter.
If
you
submit
a
compliance
report
specified
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
chapter,
and
the
compliance
report
includes
all
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
emission
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit),
submission
of
the
compliance
report
shall
be
deemed
to
satisfy
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
a
compliance
report
shall
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
you
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
to
the
permit
authority.

§
63.7132
What
records
must
I
keep?

(
a)
You
must
keep
the
records
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
A
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
that
you
submitted
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
including
all
documentation
supporting
any
Initial
Notification
or
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
that
you
submitted,
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv).
(
2)
The
records
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iii)
through
(
v)
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
3)
Records
of
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
and
opacity
and
VE
observations
as
required
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
viii).
(
b)
You
must
keep
the
records
in
§
63.6(
h)(
6)
for
VE
observations.
(
c)
You
must
keep
the
records
required
by
Tables
5
and
6
to
this
subpart
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation
that
applies
to
you.
(
d)
You
must
keep
the
records
which
document
the
basis
for
the
initial
applicability
determination
as
required
under
§
63.7081.

§
63.7133
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

(
a)
Your
records
must
be
in
a
form
suitable
and
readily
available
for
expeditious
review,
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.10(
b)(
1),
you
must
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
(
c)
You
must
keep
each
record
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record,
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
You
may
keep
the
records
offsite
for
the
remaining
3
years.

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.7140
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?

(
a)
Table
8
to
this
subpart
shows
which
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
in
§
§
63.1
through
63.15
apply
to
you.
When
there
is
overlap
between
subpart
A
and
subpart
AAAAA,
as
indicated
in
the
``
Explanations''
column
in
Table
8,
subpart
AAAAA
takes
precedence.
(
b)
[
Reserved]

§
63.7141
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
us,
the
U.
S.
EPA,
or
by
a
delegated
authority
such
as
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
If
the
U.
S.
EPA
Administrator
has
delegated
authority
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency,
then
that
agency
(
as
well
as
the
U.
S.
EPA)
has
the
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
this
subpart.
You
should
contact
your
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Office
to
find
out
if
this
subpart
is
delegated
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
b)
In
delegating
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
of
this
subpart
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency
under
subpart
E
of
this
part,
the
authorities
contained
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78076
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
section
are
retained
by
the
Administrator
of
U.
S.
EPA
and
are
not
transferred
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
c)
The
authorities
that
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
are
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Approval
of
alternatives
to
the
non­
opacity
emission
limitations
in
§
63.7090(
a).
(
2)
Approval
of
alternative
opacity
emission
limitations
in
§
63.7090(
a).
(
3)
Approval
of
alternatives
to
the
operating
limits
in
§
63.7090(
b).
(
4)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
5)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
6)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.

§
63.7142
What
are
the
requirements
for
claiming
area
source
status?
(
a)
If
you
wish
to
claim
that
your
LMP
is
an
area
source,
you
must
measure
the
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
from
all
lime
kilns
at
your
plant
using
either:
(
1)
EPA
Method
320
of
appendix
A
to
this
part,
(
2)
EPA
Method
321
of
appendix
A
to
this
part,
or
(
3)
ASTM
Method
D6735
 
01,
Standard
Test
Method
for
Measurement
of
Gaseous
Chlorides
and
Fluorides
from
Mineral
Calcining
Exhaust
Sources
 
Impinger
Method
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14),
provided
that
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
are
followed.
(
i)
A
test
must
include
three
or
more
runs
in
which
a
pair
of
samples
is
obtained
simultaneously
for
each
run
according
to
section
11.2.6
of
ASTM
Method
D6735
 
01
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14).
(
ii)
You
must
calculate
the
test
run
standard
deviation
of
each
set
of
paired
samples
to
quantify
data
precision,
according
to
Equation
1
of
this
section:

RSD
C
C
C
Eq
a
a
a
a
=
 
+
 
 
 
 
 
 
(
)
(
.
100
2
1
2
Absolute
Value
C1
1)
a
Where:
RSDa
=
The
test
run
relative
standard
deviation
of
sample
pair
a,
percent.
C1a
and
C2a
=
The
HCl
concentrations,
mg/
dscm,
from
the
paired
samples.
(
iii)
You
must
calculate
the
test
average
relative
standard
deviation
according
to
Equation
2
of
this
section:

RSD
RSD
p
Eq
TA
a
a
p
=
=
 

1
(
.
2)

Where:
RSDTA
=
The
test
average
relative
standard
deviation,
percent.
RSDa
=
The
test
run
relative
standard
deviation
for
sample
pair
a.
p
=
The
number
of
test
runs,
 
3.
(
iv)
If
RSDTA
is
greater
than
20
percent,
the
data
are
invalid
and
the
test
must
be
repeated.
(
v)
The
post­
test
analyte
spike
procedure
of
section
11.2.7
of
ASTM
Method
D6735
 
01
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14)
is
conducted,
and
the
percent
recovery
is
calculated
according
to
section
12.6
of
ASTM
Method
D6735
 
01
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14).
(
vi)
If
the
percent
recovery
is
between
70
percent
and
130
percent,
inclusive,
the
test
is
valid.
If
the
percent
recovery
is
outside
of
this
range,
the
data
are
considered
invalid,
and
the
test
must
be
repeated.
(
b)
If
you
conduct
tests
to
determine
the
rates
of
emission
of
specific
organic
HAP
from
lime
kilns
at
LMP
for
use
in
applicability
determinations
under
§
63.7081,
you
may
use
either:
(
1)
Method
320
of
appendix
A
to
this
part,
or
(
2)
Method
18
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
or
(
3)
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determination
of
Gaseous
Organic
Compounds
by
Direct
Interface
Gas
Chromatography­
Mass
Spectrometry
(
GC/
MS),
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14),
provided
that
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
are
followed:
(
i)
The
target
compound(
s)
are
those
listed
in
section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14);
(
ii)
The
target
concentration
is
between
150
parts
per
billion
by
volume
and
100
ppmv;
(
iii)
For
target
compound(
s)
not
listed
in
Table
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14),
but
potentially
detected
by
mass
spectrometry,
the
additional
system
continuing
calibration
check
after
each
run,
as
detailed
in
section
10.5.3
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14),
is
conducted,
met,
documented,
and
submitted
with
the
data
report,
even
if
there
is
no
moisture
condenser
used
or
the
compound
is
not
considered
water
soluble;
and
(
iv)
For
target
compound(
s)
not
listed
in
Table
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14),
and
not
amenable
to
detection
by
mass
spectrometry,
ASTM
D6420
 
99
(
incorporated
by
reference
 
see
§
63.14)
may
not
be
used.

