thefederalregister.com

Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

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 theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection.

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: 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 addresstoney.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 addresscrump.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 precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

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 thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the EPA Internet under theFederal Registerlistings athttp://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 athttp://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 isrestricted 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/edocketand 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) toa-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 athttp://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? 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. 601et seq. G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. Introduction A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule?

The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants.

B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

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

C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed?

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

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

The HAP emitted by lime manufacturing facilities include, but are not limited to, HCl, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when present in concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient air.

We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities that would be covered by the proposed NESHAP, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described below occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. We also note one exception to this statement, namely that human exposures to ambient levels of HCl resulting from lime manufacturing facilities' emissions were estimated by industry as part of the risk assessment they conducted for purposes of demonstrating, pursuant to section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, that HCl emissions from lime kilns are below the threshold level of adverse effects, with an ample margin of safety.

The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous system; cancer; and damage to the kidneys), and acute health disorders(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. Dead-burned dolomite is a type of dolomitic lime produced to obtain refractory characteristics in the lime.

The kiln is the heart of the lime manufacturing plant, where various fossil fuels (such as coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, and fuel oil) are combusted to produce the heat needed for calcination. There are five different types of kilns: rotary, vertical, double-shaft vertical, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed. The most popular is the rotary kiln, but the double-shaft vertical kiln is an emerging new kiln technology gaining in acceptance because of its energy efficiency. Rotary kilns may also have preheaters associated with them to improve energy efficiency. As discussed further in this preamble, additional energy efficiency is obtained by routing exhaust from the lime cooler to the kiln, a common practice. Emissions from lime kilns include, but are not limited to, metallic HAP, HCl, PM, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. These emissions predominately originate from compounds in the limestone feed material and fuels (e.g., metals, sulfur, chlorine) and are formed from the combustion of fuels and the heating of feed material in the kiln.

All types of kilns use external equipment to cool the lime product, except vertical (including double-shaft) kilns, where the cooling zone is part of the kiln. Ambient air is most often used to cool the lime (although a few use water as the heat transfer medium), and typically all of the heated air stream exiting the cooler goes to the kiln to be used as combustion air for the kiln. The exception to this is the grate cooler, where more airflow is generated than is needed for kiln combustion, and consequently a portion (about 40 percent) of the grate cooler exhaust is vented to the atmosphere. We estimate that there are about five to ten kilns in the U.S. that use grate coolers. The emissions from grate coolers include the lime dust (PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the lime dust.

Lime manufacturing plants may also produce hydrated lime (also called calcium hydroxide) from some of the calcium oxide (or dolomitic lime) produced. Hydrated lime is produced in a hydrator via the chemical reaction of calcium oxide (or magnesium oxide) and water. The hydration process is exothermic, and part of the water in the reaction chamber is converted to steam. A wet scrubber is integrated with the hydrator to capture the lime (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide) particles carried in the gas steam, with the scrubber water recycled back to the hydration chamber. The emissions from the hydrator are the PM comprised of lime and hydrated lime.

Operations that prepare the feed materials and fuels for the kiln and process the lime product for shipment or further on-site use are found throughout a lime manufacturing plant. The equipment includes grinding mills, crushers, storage bins, conveying systems (such as bucket elevator, belt conveyors), bagging systems, bulk loading or unloading systems, and screening operations. The emissions from these operations include limestone and lime dust (PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the dust.

II. Summary of Proposed Rule A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories would not be subject to the proposed rule. Other captive lime manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, would be subject to the proposed rule. We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.

B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are Included Under the Definition of Affected Source?

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

C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and MPO with stacks.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. SeeNational Lime Ass'nv.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 theFederal Register]. (Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit existing, air pollution control equipment.) The date the final rule is published in theFederal Registeris 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/tonstone 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). Thisdocument may be found on the world wide web atwww.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 toclaim 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 rawmaterial storage bin. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point included under the affected source definition would be the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw material storage bin. This demarcation in the sequence of MPO which defines the first emission unit under the affected source definition is consistent with the applicability requirements under the NESHAP for the portland cement industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL.