§
63.7143
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
in
§
63.2,
and
in
this
section
as
follows:
Bag
leak
detector
means
the
monitoring
device
and
system
for
a
fabric
filter
that
identifies
an
increase
in
PM
emissions
resulting
from
a
broken
filter
bag
or
other
malfunction
and
sounds
an
alarm.
Belt
conveyor
means
a
conveying
device
that
transports
material
from
one
location
to
another
by
means
of
an
endless
belt
that
is
carried
on
a
series
of
idlers
and
routed
around
a
pulley
at
each
end.
Bucket
elevator
means
a
material
conveying
device
consisting
of
a
head
and
foot
assembly
which
supports
and
drives
an
endless
single
or
double
strand
chain
or
belt
to
which
buckets
are
attached.
Building
means
any
frame
structure
with
a
roof.
Capture
system
means
the
equipment
(
including
enclosures,
hoods,
ducts,
fans,
dampers,
etc.)
used
to
capture
and
transport
PM
generated
by
one
or
more
process
operations
to
a
control
device.
Control
device
means
the
air
pollution
control
equipment
used
to
reduce
PM
emissions
released
to
the
atmosphere
from
one
or
more
process
operations
at
an
LMP.
Conveying
system
means
a
device
for
transporting
material
from
one
piece
of
equipment
or
location
to
another
location
within
a
plant.
Conveying
systems
include
but
are
not
limited
to
feeders,
belt
conveyors,
bucket
elevators
and
pneumatic
systems.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source,
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
EP20DE02.003</
MATH>
EP20DE02.004</
MATH>
78077
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
emission
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit);
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit)
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Emission
limitation
means
any
emission
limit,
opacity
limit,
operating
limit,
or
VE
limit.
Emission
unit
means
a
lime
kiln,
lime
cooler,
raw
material
grinding
mill,
raw
material
storage
bin,
conveying
system
transfer
point,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
operation,
bucket
elevator
or
belt
conveyor
at
an
LMP.
Fugitive
emission
means
PM
that
is
not
collected
by
a
capture
system.
Grinding
mill
means
a
machine
used
for
the
wet
or
dry
fine
crushing
of
any
feed
material.
Grinding
mills
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
hammer,
roller,
rod,
pebble
and
ball,
and
fluid
energy.
The
grinding
mill
includes
the
air
conveying
system,
air
separator,
or
air
classifier,
where
such
systems
are
used.
Hydrator
means
the
device
used
to
produce
hydrated
lime
or
calcium
hydroxide
via
the
chemical
reaction
of
the
lime
product
and
water.
Lime
cooler
means
the
device
external
to
the
lime
kiln
(
or
part
of
the
lime
kiln
itself)
used
to
reduce
the
temperature
of
the
lime
produced
by
the
kiln.
Lime
kiln
means
the
device,
including
any
associated
preheater,
used
to
produce
a
lime
product
from
stone
feed
by
calcination.
Kiln
types
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
rotary
kiln,
vertical
kiln,
rotary
hearth
kiln,
double­
shaft
vertical
kiln,
and
fluidized
bed
kiln.
Lime
manufacturing
plant
(
LMP)
means
any
plant
which
uses
a
lime
kiln
to
produce
lime
product
from
limestone
or
other
calcareous
material
by
calcination.
Lime
product
means
the
product
of
the
lime
kiln
calcination
process
including,
calcitic
lime,
dolomitic
lime,
and
dead­
burned
dolomite.
Limestone
means
the
material
comprised
primarily
of
calcium
carbonate
(
referred
to
sometimes
as
calcitic
or
high
calcium
limestone),
magnesium
carbonate,
and/
or
the
double
carbonate
of
both
calcium
and
magnesium
(
referred
to
sometimes
as
dolomitic
limestone
or
dolomite).
Material
means
the
raw
limestone
or
stone
feed
used
at
an
LMP.
Materials
processing
operation
(
MPO)
means
the
equipment
and
transfer
points
between
the
equipment
used
to
prepare,
process,
or
transport
limestone,
or
stone
feed,
and
includes
grinding
mills,
raw
material
storage
bins,
conveying
system
transfer
points,
bulk
loading
or
unloading
systems,
screening
operations,
bucket
elevators,
and
belt
conveyors.
Particulate
matter
(
PM)
detector
means
the
monitoring
device
and
system
for
an
ESP
that
identifies
relative
levels
in
PM
emissions
and
sounds
an
alarm
at
a
preset
level.
Positive
pressure
fabric
filter
or
ESP
means
a
fabric
filter
or
ESP
with
the
fan(
s)
on
the
upstream
side
of
the
control
device.
Screening
operation
means
a
device
for
separating
material
according
to
size
by
passing
undersize
material
through
one
or
more
mesh
surfaces
(
screens)
in
series
and
retaining
oversize
material
on
the
mesh
surfaces
(
screens).
Stack
emission
means
the
PM
that
is
released
to
the
atmosphere
from
a
capture
system.
Stone
feed
means
the
limestone
feedstock
and
mill
scale
or
other
iron
oxide
additives
that
are
fed
to
the
lime
kiln.
Stone
feed
does
not
include
the
fuels
used
in
the
lime
kiln
to
produce
the
heat
needed
to
calcine
the
limestone
into
the
lime
product.
Storage
bin
means
a
facility
for
storage
(
including
surge
bins)
of
material
prior
to
further
processing
or
loading.
Transfer
point
means
a
point
in
a
conveying
operation
where
the
material
is
transferred
to
or
from
a
belt
conveyor
(
except
where
the
material
is
being
transferred
to
a
stockpile).
Truck
dumping
means
the
unloading
of
material
from
movable
vehicles
designed
to
transport
material
from
one
location
to
another.
Movable
vehicles
include
but
are
not
limited
to
trucks,
front
end
loaders,
skip
hoists,
and
railcars.
Vent
means
an
opening
through
which
there
is
mechanically
induced
air
flow
for
the
purpose
of
exhausting
from
a
building
air
carrying
PM
emissions
from
one
or
more
emission
units.

Tables
to
Subpart
AAAAA
of
Part
63
TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
[
You
must
meet
each
emission
limit
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7090(
a)]

For
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.

1.
All
lime
kilns
and
their
associated
lime
coolers
at
an
existing
LMP
....
The
sum
of
the
PM
emissions
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
associated
lime
coolers
must
not
exceed
0.06
kilograms
per
megagram
(
kg/
Mg)
(
0.12
pounds
per
ton)
of
stone
feed.
2.
All
lime
kilns
and
their
associated
lime
coolers
at
a
new
or
reconstructed
LMP.
The
sum
of
the
PM
emissions
from
all
of
the
kilns
and
associated
lime
coolers
must
not
exceed
0.05
kg/
Mg
(
0.10
pounds
per
ton)
of
stone
feed.
3.
Stack
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source.
PM
emissions
must
not
exceed
0.05
grams
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(
g/
dscm).
4.
Stack
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source,
unless
the
stack
emissions
are
discharged
through
a
wet
scrubber
control
device.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
7
percent
opacity.

5.
Fugitive
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source,
except
as
provided
by
item
6
of
this
Table
1.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
10
percent
opacity.

6.
All
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source
enclosed
in
a
building.
All
of
the
individually
affected
MPO
must
comply
with
the
applicable
PM
and
opacity
emission
limitations
in
items
3
through
5
of
this
Table
1,
or
the
building
must
comply
with
the
following:
there
must
be
no
visible
emissions
from
the
building,
except
from
a
vent;
and
vent
emissions
must
not
exceed
the
stack
emissions
limitations
in
items
3
and
4
of
this
Table
1.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78078
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
 
Continued
[
You
must
meet
each
emission
limit
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7090(
a)]

For
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.

7.
Each
fabric
filter
that
controls
emissions
from
only
an
individual,
enclosed
storage
bin.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
7
percent
opacity.

8.
Each
set
of
multiple
storage
bins
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source,
with
combined
stack
emissions.
You
must
comply
with
the
emission
limits
in
items
3
and
4
of
this
Table
1.

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITS
[
You
must
meet
each
operating
limit
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7090(
b)]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.

1.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
lime
cooler
(
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler)
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter.
Maintain
and
operate
the
fabric
filter
such
that
the
bag
leak
detector
alarm
is
not
activated
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
period;
and
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
d)
and
(
f)
and
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
In
lieu
of
a
bag
leak
detector,
maintain
the
fabric
filter
such
that
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
for
any
6­
minute
block
period
does
not
exceed
15
percent;
and
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
f)
and
(
g)
and
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
2.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber
......................................
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
PM
performance
test;
and
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
most
recent
performance
test.
3.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
...................
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
field
of
the
ESP
established
during
the
most
recent
performance
test;
or,
in
lieu
of
complying
with
these
ESP
parameter
operating
limits,
install
a
PM
detector
and
maintain
and
operate
the
ESP
such
that
the
PM
detector
alarm
is
not
activated
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
period,
and
comply
with
§
63.7113(
e);
or,
maintain
the
ESP
such
that
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
for
any
6­
minute
block
period
does
not
exceed
15
percent,
and
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
g);
and
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
f)
and
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
4.
Each
materials
processing
operation
subject
to
a
PM
limit
which
uses
a
wet
scrubber.
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
PM
performance
test;
and
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test.
5.
All
affected
sources
..............................................................................
Prepare
a
written
OM&
M
plan;
the
plan
must
include
the
items
listed
in
§
63.7100(
d)
and
the
corrective
actions
to
be
taken
when
required
in
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
6.
Each
emission
unit
equipped
with
an
add­
on
air
pollution
control
device
(
1)
Vent
captured
emissions
through
a
closed
system,
except
that
dilution
air
may
be
added
to
emission
streams
for
the
purpose
of
controlling
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
a
fabric
filter.
(
2)
Operate
each
capture/
collection
system
according
to
the
procedures
and
requirements
in
the
OM&
M
plan.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78079
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITS
[
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
the
following
table,
as
required
in
§
63.7114]

For
.
.
.
For
the
emission
limitation
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance,
if
after
following
the
requirements
in
§
63.7112
.
.
.

1.
All
lime
kilns
and
their
associated
lime
coolers
at
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
and
all
lime
kilns
and
their
associated
lime
coolers
at
an
existing
affected
source.
If
the
lime
cooler
associated
with
the
kiln
has
no
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
PM
emissions
from
all
kilns
and
coolers
at
an
existing
LMP
must
not
exceed
0.06
kg
PM
per
Mg
of
stone
feed
(
0.12
lb
PM
per
ton
of
stone
feed);
PM
emissions
from
all
kilns
and
coolers
at
a
new
or
reconstructed
LMP
must
not
exceed
0.05
kg
PM
per
Mg
of
stone
feed
(
0.10
lb
PM
per
ton
of
stone
feed);
if
a
lime
cooler
associated
with
a
kiln
has
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
the
sum
of
all
kiln
and
cooler
PM
emissions
must
not
exceed
0.06
kg/
Mg
(
0.12
pounds
per
ton)
of
stone
feed
for
existing
LMP
and
0.05
kg/
Mg
(
0.1
pounds
per
ton)
of
stone
feed
for
kilns
at
new
or
reconstructed
LMP.
The
kiln
outlet
PM
emissions
(
and
if
applicable,
summed
with
the
separate
cooler
PM
emissions),
based
on
the
PM
emissions
measured
using
Method
5
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter
and
the
stone
feed
rate
measurement,
over
the
period
of
the
initial
performance
test,
do
not
exceed
the
emission
limit;
if
the
lime
kiln
is
controlled
with
an
ESP
(
and
you
are
not
opting
to
monitor
PM
emissions
from
the
ESP
with
a
PM
detector
or
COMS)
or
wet
scrubber,
you
have
a
record
of
the
applicable
operating
parameters
over
the
3­
hour
performance
test
during
which
emissions
did
not
exceed
the
emissions
limitation;
if
the
lime
kiln
is
controlled
by
a
fabric
filter
or
ESP
and
you
are
opting
to
monitor
PM
emissions
from
the
ESP
with
a
PM
detector
or
you
are
opting
to
monitor
PM
emissions
from
the
fabric
filter
with
a
bag
leak
detector,
you
have
installed
and
are
operating
the
monitoring
device
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
d)
or
(
e),
respectively;
and
if
the
lime
kiln
is
controlled
by
a
fabric
filter
or
ESP
and
you
are
opting
to
monitor
PM
emissions
using
a
COMS,
you
have
installed
and
are
operating
the
monitoring
device
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
g).
2.
Stack
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source.
PM
emissions
must
not
exceed
0.05
g/
dscm
.................
The
outlet
PM
emissions,
based
on
Method
5
or
Method
17
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
over
the
period
of
the
initial
performance
test
do
not
exceed
0.05
g/
dscm;
and
if
the
emission
unit
is
controlled
with
a
wet
scrubber,
you
have
a
record
of
the
scrubber's
pressure
drop
and
liquid
flow
rate
operating
parameters
over
the
3­
hour
performance
test
during
which
emissions
did
not
exceed
the
emissions
limitation.
3.
Stack
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source,
unless
the
stack
emissions
are
discharged
through
a
wet
scrubber
control
device.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
7
percent
opacity
...............
Each
of
the
thirty
6­
minute
opacity
averages
during
the
initial
compliance
period,
using
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
does
not
exceed
the
7
percent
opacity
limit.