The MPO emission units that would be excluded from the affected source definition are described as follows. Any MPO which precedes the raw material storage bin, such as those in quarry or mine operations, is not included in the definition of affected source. Any operations that process only lime product, lime kiln dust, or fuel would be excluded from the definition. Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher would not be included among the emission units considered under the affected source definition. (These exclusions are consistent with the NSPS subpart OOO). Finally, lime hydrators would not be included as an emission unit under the affected source definition since all hydrators are controlled by integrated wet scrubbers, which capture the lime PM (and associated trace metallic HAP) and recycle the scrubber water. Additionally, this is consistent with the NSPS subpart HH, which does not apply to lime hydrators.

C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants To Regulate?

The proposed rule would reduce emissions of non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP by limiting emissions of PM from the kiln and cooler, and certain MPO emission units. Particulate matter is a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP that are always a subset of PM. Controlling PM emissions will control the non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP, since these compounds are associated with the PM,i.e., they are by definition in the particulate phase (as opposed to the gaseous form). The available air pollution controls for the particulate HAP metals at lime manufacturing plants are the PM controls used at lime manufacturing plants,i.e., FF, ESP, and wet scrubbers. These at-the-stack controls capture non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals non-preferentially along with other PM, thus showing why PM is a permissible indicator for these HAP metals. SeeNational Lime Ass'nv.EPA,233 F. 3d at 639. Also, using PM as a surrogate for the HAP metals would reduce the cost of emissions testing and monitoring that would be required to demonstrate compliance with the otherwise numerous standards that would apply to individual HAP metals. In addition, several other NESHAP have been promulgated which use PM as a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals for the same reason—it is a technically sound surrogate since HAP metals are necessarily contained in PM, are controlled by PM control devices to roughly the same efficiency, and there are significant associated cost savings due to monitoring for one parameter instead of many.

The proposed rule would limit opacity or visible emissions from certain MPO emission units. Opacity serves as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals. Opacity is indicative of PM emission levels and, thus, for the same reasons that PM is a surrogate for the particulate HAP metals, opacity would also be a surrogate for the PM HAP metals. Further, opacity levels are reduced by reducing PM emissions, which would also reduce the metal HAP in the particulate phase,i.e., the non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP.

We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns. Under the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we have determined that no further control is necessary because HCl is a “health threshold pollutant,” and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. The following explains the statutory basis for considering health thresholds when establishing standards, and the basis for today's proposed decision, including a discussion of the risk assessment conducted to support the ample margin of safety decision.

Section 112 of the CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory requirement to establish emission standards based on MACT. Of relevance here, section 112(d)(4) allows us to develop risk-based standards for HAP “for which a health threshold has been established” provided that the standards achieve an “ample margin of safety.” Therefore, we believe we have the discretion under section 112(d)(4) to develop standards which may be less stringent than the corresponding floor-based MACT standards for some categories emitting threshold pollutants.

In deciding standards for this source category, we seek to assure that emissions from every source in the category result in exposures less than the threshold level even for an individual exposed at the upper end of the exposure distribution. The upper end of the exposure distribution is calculated using the “high end exposure estimate,” defined as a plausible estimate of individual exposure for those persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution, conceptually above the 90th percentile, but not higher than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure. We believe that assuring protection to persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution is consistent with the “ample margin of safety” requirement in section 112(d)(4).

We emphasize that the use of section 112(d)(4) authority is wholly discretionary. As the legislative history indicates, cases may arise in which other considerations dictate that we should not invoke this authority to establish less stringent standards, despite the existence of a health effects threshold that is not jeopardized. For instance, we do not anticipate that we would set less stringent standards where evidence indicates a threat of significant or widespread environmental effects taking into consideration cost, energy