4.
Fugitive
emissions
from
all
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
10
percent
opacity
.............
Each
of
the
6­
minute
opacity
averages
during
the
initial
compliance
period,
using
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
does
not
exceed
the
10
percent
opacity
limit.
5.
All
MPO
at
a
new,
reconstructed
or
existing
affected
source,
enclosed
in
a
building.
All
of
the
individually
affected
MPO
must
comply
with
the
applicable
PM
and
opacity
emission
limitations
for
items
2
through
4
of
this
Table
3,
or
the
building
must
comply
with
the
following:
there
must
be
no
visible
emissions
from
the
building,
except
from
a
vent,
and
vent
emissions
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limitations
in
items
2
and
3
of
this
Table
3.
All
the
MPO
enclosed
in
the
building
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
according
to
the
applicable
requirements
for
items
2
through
4
of
this
Table
3;
or
if
you
are
complying
with
the
building
emission
limitations,
there
are
no
visible
emissions
from
the
building
according
to
item
18
of
Table
4
to
this
subpart
and
§
63.7112(
k),
and
you
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
applicable
building
vent
emissions
limitations
according
to
the
requirements
in
items
2
and
3
of
this
Table
3.
6.
Each
fabric
filter
that
controls
emissions
from
only
an
individual
storage
bin.
Emissions
must
not
exceed
7
percent
opacity
...............
Each
of
the
ten
6­
minute
averages
during
the
1­
hour
initial
compliance
period,
using
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter,
does
not
exceed
the
7
percent
opacity
limit.
7.
Each
set
of
multiple
storage
bins
with
combined
stack
emissions.
You
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
items
2
and
3
of
this
Table
3.
You
demonstrate
initial
compliance
according
to
the
requirements
in
items
2
and
3
of
this
Table
3.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78080
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
[
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7112]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.
Using
.
.
.
According
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

1.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler.
Select
the
location
of
the
sampling
port
and
the
number
of
traverse
ports.
Method
1
or
1A
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter;
and
§
63.7(
d)(
1)(
i).
Sampling
sites
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
s)
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.

2.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler.
Determine
velocity
and
volumetric
flow
rate.
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
Not
applicable.

3.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler.
Conduct
gas
molecular
weight
analysis.
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
Not
applicable.

4.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
limit
cooler.
Measure
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
Method
4
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
Not
applicable.

5.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler,
and
which
uses
a
negative
pressure
PM
control
device.
Measure
PM
emissions
................
Method
5
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
Conduct
the
test(
s)
at
the
highest
production
level
reasonably
expected
to
occur;
the
minimum
sampling
volume
must
be
0.85
dscm
(
30
dscf);
if
there
is
a
separate
lime
cooler
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
you
must
conduct
the
Method
5
test
of
the
cooler
exhaust
concurrently
with
the
kiln
exhaust
test.
6.
Each
lime
kiln
and
each
associated
lime
cooler,
if
there
is
a
separate
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
associated
lime
cooler,
and
which
uses
a
positive
pressure
fabric
filter
or
ESP.
Measure
PM
emissions
................
Method
5D
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
Conduct
the
test(
s)
at
the
highest
production
level
reasonably
expected
to
occur;
if
there
is
a
separate
lime
cooler
exhaust
to
the
atmosphere,
you
must
conduct
the
Method
5
test
of
the
separate
cooler
exhaust
concurrently
with
the
kiln
exhaust
test.
7.
Each
lime
kiln
............................
Determine
the
mass
rate
of
stone
feed
to
the
kiln
during
the
kiln
PM
emissions
test.
Any
suitable
device
......................
Calibrate
and
maintain
the
device
according
to
manufacturer's
instructions
the
measuring
device
used
must
be
accurate
to
within
±
5
percent
of
the
mass
rate
over
its
operating
range.
8.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber.
Establish
the
operating
limit
for
the
average
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
Data
for
the
gas
stream
pressure
drop
measurement
device
during
the
kiln
PM
performance
test.
The
continuous
pressure
drop
measurement
device
must
be
accurate
within
plus
or
minus
1
percent;
you
must
collect
the
pressure
drop
data
during
the
period
of
the
performance
test
and
determine
the
operating
limit
according
to
63.7112(
j).
9.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber.
Establish
the
operating
limit
for
the
average
liquid
flow
rate
to
the
scrubber.
Data
from
the
liquid
flow
rate
measurement
device
during
the
kiln
PM
performance
test.
The
continuous
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
measuring
device
must
be
accurate
within
plus
or
minus
1
percent;
you
must
collect
the
flow
rate
data
during
the
period
of
the
performance
test
and
determine
the
operating
limit
according
to
63.7112(
j).
10.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
an
ESP,
except
ESP
monitored
with
a
PM
detector
in
lieu
of
monitoring
ESP
parameters.
Establish
the
operating
limits
for
the
average
current
and
the
average
voltage
supplied
to
each
field
of
the
ESP.
The
ESP
operating
data
during
the
kiln
PM
performance
test.
You
must
collect
the
current
and
voltage
data
during
the
period
of
the
performance
test
and
determine
the
operating
limits
for
both
parameters
according
to
63.7112(
j).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78081
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
 
Continued
[
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7112]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.
Using
.
.
.
According
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

11.
(
a)
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
or
ESP
that
is
monitored
with
a
PM
detector.
Have
installed
and
have
operating
the
bag
leak
detector
or
PM
detector
respectively
prior
to
the
performance
test.
Standard
operating
procedures
incorporated
into
the
OM&
M
plan.
According
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
d)
or
(
e),
respectively

11.
(
b)
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
or
ESP
that
is
monitored
with
a
COMS.
Have
installed
and
have
operating
the
COMS
prior
to
the
performance
test.
Standard
operating
procedures
incorporated
into
the
OM&
M
plan
and
as
required
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
General
Provisions
and
according
to
PS
 
1
of
appendix
B
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
According
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7113(
g).

12.
Each
stack
emission
from
an
MPO,
vent
from
a
building
enclosing
an
MPO,
or
set
of
multiple
storage
bins
with
combined
stack
emissions,
which
is
subject
to
a
PM
emission
limit.
Measure
PM
emissions
................
Method
5
or
Method
17
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
sample
volume
must
be
at
least
1.70
dscm
(
60
dscf);
for
Method
5,
if
the
gas
stream
being
sampled
is
at
ambient
temperature,
the
sampling
probe
and
filter
may
be
operated
without
heaters;
and
if
the
gas
stream
is
above
ambient
temperature,
the
sampling
probe
and
filter
may
be
operated
at
a
temperature
high
enough,
but
no
higher
than
121
°
C
(
250
°
F),
to
prevent
water
condensation
on
the
filter
(
Method
17
may
be
used
only
with
exhaust
gas
temperatures
of
not
more
than
250
°
F).
13.
Each
stack
emission
from
an
MPO,
vent
from
a
building
enclosing
an
MPO,
or
set
of
multiple
storage
bins
with
combined
stack
emissions,
which
is
subject
to
an
opacity
limit.
Conduct
opacity
observations
......
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
test
duration
must
be
for
at
least
3
hours
and
you
must
obtain
at
least
thirty,
6­
minute
averages.

14.
Each
stack
emissions
source
from
an
MPO
subject
to
a
PM
or
opacity
limit,
which
uses
a
wet
scrubber.
Establish
the
average
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber.
Data
for
the
gas
stream
pressure
drop
measurement
device
during
the
MPO
stack
PM
performance
test.
The
pressure
drop
measurement
device
must
be
accurate
within
plus
or
minus
1
percent;
you
must
collect
the
pressure
drop
data
during
the
period
of
the
performance
test
and
determine
the
average
level.
15.
Each
stack
emissions
source
from
an
MPO
subject
to
a
PM
or
opacity
limit,
which
uses
a
wet
scrubber.
Establish
the
operating
limit
for
the
average
liquid
flow
rate
to
the
scrubber.
Data
from
the
liquid
flow
rate
measurement
device
during
the
MPO
stack
PM
performance
test.
The
continuous
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
measuring
device
must
be
accurate
within
plus
or
minus
1
percent;
you
must
collect
the
flow
rate
data
during
the
period
of
the
performance
test
and
determine
the
operating
limit
according
to
§
63.7112(
c).
16.
Each
fabric
filter
that
controls
emissions
from
only
an
individual
enclosed,
new
or
existing
storage
bin.
Conduct
opacity
observations
......
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
test
duration
must
be
for
at
least
1
hour
and
you
must
obtain
ten
6­
minute
averages.

17.
Fugitive
emissions
from
any
MPO
subject
to
an
opacity
limit.
Conduct
opacity
observations
......
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
test
duration
must
be
for
at
least
3
hours,
but
the
3­
hour
test
may
be
reduced
to
1
hour
if
there
are
no
individual
readings
greater
than
10
percent
opacity
and
there
are
no
more
than
three
readings
of
10
percent
during
the
first
1­
hour
period.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78082
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
 
Continued
[
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7112]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.
Using
.
.
.
According
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

18.
Each
building
enclosing
any
MPO,
that
is
subject
to
a
VE
limit.
Conduct
VE
check
........................
The
specifications
in
§
63.7112(
k).
The
performance
test
must
be
conducted
while
all
affected
materials
processing
operations
within
the
building
are
operating
the
performance
test
for
each
affected
building
must
be
at
least
75
minutes,
with
each
side
of
the
building
and
roof
being
observed
for
at
least
15
minutes.

TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
OPERATING
LIMITS
[
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
operating
limit
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
the
following
table,
as
required
in
§
63.7121]

For
.
.
.
For
the
following
operating
limit
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

1.
Each
lime
kiln
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber
..
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
PM
performance
test;
and
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test.
Collecting
the
wet
scrubber
operating
according
to
all
applicable
requirements
in
§
63.7113
and
reducing
the
data
according
to
§
63.7113(
a);
maintaining
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
PM
performance
test;
and
maintaining
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test
(
the
continuous
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
measuring
device
must
be
accurate,
within
±
1%
and
the
continuous
pressure
drop
measurement
hour
rolling
device
must
be
accurate
within
±
1%).
2.
Each
lime
kiln
or
lime
cooler
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
and
using
a
bag
leak
detector,
and
each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
an
ESP
using
a
PM
detector
in
lieu
of
ESP
parameter
monitoring.
a.
Maintain
and
operate
the
fabric
filter
or
ESP
such
that
the
bag
leak
or
PM
detector
alarm,
respectively,
is
not
activated
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
period.
(
i)
Operating
the
fabric
filter
or
ESP
so
that
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
or
PM
detection
system,
respectively,
is
not
activated
and
alarm
condition
does
not
exist
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
each
6­
month
reporting
period;
and
continuously
recording
the
output
from
the
bag
leak
or
PM
detection
system.
(
ii)
Each
time
the
alarm
sounds
and
the
owner
or
operator
initiates
corrective
actions
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
1
hour
of
alarm
time
will
be
counted
(
if
the
owner
or
operator
takes
longer
than
1
hour
to
initiate
corrective
actions,
alarm
time
will
be
counted
as
the
actual
amount
of
time
taken
by
the
owner
or
operator
to
initiate
corrective
actions);
if
inspection
of
the
fabric
filter
or
ESP
system
demonstrates
that
no
corrective
actions
are
necessary,
no
alarm
time
will
be
counted.
3.
Each
lime
kiln
equipped
with
an
ESP,
except
an
ESP
monitoring
PM
with
a
PM
detector
or
COMS.
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
electrical
field
of
the
ESP
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
average
current
and
voltage
input
to
each
field
of
the
ESP
established
during
the
performance
test.
Collecting
the
ESP
operating
data
according
to
all
applicable
requirements
in
§
63.7113
and
reducing
the
data
according
to
§
63.7113(
a),
and
maintaining
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
voltage
input
and
current
input
to
each
field
greater
than
or
equal
to
voltage
input
and
current
input
operating
limits
for
each
field
established
during
the
performance
test.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78083
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
OPERATING
LIMITS
 
Continued
[
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
operating
limit
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
the
following
table,
as
required
in
§
63.7121]

For
.
.
.
For
the
following
operating
limit
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

4.
Each
stack
emissions
source
form
a
MPO
subject
to
an
opacity
limit,
which
is
controlled
by
a
wet
scrubber.
Maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
PM
performance
test;
and
maintain
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test.
Collecting
the
wet
scrubber
operating
data
according
to
all
applicable
requirements
in
§
63.7113
and
reducing
the
data
according
to
§
63.7113(
a);
maintaining
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
exhaust
gas
stream
pressure
drop
across
the
wet
scrubber
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
established
during
the
PM
performance
test;
and
maintaining
the
3­
hour
rolling
average
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
flow
rate
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test
(
the
continuous
scrubbing
liquid
flow
rate
measuring
device
must
be
accurate
within
±
1%
and
the
continuous
pressure
drop
measurement
device
must
be
accurate
within
±
1%).
5.
For
each
lime
kiln
or
lime
cooler
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
or
an
ESP
that
uses
a
COMS
as
the
monitoring
device.
a.
Maintain
and
operate
the
fabric
filter
or
ESP
such
that
the
average
opacity
for
any
6­
minute
block
period
does
not
exceed
15
percent.
i.
Installing,
maintaining,
calibrating
and
operating
a
COMS
as
required
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
General
Provisions
and
according
to
PS
 
1
of
appendix
B
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
ii.
Collecting
the
COMS
data
at
a
frequency
of
at
least
once
every
15
seconds,
determining
block
averages
for
each
6­
minute
period
and
demonstrating
for
each
6­
minute
block
period
the
average
opacity
does
not
exceed
15
percent.

TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
PERIODIC
MONITORING
FOR
COMPLIANCE
WITH
OPACITY
AND
VISIBLE
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
[
You
must
periodically
demonstrate
compliance
with
each
opacity
and
visible
emission
limit
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
the
following
table,
as
required
in
§
63.7121]

For
.
.
.
For
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
ongoing
compliance
.
.
.

1.
Each
MPO
subject
to
an
opacity
limitation
as
required
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
any
vents
from
buildings
subject
to
an
opacity
limitation.
a.
7
 
15
percent
opacity,
depending
on
the
materials
processing
operation,
as
required
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
(
i)
Conducting
a
monthly
1­
minute
VE
check
of
each
emission
unit
in
accordance
with
§
63.7121(
e);
the
check
must
be
conducted
while
the
affected
source
is
in
operation.
(
ii)
If
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks
for
any
emission
unit,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
VE
checking
from
monthly
to
semi­
annually
for
that
emission
unit;
if
VE
are
observed
during
any
semiannual
check,
you
must
resume
VE
checking
of
that
emission
unit
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks.
(
iii)
If
no
VE
are
observed
during
the
semiannual
check
for
any
emission
unit,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
VE
checking
from
semi­
annually
to
annually
for
that
emission
unit;
if
VE
are
observed
during
any
annual
check,
you
must
resume
VE
checking
of
that
emission
unit
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78084
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
PERIODIC
MONITORING
FOR
COMPLIANCE
WITH
OPACITY
AND
VISIBLE
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
 
Continued
[
You
must
periodically
demonstrate
compliance
with
each
opacity
and
visible
emission
limit
that
applies
to
you,
according
to
the
following
table,
as
required
in
§
63.7121]

For
.
.
.
For
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
ongoing
compliance
.
.
.

(
iv)
If
VE
are
observed
during
any
VE
check,
you
must
conduct
a
6­
minute
test
of
opacity
in
accordance
with
Method
9
of
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter;
you
must
begin
the
Method
9
test
within
1
hour
of
any
observation
of
VE
and
the
6­
minute
opacity
reading
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
opacity
limit.
2.
Any
building
subject
to
a
VE
limit,
according
to
item
6
of
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
a.
No
VE
..........................................................
(
i)
Conducting
a
monthly
VE
check
of
the
building,
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
§
63.7112(
k);
the
check
must
be
conducted
while
all
the
enclosed
according
MPO
are
in
operation.
(
ii)
The
check
for
each
affected
building
must
be
at
least
5
minutes,
with
each
side
of
the
building
and
roof
being
observed
for
at
least
1
minute.
(
iii)
If
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks
of
the
building,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
checking
from
monthly
to
semi­
annually
for
that
affected
source;
if
VE
are
observed
during
any
semi­
annual
check,
you
must
resume
checking
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks.
(
iv)
If
no
VE
are
observed
during
the
semi­
annual
check,
you
may
decrease
the
frequency
of
checking
from
semi­
annually
to
annually
for
that
affected
source;
and
if
VE
are
observed
during
any
annual
check,
you
must
resume
checking
of
that
emission
unit
on
a
monthly
basis
and
maintain
that
schedule
until
no
VE
are
observed
in
6
consecutive
monthly
checks
(
the
source
is
in
compliance
if
no
VE
are
observed
during
any
of
these
checks).

TABLE
7
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REPORTS
[
You
must
submit
each
report
in
this
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7131]

You
must
submit
a
.
.
.
The
report
must
contain
.
.
.
You
must
submit
the
report
.
.
.

1.
Compliance
report
..........................................
a.
If
there
are
no
deviations
from
any
emission
limitations
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE
limit)
that
applies
to
you,
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
during
the
reporting
period.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7131(
b).

b.
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CMS,
including
the
operating
parameter
monitoring
systems,
was
out­
of­
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CMS
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
c.
If
you
have
a
deviation
from
any
emission
limitation
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
VE)
during
the
reporting
period,
the
report
must
contain
the
information
in
§
63.7131(
c).
d.
If
there
were
periods
during
which
the
CMS,
including
the
operating
parameter
monitoring
systems,
was
out­
of­
control,
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
the
report
must
contain
the
information
in
§
63.7131(
e).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78085
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
7
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REPORTS
 
Continued
[
You
must
submit
each
report
in
this
table
that
applies
to
you,
as
required
in
§
63.7131]

You
must
submit
a
.
.
.
The
report
must
contain
.
.
.
You
must
submit
the
report
.
.
.

e.
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
SSMP,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
2.
An
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
if
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
that
is
not
consistent
with
your
SSMP.
Actions
taken
for
the
event
..............................
By
fax
or
telephone
within
2
working
days
after
starting
actions
inconsistent
with
the
SSMP.

3.
An
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
if
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
that
is
not
consistent
with
your
SSMP.
The
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)
..................
By
letter
within
7
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event
unless
you
have
made
alternative
arrangements
with
the
permitting
authority
See
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).

TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Summary
of
requirement
Am
I
subject
to
this
requirement
Explanations
63.1(
a)(
1)
 
(
4)
.......................
Applicability
......................................................
Yes.
63.1(
a)(
5)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.1(
a)(
6)
.............................
Applicability
......................................................
Yes.
63.1(
a)(
7)
 
(
a)(
9)
..................
..........................................................................
No.
63.1(
a)(
10)
 
(
a)(
14)
..............
Applicability
......................................................
Yes.
63.1(
b)(
1)
.............................
Initial
Applicability
Determination
.....................
Yes
...................
§
§
63.7081
and
63.7142
specify
additional
applicability
determination
requirements.
63.1(
b)(
2)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.1(
b)(
3)
.............................
Initial
Applicability
Determination
.....................
Yes.
63.1(
c)(
1)
.............................
Applicability
After
Standard
Established
..........
Yes.
63.1(
c)(
2)
.............................
Permit
Requirements
.......................................
No
.....................
Area
sources
not
subject
to
subpart
AAAAA,
except
all
sources
must
make
initial
applicability
determination.
63.1(
c)(
3)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.1(
c)(
4)
 
(
5)
.......................
Extensions,
Notifications
..................................
Yes.
63.1(
d)
.................................
..........................................................................
No.
63.1(
e)
.................................
Applicability
of
Permit
Program
.......................
Yes.
63.2
......................................
Definitions
........................................................
...........................
Additional
definition
in
§
63.7143.
63.3(
a)
 
(
c)
...........................
Units
and
Abbreviations
...................................
Yes.
63.4(
a)(
1)
 
(
a)(
2)
..................
Prohibited
Activities
..........................................
Yes.
63.4(
a)(
3)
 
(
a)(
5)
..................
..........................................................................
No.
63.4(
b)
 
(
c)
...........................
Circumvention,
Severability
.............................
Yes.
63.5(
a)(
1)
 
(
2)
.......................
Construction/
Reconstruction
............................
Yes.
63.5(
b)(
1)
.............................
Compliance
Dates
............................................
Yes.
63.5(
b)(
2)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.5(
b)(
3)
 
(
4)
.......................
Construction
Approval,
Applicability
................
Yes.
63.5(
b)(
5)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.5(
b)(
6)
.............................
Applicability
......................................................
Yes.
63.5(
c)
..................................
..........................................................................
No.
63.5(
d)(
1)
 
(
4)
.......................
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
........
Yes.
63.5(
e)
.................................
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
........
Yes.
63.5(
f)(
1)
 
(
2)
........................
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
........
Yes.
63.6(
a)
.................................
Compliance
for
Standards
and
Maintenance
..
Yes.
63.6(
b)(
1)
 
(
5)
.......................
Compliance
Dates
............................................
Yes.
63.6(
b)(
6)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.6(
b)(
7)
.............................
Compliance
Dates
............................................
Yes.
63.6(
c)(
1)
 
(
2)
.......................
Compliance
Dates
............................................
Yes.
63.6(
c)(
3)
 
(
c)(
4)
...................
..........................................................................
No.
63.6(
c)(
5)
.............................
Compliance
Dates
............................................
Yes.
63.6(
d)
.................................
..........................................................................
No.
63.6(
e)(
1)
.............................
Operation
&
Maintenance
................................
Yes
...................
See
also
§
63.7100
for
OM&
M
requirements.
63.6(
e)(
2)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.6(
e)(
3)
.............................
Startup,
Shutdown
Malfunction
Plan
...............
Yes.
63.6(
f)(
1)
 
(
3)
........................
Compliance
with
Emission
Standards
.............
Yes.
63.6(
g)(
1)
 
(
g)(
3)
..................
Alternative
Standard
........................................
Yes.
63.6(
h)(
1)
 
(
2)
.......................
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
Yes..
63.6(
h)(
3)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78086
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
 
Continued
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Summary
of
requirement
Am
I
subject
to
this
requirement
Explanations
63.6(
h)(
4)
 
(
h)(
5)(
i)
...............
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
Yes
...................
This
requirement
only
applies
to
opacity
and
VE
performance
checks
required
in
Table
4
to
subpart
AAAAA.
63.6(
h)(
5)(
ii)
 
(
iii)
..................
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
No
.....................
Test
durations
are
specified
in
subpart
AAAAA;
subpart
AAAAA
takes
precedence.
63.6(
h)(
5)(
iv)
........................
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
No.
63.6(
h)(
5)(
v)
.........................
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
Yes.
63.6(
h)(
6)
.............................
Opacity/
VE
Standards
......................................
Yes.
63.6(
h)(
7)
.............................
COM
Use
.........................................................
No
.....................
No
COM
required
under
subpart
AAAAA.
63.6(
h)(
8)
.............................
Compliance
with
Opacity
and
VE
....................
Yes.
63.6(
h)(
9)
.............................
Adjustment
of
Opacity
Limit
.............................
Yes.
63.6(
i)(
1)
 
(
i)(
14)
...................
Extension
of
Compliance
.................................
Yes.
63.6(
i)(
15)
............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.6(
i)(
16)
............................
Extension
of
Compliance
.................................
Yes.
63.6(
j)
...................................
Exemption
from
Compliance
............................
Yes.
63.7(
a)(
1)
 
(
a)(
3)
..................
Performance
Testing
Requirements
................
Yes
...................
§
63.7110
specifies
deadlines;
§
63.7112
has
additional
specific
requirements.
63.7(
b)
.................................
Notification
.......................................................
Yes.
63.7(
c)
..................................
Quality
Assurance/
Test
Plan
...........................
Yes.
63.7(
d)
.................................
Testing
Facilities
..............................................
Yes.
63.7(
e)(
1)
 
(
4)
.......................
Conduct
of
Tests
..............................................
Yes.
63.7(
f)
..................................
Alternative
Test
Method
...................................
Yes.
63.7(
g)
.................................
Data
Analysis
...................................................
Yes.
63.7(
h)
.................................
Waiver
of
Tests
................................................
Yes.
63.8(
a)(
1)
.............................
Monitoring
Requirements
.................................
Yes
...................
See
also
§
63.7113.
63.8(
a)(
2)
.............................
Monitoring
........................................................
Yes.
63.8(
a)(
3)
.............................
..........................................................................
No.
63.8(
a)(
4)
.............................
Monitoring
........................................................
No
.....................
Flares
not
applicable.
63.8(
b)(
1)
 
(
3)
.......................
Conduct
of
Monitoring
......................................
Yes.
63.8(
c)(
1)
 
(
3)
.......................
CMS
Operation/
Maintenance
...........................
Yes.
63.8(
c)(
4)
.............................
CMS
Requirements
..........................................
No
.....................
See
§
63.7121.
63.8(
c)(
4)(
i)
 
(
ii)
....................
Cycle
Time
for
COM
and
CEMS
.....................
No
.....................
No
COM
or
CEMS
are
required
under
subpart
AAAAA;
see
§
63.7113
for
CPMS
requirements
63.8(
c)(
5)
.............................
Minimum
COM
procedures
..............................
No
COM
not
required.
63.8(
c)(
6)
.............................
CMS
Requirements
..........................................
No
See
§
63.7113.
63.8(
c)(
7)
 
(
8)
.......................
CMS
Requirements
..........................................
Yes.
63.8(
d)
.................................
Quality
Control
.................................................
No
.....................
See
§
63.7113.
63.8(
e)
.................................
Performance
Evaluation
for
CMS
....................
No.
63.8(
f)(
1)
 
(
f)(
5)
....................
Alternative
Monitoring
Method
.........................
Yes.
63.8(
f)(
6)
..............................
Alternative
to
Relative
Accuracy
test
...............
No.
63.8(
g)(
1)
 
(
g)(
5)
..................
Data
Reduction;
Data
That
Cannot
Be
Used
..
No
.....................
See
data
reduction
requirements
in
§
§
63.7120
and
63.7121.
63.9(
a)
.................................
Notification
Requirements
................................
Yes
...................
See
also
§
63.7130
63.9(
b)
.................................
Initial
Notifications
............................................
Yes.
63.9(
c)
..................................
Request
for
Compliance
Extension
.................
Yes.
63.9(
d)
.................................
New
Source
Notification
for
Special
Compliance
Requirements.
Yes.

63.9(
e)
.................................
Notification
of
Performance
Test
.....................
Yes.
63.9(
f)
..................................
Notification
of
VE/
Opacity
Test
........................
Yes
...................
This
requirement
only
applies
to
opacity
and
VE
performance
tests
required
in
Table
4
to
subpart
AAAAA.
Notification
not
required
for
VE/
opacity
test
under
Table
6
to
subpart
AAAAA.
63.9(
g)
.................................
Additional
CMS
Notifications
...........................
No
.....................
Not
required
for
operating
parameter
monitoring
63.9(
h)(
1)
 
(
h)(
3)
..................
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
....................
Yes.
63.9(
h)(
4)
.............................
..........................................................................
No..
63.9(
h)(
5)
 
(
h)(
6)
..................
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
....................
Yes.
63.9(
i)
...................................
Adjustment
of
Deadlines
..................................
Yes.
63.9(
j)
...................................
Change
in
Previous
Information
......................
Yes.
63.10(
a)
...............................
Recordkeeping/
Reporting
General
Requirements
Yes
...................
See
§
§
63.7131
through
63.7133.

63.10(
b)(
1)
 
(
b)(
2)(
xii)
..........
Records
............................................................
Yes.
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
....................
Records
for
Relative
Accuracy
Test
................
No.
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv)
....................
Records
for
Notification
...................................
Yes.
63.10(
b)(
3)
...........................
Applicability
Determinations
.............................
Yes.
63.10(
c)
................................
Additional
CMS
Recordkeeping
.......................
No
.....................
See
§
63.7132.
63.10(
d)(
1)
...........................
General
Reporting
Requirements
....................
Yes.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
78087
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
245
/
Friday,
December
20,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
AAAAA
 
Continued
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Summary
of
requirement
Am
I
subject
to
this
requirement
Explanations
63.10(
d)(
2)
...........................
Performance
Test
Results
...............................
Yes.
63.10(
d)(
3)
...........................
Opacity
or
VE
Observations
............................
Yes
...................
For
the
periodic
monitoring
requirements
in
Table
6
to
subpart
AAAAA,
report
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
3)
only
if
VE
observed
and
subsequent
visual
opacity
test
is
required.
63.10(
d)(
4)
...........................
Progress
Reports
.............................................
Yes.
63.10(
d)(
5)
...........................
Startup,
Shutdown,
Malfunction
Reports
.........
Yes.
63.10(
e)
...............................
Additional
CMS
Reports
..................................
No
.....................
See
specific
requirements
in
subpart
AAAAA,
see
§
63.7131.
63.10(
f)
................................
Waiver
for
Recordkeeping/
Reporting
...............
Yes.
63.11(
a)
 
(
b)
.........................
Control
Device
Requirements
..........................
No
.....................
Flares
not
applicable.
63.12(
a)
 
(
c)
.........................
State
Authority
and
Delegations
......................
Yes.
63.13(
a)
 
(
c)
.........................
State/
Regional
Addresses
...............................
Yes.
63.14(
a)
 
(
b)
.........................
Incorporation
by
Reference
.............................
Yes.
ASTM
6420
 
99
and
6735
 
01
(
see
§
63.14).
63.15(
a)
 
(
b)
.........................
Availability
of
Information
.................................
Yes.

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31233
Filed
12
 
19
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
15
Dec
19,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
20DEP2.
SGM
20DEP2
